Australia election 2025 live: Sukkar touts Coalition housing policy after O’Neil dubs it ‘melange of weird things’; Greens candidate withdraws due to dual citizenship
Greens candidate withdraws due to dual citizenship
Henry Belot
The Greens candidate for Franklin, Owen Fitzgerald, has withdrawn from the federal election due his dual citizenship.
The 19-year-old was unaware he held New Zealand citizenship, according to the Tasmanian Greens, which has accepted responsibility for an administrative error in its vetting process.
Fitzgerald’s grandparents and father were born in Hamilton, New Zealand. According to disclosure forms, his grandparents are NZ citizens while his father is a dual Australian and NZ citizen. All three acquired NZ citizenship by birth.
Section 7 of the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977 states:
Every person born outside New Zealand on or after 1 January 1978 is a New Zealand citizen by descent if, at the time of the person’s birth his or her mother or father was a New Zealand citizen.
In 2017, the high court ruled former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce was ineligible to sit in federal parliament due to his father being born in New Zealand. At the time, New Zealand’s prime minister Bill English confirmed that “unwittingly or not”, Joyce was a citizen due to his father being born there.
Fitzgerald’s disclosure form states he is not a citizen of any country other than Australia.
The Greens made inquiries after being contacted by Guardian Australia yesterday, with his decision to withdraw confirmed at a press conference earlier today.
Key events
Henry Belot
The Australian Hazara Advocacy Network has called on the Liberal candidate for Bruce to apologise for the contents of a parliamentary submission he co-authored in 2021, which suggested the Hazara community in Afghanistan was not persecuted on the basis of its ethnicity.
A petition calling for Zahid Safi to be disendorsed by the Liberal Party – launched by the network on Monday – now has more than 8300 signatures. It is not known how many of these signatures are from the electorate of Bruce, which has a significant Afghan diaspora.
The submission co-signed by Safi said, in reference to conflict in Afghanistan, “that victims of war are not based on ethnicity”.
The allegations led members of the Hazara community, which has a significant presence in the electorate of Bruce, to lodge their own dissenting submissions to the inquiry, alleging the claims sought to erase the “well-documented persecution of an entire ethnic group”.
Safi stood by the submission when contacted by Guardian Australia and said “a full and fair reading of my submission makes clear that I advocated for every single living individual at risk from the national atrocity and humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan under the Taliban.”
Coalition’s plan to end fee-free Tafe would put whole system at risk, education union says
The Australian Education Union (AEU) has responded to the Coalition’s signals that it will end fee-free Tafe places.
On ABC TV this morning, the shadow finance minister, Jane Hume, said: “We don’t believe that fee-free Tafe is delivering on its promise … why would you continue it?”
The Coalition has instead proposed more apprenticeship places through funds for businesses.
The AEU federal president, Correna Haythorpe, said in a statement that cutting free Tafe puts hundreds of thousands of students, and the whole TAFE system, at risk.
Free TAFE changes lives. The Coalition’s plan would destroy that chance for so many …
Free TAFE has been transformative for students, teachers, and the TAFE sector. We’ve seen 600,000 students enrolling since its introduction, particularly in areas of extreme skill shortage, many of whom would not have been able to afford to access vocational education.
Benita Kolovos
Victoria misses its 2024 home building target
Away from the campaign trail for a moment:
The Victorian government has fallen 20,000 new homes short of a target it set to build 80,000 new homes each year.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics today released its quarterly data on dwelling commencements and completions for October to December, which showed 13,955 homes were built in Victoria, an 8.8% decrease from the previous quarter.
According to the Victorian branch of the Property Council of Australia, it is the lowest number of dwelling completions since early 2023 and marks a downward trend with two consecutive quarters of decline.
It also brings the total number of homes built in 2024 to just over 60,000 – still short of the Victorian government’s target of 80,000 home completions each year until 2034.
The council’s executive director, Cath Evans, says the property industry’s confidence in the Victorian government’s ability to plan and manage growth is “at an all-time low”. She urged the government to reduce taxes on the industry in its upcoming budget on 20 May.
Evans said:
Today’s data reveals that Victoria’s dwelling completions are now going backwards – a clear sign that reinforces the industry’s lack of confidence and feasibility to invest here. For as long as Victoria’s cumulative tax burden remains, developers will move to more feasible markets interstate, and our housing targets will continue to slip further away.
