Raf Epstein:
Michael Sukkar is the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer. Thanks for joining us.
Minister Sukkar:
G’day, Raf. Good to be with you.
Epstein:
These are precarious times, we’re in a recession, according to the Treasurer. Do you think that a lot of people earning less than $125,000 are going to want to borrow $150,000 just to get some money from the Government?
Sukkar:
There are two aspects to this scheme. There’s the $25,000 grant for a new home purchase so that could be an off-the-plan apartment or a house and land package and there’s also the renovation component. Our view has been that this is a jobs program – it’s going to support half a million jobs in the residential construction industry and whether that job is a job on an apartment project or a new house and land package or whether it is indeed, for a substantial renovation to an existing house, that that job in the residential constriction industry is just as important as each other. So, we’ve put that in place, we think that there’s going to be about 30,000 people that take this up between new home purchases and substantial renovations. The $25,000, Raf, is a bit like a first homeowner grant which all the states and territories offer, is that incentive, that catalyst, to get you over the line, and to make that decision, to make that commitment. And for some people, it will be the catalyst that gets them over the line to make that call, to buy a house, to build that house, to renovate their house and that means supporting those half a million jobs which the HIA, the MBA and the Property Council have said are at risk of being lost in the second half of this year because there’s been such a drop-off in demand for new housing since COVID-19 hit.
Epstein:
Can I ask you a question? I’ve never had to sleep rough but apparently about 100,000 people sleep rough. Can you explain to them why there’s new money for people who can already afford to buy a house, but there’s no new money for people who don’t have anywhere to live?
Sukkar:
Well there’s two aspects to that, Raf. Firstly, under a scheme like HomeBuilder – which is a $25,000 grant – it leverages a significant amount of private investment. So, as you rightly pointed out, for a renovation, for every dollar that we put in, private individuals are required to put in more. So, for example for a new home, the house price caps are up to $750,000 so somebody going off and buying a house and land package, say in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, for $600,000, you get an exceptional growth in the amount of economic activity. So, for example, the HomeBuilder program, we expect to cost the Government about $700 million…interrupted.
Epstein:
I understand that if you spend a dollar, the homeowner or the home buyer spends five, six, seven, eight dollars for every dollar you spend. I think people understand that principle and I think that most people except the principle.
Sukkar:
So, we’ll be supporting far more jobs. If you can leverage private investment it supports the half a million jobs so really the purpose of this scheme is to support those half a million people who – as I’ve said…interrupted.
Epstein:
Why can’t you support jobs by, say…I mean you could spend $25,000 on public housing units. You could refurbish a whole lot of public housing units. That’s the same jobs. Why not do that?
Sukkar:
Well the answer is that we already do that. We spend about $6 billion a year in this space. We’ve also setup the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation which supports social and affordable housing through community housing providers. There’s a $1 billion infrastructure facility that is there and available today and doing great work…interrupted.
Epstein:
I’m not criticising your existing programs but if I can take you back to the original question, Michael Sukkar, because I think that everyone is grateful for all the money that public and social housing already has. The problem is this. A lot of the experts think that we need half a million units of public housing and social housing. You’ve announced new money in the middle of a recession for people who can already afford to buy a house. If I could ask that question again. Why is there no new money for people who don’t have anywhere to live?
Sukkar:
Because, sorry, Raf, you’ve characterised it incorrectly. For example, there are first home owner grants in place because that is the difference between somebody being able to purchase the house or not and so what it does is that it leverages a significant amount of private investment which means that for every dollar from government, you’re supporting far more jobs in the industry. This is a program, again, to support the half a million jobs which the industry has rightly pointed out, are at the risk of being lost in the second half of the year. Having said all of that, we make significant investment into social and affordable housing and in fact, I don’t think that it’s boastful to say that the Morrison Government has lent more into the social and affordable housing space – particularly through community housing providers – than any Federal Government before it. It wasn’t long ago, Raf, that this was essentially just the province of state and territory governments. We have…interrupted.
Epstein:
I understand that but you’ve still got a massive problem and if there’s no new money for the existing problem but there is new money available for those that already own a home?
Sukkar:
There’s money available – there’s $1 billion in an infrastructure facility that is being accessed today. There’s a bond aggregator which will undertake it’s third round of bond issuance, forecasted to be about a quarter of a billion dollars which…interrupted.
Epstein:
Which allows people to purchase a home with a lower deposit?
Sukkar:
No, no, it allows community housing providers to access cheaper money to therefore build more community housing and social and affordable housing units. It’s delivering hundreds of new social and affordable housing each year. No federal government has ever done that before, we haven’t spruiked it that widely but it’s something that we do each and every year.
