On April 16, 2025, a heated debate unfolded at the National Press Club of Australia between Clare O’Neil, the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, and Michael Sukkar, the shadow minister for housing and homelessness. The two politicians clashed over critical housing policies, with both sides accusing the other of failing to adequately address Australia’s housing crisis.
O’Neil and Sukkar exchanged sharp critiques regarding their respective housing strategies, with Sukkar accusing the Labor Party of merely “tinkering around the edges, fiddling while Rome burns.” In response, O’Neil contended that the Coalition “sat on their butts and did nothing for a decade.” The debate centered around the pressing issues of housing affordability and availability, particularly for first home buyers.
One of the Coalition’s key proposals is a new policy allowing tax deductions on mortgage interest payments for first home buyers on new-build homes for the first five years of their mortgage. Sukkar claimed this initiative could save a typical couple approximately $55,000 over that period. “This won’t be capped. We’re not going to cap it. We will be delighted if as many Australians as possible are able to avail themselves of the first home buyer mortgage deductibility scheme,” he stated. Sukkar emphasized that the policy is designed to encourage first home buyers to invest in new properties, which, he argued, is crucial for unlocking the construction of new homes.
However, O’Neil dismissed the Coalition’s proposal, labeling it a “dud” that would ultimately raise house prices by $92,000 without resulting in any new homes being built. She expressed concern that the superannuation policy, which allows young people to access a portion of their retirement savings to assist with home purchases, would lead to bidding wars that would deplete their retirement savings. “What we know about this policy is, not only will it jack up house prices instantly, but it’s also going to significantly disadvantage women when they’re at auction, bidding against a man,” O’Neil asserted, highlighting the existing disparity in superannuation balances between genders.
In defense of the Coalition’s policy, Sukkar clarified that the superannuation scheme is not meant to cover the entire deposit but to help first home buyers accelerate their savings. “Young first home buyers under our policy will get access to up to 50,000 or 40 percent of their super balance. It won’t represent the entire deposit. It will represent a portion,” he explained.
The debate also touched on the Labor government’s initiative to allow young Australians to access home loans with just a 5 percent deposit. When questioned about the potential inflationary impact of this policy, O’Neil maintained that it would not significantly affect house prices. Currently, she noted, there are 50,000 places available for this scheme, with plans to increase that number to 80,000 annually.
Despite their disagreements, both ministers acknowledged the necessity for federal and state governments to collaborate in addressing housing shortages. Sukkar also took aim at the current migration policy, advocating for a planned reduction in permanent migration to alleviate housing pressures. This includes a proposed two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing homes, as well as caps on international student numbers, aiming to reduce their influx by at least 30,000 each year.
Throughout the debate, both O’Neil and Sukkar agreed on one crucial point: sustainable house price growth is essential. They recognized that decreasing house prices could disadvantage existing homeowners, and that wage growth must outpace home prices to ensure affordability for future buyers. However, finding this balance remains a challenge for both parties.
The discussion further escalated when O’Neil criticized the Coalition’s housing policy as a “melange of weird things,” especially in light of new data revealing that Labor’s goal of constructing 1.2 million homes over five years is already lagging by 30,000 after just six months. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicated that only 90,136 dwellings were completed in the first six months of the government's term, including approximately 57,000 houses and 33,000 apartments.
In response to Sukkar’s claim that the government’s $10 billion Housing Australian Future Fund (HAFF) has not produced any newly built homes in the past three years, O’Neil argued that 55,000 social and affordable homes are set to be constructed over the next five years, with 28,000 already in development. “We’re building 55,000 social and affordable homes over the coming five years,” she stated, countering the Coalition’s assertions.
However, the HAFF's reported completions included the acquisition of existing properties, raising questions about the true impact of the fund on new housing supply. O’Neil claimed that the Coalition added only 373 social and affordable homes during its last three terms, a figure contested by Sukkar, who asserted that the Coalition delivered 13,000 homes through the affordable housing bond aggregator over nine years.
Despite the ongoing debate, experts have expressed skepticism about both parties’ ability to meet their ambitious housing targets. Cameron Kusher, an independent property expert, noted that while the target of 1.2 million homes is lofty, Australia has never achieved such a high output in the past three decades. “Whilst I never believed the target was going to be achievable, we’ve started off very slowly and are well behind the target already,” he stated.
As the housing crisis continues to loom large over Australia, both Labor and the Coalition face mounting pressure to deliver effective solutions that address the needs of all Australians, particularly those struggling to secure affordable housing.