Emily Wind
Bandt proposes drinking game for tonight’s leaders’ debate
The Greens’ leader, Adam Bandt, has proposed a drinking game for tonight’s leaders’ debate, writing in a post on social media:
It’s not a leaders debate, it’s a group hug as they take us further into housing hell. Here’s a drinking game: have a shot every time they mention negative gearing reform, dental, stopping coal [and] gas or taxing big corporations. You’ll stay sober as a judge.
Greens candidate withdraws due to dual citizenship
Henry Belot
The Greens candidate for Franklin, Owen Fitzgerald, has withdrawn from the federal election due his dual citizenship.
The 19-year-old was unaware he held New Zealand citizenship, according to the Tasmanian Greens, which has accepted responsibility for an administrative error in its vetting process.
Fitzgerald’s grandparents and father were born in Hamilton, New Zealand. According to disclosure forms, his grandparents are NZ citizens while his father is a dual Australian and NZ citizen. All three acquired NZ citizenship by birth.
Section 7 of the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977 states:
Every person born outside New Zealand on or after 1 January 1978 is a New Zealand citizen by descent if, at the time of the person’s birth his or her mother or father was a New Zealand citizen.
In 2017, the high court ruled former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce was ineligible to sit in federal parliament due to his father being born in New Zealand. At the time, New Zealand’s prime minister Bill English confirmed that “unwittingly or not”, Joyce was a citizen due to his father being born there.
Fitzgerald’s disclosure form states he is not a citizen of any country other than Australia.
The Greens made inquiries after being contacted by Guardian Australia yesterday, with his decision to withdraw confirmed at a press conference earlier today.
Sukkar touts ‘firepower’ of Coalition policy for first home buyers
Emily Wind
Michael Sukkar said this was “a sliding door moment for our country,” arguing that Labor is offering “three more years of the same”.
He said Labor’s criticism of the Coalition is that “our ambitions for home ownership are too high”.
Our first home buyer mortgage deductibility scheme is going to finally give first home buyers the firepower they need to purchase a home. We’re going to, through our housing infrastructure program, deliver more homes for those first home buyers.
So if you think the status quo is OK, that’s really what Labor is offering. The Coalition believes that home ownership is something that every generation of Australians deserve, and that’s precisely what we’ll deliver, if we’re given the great honour of being elected
‘Melange of weird things’: O’Neil on Coalition housing policy
Emily Wind
Giving her closing remarks, Clare O’Neil argued that under a Peter Dutton government, there would be “more of the same” from the Coalition on housing.
This is a policy melange of weird things that were written on the back of a napkin that will do two things – they will build no new homes around the country from viable analysis that I have seen, and they will make homes more expensive through the ridiculous and dud super for housing policy. These things together are a recipe for making the housing crisis worse.
She said Labor is “genuinely serious about taking a running crack at the underlying problems that have led us where we are today”.
It will require some big things and for the government to do something different, but I hope you see in our first term we have made real progress here and we have a lot more work to do on this in a second term of an Albanese government.
Emily Wind
Will Labor and the Coalition release the modelling of their housing policies?
David Crowe from the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age asked about the housing claims put forward by each major party, saying:
The maths on the Labor side says that you’ll put forward $10bn [to] build 100,000 homes – that’s basically $100,000 per home. On the Coalition side, the claim is that you’ll put $5bn into infrastructure, that magically unlocks 500,000 homes, which is $10,000 per home.
I’ll leave it to voters to decide whether $100,000 per home or $10,000 per home is more convincing. But the key question is … will you put forward and tell us who told you the number of homes that you will build under each policy? And will you release the information – whether its treasury or PBO or somebody else – so we can verify that you’ll build the homes that you claim?
Michael Sukkar argued that “a rough figure of civil works of about $10,000 to unlock that is a pretty well accepted industry number.” On the question of modelling, he said it was “not modelling” but “costed projects.”
Clare O’Neil said the Coalition’s figures were “totally fanciful, absolutely ridiculous” and that there is “no way these numbers will stack up.” On Labor’s numbers, she said the figures came from Treasury officials:
We are not paying for the entire cost of building a new home. What we are doing is assisting state development agencies, and in some in instances private developers, making projects that do not stack up today, stack up.
O’Neil said she would release the Treasury modelling “as it ordinarily occurs.”