This program – the HomeBuilder program, Raf – makes sure that we leverage ten to fifteen million dollars of private investment and that’s why this is able to support half a million jobs which could be at risk of being lost. Sorry to speak over you.
Epstein:
No, no, I just know that your time is short, so I just wanted to cover two other quick issues.
The first time that the Government has come up with an industry-specific stimulus, it’s for construction. Construction is dominated by men. Women are being hit harder during these economic times. Women are being hit harder than men, the first package that you’ve come up with benefits an industry that is dominated by men, mining is the only industry that’s got more of a male dominance in terms of gender balance. Is that a problem?
Sukkar:
Well, Raf, I want to support jobs and I want to support the half a million jobs in the construction industry whether they’re men or women. Yes, it is dominated by men and in many cases, those people will be supporting families, whether they’re men or women, in many cases.
Epstein:
So, you’re very aware of how many people are in a sector dominated by women who have been screaming at you, trying to get you to fling them some help through something like JobKeeper. Does it say anything about the Government’s values that you’re going to construction first and not the sectors that are dominated by women that have been hit harder?
Sukkar:
Well I’m surprised you’ve asked the question. No, Raf, it’s trying to deal with an immediate problem that we’re going to deal with. So, the pipeline for the construction industry is looking like that it’s going to fall off a cliff in late July and August. So, what we’re trying to do is address an immediate problem. I think that the worst things that could happen is to see hundreds of thousands of people losing jobs because the last project that they’re on just finishes and there’s no more slabs to be poured, there’s no more frames to be put up. I think that would be far more devastating, so we are, in a sequential sense, Raf, dealing with problems as they are arising. Again, this unlocks ten to fifteen billion dollars of economic activity which supports half a million jobs. That’s the lens that I’m looking at it through and…interrupted.
Epstein:
I’m glad that you’re surprised by my question and I’m sure it won’t be the last with the stimulus. I just want to ask you another question, I know you need to go. I just want to play you a little snippet – this has to do with protest especially planned in Melbourne this weekend in solidarity with the protests in America. I’m going to ask you to peer inside the Prime Minister’s mind, if that’s okay, Michael Sukkar. The Prime Minister was talking on Sydney radio and he says that he doesn’t want to import some version of those protests in America. Here’s what he said:
Prime Minister: “We shouldn’t be importing the things that are happening overseas, to Australia. I’m not saying that we don’t have issues in this space that we need to deal with, but the thing is that we are dealing with it.”
Michael Sukkar, what do you think he meant when he said that we don’t want to import elements of what’s going on in America? What do you think that he meant?
Sukkar:
Look, I don’t know, I mean, I have my own view. I think that we are a relatively harmonious society. I come from an ethnic background, I think that we’re fortunate to live in a very harmonious society and I don’t think that we want to import the grievances from around the world. Of course, we’re not perfect, nothing’s perfect but…interrupted.
Epstein:
What about that phrase “black lives matter”? Is that helpful or not in your mind?
Sukkar:
Well it’s just, again, I wouldn’t want to import grievances from other jurisdictions. We’re very lucky, we’ve got a harmonious society. We’re not perfect, we have our issues, we have our disagreements, but I think that, by-and-large…interrupted.
Epstein:
Can I interrupt, Michael Sukkar? I’m not actually clear what you are trying to say. I’m not criticising you, but you acknowledge that we’ve got problems, I know that you know how many people have died in custody, I know that you know that indigenous people are far more likely to be in jail. But what do you mean when you say ‘imported grievances’?
Sukkar:
It’s very clear. What I don’t think that we need to do is import the grievances that are occurring in other parts of the world. Now, clearly, it seems to me that there are riots that probably started as protests but grew into riots and looting pretty quickly, that started from police brutality. Now, I don’t think that we’ve got a widespread police brutality issue in Australia. Now, that’s my view so I don’t think that we should be importing that problem, I don’t think that we should be importing problems from all parts of the world, to Australia. We’ve got our own issues, but I don’t think that we should be importing grievances from elsewhere. That’s my view. I think that we’ve got a harmonious society, it’s not perfect but I think that we’re fortunate to be in about the best country in the world from a harmony perspective, a multicultural society. I’m a beneficiary of that, given my background and I think that we should celebrate that wherever possible rather than…interrupted.
Epstein:
We’ve still got a problem with black deaths in custody?
Sukkar:
Raf, again, it’s outside of my area of portfolio – I’m here to talk about housing and treasury. I haven’t looked at the issue closely enough to give you a really informed view. I mean, the statistics obviously show a great disparity, there’s no doubt about it, but I haven’t examined the issue closer to give you a really specific answer.
Epstein:
I haven’t heard a Minister say that they won’t talk across portfolios for a while. Thank you for your time.
Sukkar:
Good on you, Raf. Thanks.