Ministers duel over build numbers for social and affordable housing
The two have clashed over social and affordable housing, with O’Neil accusing the Liberals of only having built 373 homes in nearly a decade of government.
O’Neil says theres a “chronic national shortage” of social and affordable homes, and says 28,000 of those homes are in construction or development now. (Though the Greens and housing advocates have said many, many more are needed).
Sukkar refutes that claim and says the Coalition started Housing Australia, one of the vehicles to build social and affordable homes, and that the Coalition delivered 13,000 homes (which O’Neil rejects).
He says the Coalition’s policy will be to put the responsibility for building social and affordable housing into the hands of community housing providers.
We will put community housing providers at the heart of social and affordable housing. Why? Because we know that for every dollar that you give to a CHP, it goes a little bit further than, particularly some of the state delivery agencies.
Sukkar says one reason for diminishing trust is because governments make commitments for things they will never be held accountable for
Back to those housing targets: Sukkar is asked why there’ll be no target under the Coalition when it can provide some accountability.
Well, call in the political spinners because Sukkar just gave us this very real statement:
We have to accept that one of the reasons that there is diminishing trust against politicians in this and something that I’m sure that Clare reflects on and I reflect on here, and no-one is perfect here.
But one of the reasons we’ve seen that happen is because we have so often, governments make commitments for things that they will never be held accountable for, ultimately.
Labor criticises Coalition’s super for housing policy as entrenching gender inequality and raising house prices
The next question goes to how much difference being able to access superannuation will make to getting together a deposit. Ellen Ransley says the average super balance for a 30- to 34-year-old woman is $44,000, and 40% of that (the maximum that could be taken out under the policy) is $17,600. How will that help?
Sukkar argues it would take years to get that extra $17,600 in savings:
The ability to actually use a portion of your super to supplement the savings you can make, we think makes a huge difference.
O’Neil argues that will entrench gender inequality. She says women have less super than men already, and this policy will exacerbate that:
Not only will it jack up house prices instantly by giving millions of people the ability to ransack their retirement savings but it’s also going to significantly disadvantage women when they’re at an auction bidding against a man. And that can’t be a good thing for gender equality.
O’Neil is also asked what will happen if someone who buys one of Labor’s 100,000 homes for first home buyers wants to sell. She says there aren’t any plans to “make restrictions on young people who purchase the property and resell them”.
Both parties back ‘sustainable growth’ in house prices to avoid a generation going into ‘negative equity’
The ABC’s Evelyn Manfield gets the next question, and asks O’Neil about her comments to Triple J last year. She said: “We’re not trying to bring down house prices. That may be the view of young people but not the view of our government.”
Peter Dutton and Michael Sukkar have both said in recent days that they also want to see “sustainable growth” in house prices.
O’Neil says for any young person who has taken on a large mortgage while interest rates have been low, they don’t want to go into negative equity. She says the answer is in building more homes.
We’ve also got a generation of pretty young people who have come into the market in the last ten years. Many of them have taken on incredibly large mortgages while interest rates were low. And we don’t want, nor is it good for the country, to see that generation go into negative equity. So we do need to have a balanced approach here.
Neither she nor Sukkar will put a number on what sustainable growth is.
Sukkar backs O’Neil’s point in, saying she’s received “unfair criticism”.
It would be quite devastating for a young first home-buyer who has owned a home for one or two or three years to suddenly go into negative equity, which is the consequence of what some of the suggestions have been.
Both parties vow to train local workforce to address construction labour shortage
The debate turns to the workforce and the shortage of tradies, which you can read more about here:
O’Neil says Labor’s main priority will “always” be to train Australians “first” for construction jobs, and says Labor’s free Tafe places have added around 40,000 construction professionals into the workforce.
Connell asks if Labor will make it easier to get construction workers in from overseas. She replies:
The challenge is not necessarily the ease of bringing construction workers in. We have a demand-driven migration system. About 10,000 construction workers came in through that system last year.
In response, Sukkar says he agrees on training a local workforce, and will put in place an apprentice wage subsidy, which he claims the construction union (the CFMEU) hasn’t allowed Labor to do. He also says the Coalition will make it easier for construction workers to come in from overseas (which they’ve said before):
[We will] drastically reduce migration, and reorient that smaller program into the sorts of trades we need.
Sukkar in housing: ‘What’s a target worth if you’re not going to get anywhere near it?’
Staying on that target: Connell asks Sukkar whether the Coalition would set their own target and will they keep in place the housing planning reform the states signed up to with the government?
Sukkar won’t set a target for the Coalition, and claims the current government is building 30,000 less homes right now than under the previous government. He also repeats the line that on the government’s trajectory, they’ll fall 400,000 homes short of target.
I’m saying we’ll get to as many as we possibly can, but I’m certain it will be higher than Labor … What’s a target worth if you’re not going to get anywhere near it?
He does appear to support the housing planning reforms signed on with the states, saying, “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with housing ministers at a federal level trying to encourage states to undertake planning and zoning reform.”
O’Neil responds to the criticisms, accusing Sukkar of an “unwillingness to take any responsibility”.
The claim that the Liberals are going to build more houses is ridiculous. They don’t have any policies that are seriously going to do that… This weird cocktail of things that the Liberals have dreamed up are going to lead to more expensive homes and fewer homes being built around the country.
O’Neil says Coalition’s answer to housing is the ‘lower the national ambition’
Sukkar, in his statement, pointed out that the government is not on track to be able to deliver 1.2m homes over five years, and could fall short by up to 400,000 homes – according to industry experts.
O’Neil hit back on that in her statement, saying:
Michael’s talked a little bit about our national housing target, suggesting that they’re too high. What he’s really saying here is that the answer to this problem is lower the national ambition – and low ambition is what got us here.
The first question goes to O’Neil on that point, and host Tom Connell asks if O’Neil is willing to say the government isn’t on track. She says the government needs to do more, but the work is being done, and the commonwealth is working with states and territories to do that.
We need a bold and ambitious target because boldness and ambition is exactly what is required here. Instead of washing our hands of the problem.
She highlights tradie shortages and planning reforms as a block and says they’re working on those.
Labor say blame for housing situation lies with former Liberal governments
Clare O’Neil now makes her opening statement, and calls the housing crisis the “biggest social and economic challenge facing our country right now”.
The Coalition has been piling blame on Labor for the state of housing across Australia, and blamed them for allowing more migrants into the country. But O’Neil says the issue has been “building now for 40 years”, and puts the blame back on to the Coalition for not having done enough for the nine years they were previously in government.
We came to office three years ago after a decade of abject neglect of housing … Many of you would remember that Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison actually deliberately made a decision to take the commonwealth out of the discussion. And that’s why, for most of the almost decade that the coalition were in power, there wasn’t even a commonwealth housing minister.
O’Neil then also moves to the “sell” portion of her speech, plugging Labor’s promise to build 1.2m homes, and their recent pledge to open up their 5% deposit scheme.
Housing debate begins at National Press Club
With housing now one of the biggest issues of the campaign, housing and shadow housing ministers Clare O’Neil and Michael Sukkar are going head to head on their respective policies in a debate at the national press club.
Sukkar starts with his opening address (after winning a coin toss). He says Australians have “witnessed one of the most catastrophic policy failures in a generation,” accusing Labour of building less and approving less homes.
He also accuses the government of running the “biggest migration program in a generation”.
There have been multiple fact checks on the impact that migration and international students have had on the housing crisis.
He then moves to sell his party’s policy:
Under the coalition, first-home buyers of new homes will be able to claim a tax deduction on mortgage interest for the first five years after purchasing their home. This is a monumental tilting of the scales in favour of first-home buyers.
Report casts doubt over if Labor can achieve housing goals
Patrick Commins
New figures suggest achieving the Albanese government’s target of 1.2m new well-located homes over five years to mid-2029 is looking less and less likely.
To reach that goal, we would need to complete 240,000 homes a year, or 120,000 every six months.
Instead, over the first six months of Labor’s Housing Accord target, the ABS report shows just over 90,000 homes were built – or roughly 30,000 fewer than needed.
The building pipeline is not promising, either. In the six months to December, we started building about 86,000 homes – again well short of where we need to be.
The ABS data comes as Labor and the Coalition clash over competing visions on how to address the issue of chronically unaffordable housing.
Cameron Kusher, an independent property expert, said: “Whilst I never believed the target was going to be achievable, we’ve started off very slowly and are well behind the target already.”
With interest rates falling in 2025 we should see construction lift, but it remains difficult to see how the Housing Accord target is going to be met.
