Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (16:09): I don't doubt for a second the intentions of Labor in addressing housing. There's not a single person I've spoken to under the age of 35 who doesn't raise this as an issue. It wasn't that long ago—there are several members of the Economics Committee here—that we heard from the heads of the banks that the most vulnerable people in this current economic environment are 25- to 29-year-olds. Their disposable income is absolutely gone on rent, their ability to save is almost zero, and the banks don't want to know them. Their opportunity to get onto the housing ladder is disappearing fast. We saw a report recently saying that if you're not on the property ladder by the age of 34, you're unlikely to get onto it after that age. So we've got a whole generation stuck at the moment. Addressing how they get into housing is a huge issue. When you jump on social media you see this great promise from the Greens about rent caps and how they're going to solve everything. They don't say how. We can dismiss it. We can laugh at it. It's not a credible solution. The member for Macnamara asked us to come here and work and provide credible evidence that we're willing to talk about this. I'm going to try and do that because I think it's important that we do hold the government to account. I want to talk about the Housing Australia Future Fund and be really clear: when we're addressing this, when we're criticising this, it's worth interrogating what that fund actually is. This is $10 billion that is borrowed, and there's a cost to that borrowing. It's then invested, and the difference between the returns on the investment and the costs will go into housing; it's not $10 billion. Last year we would have a been behind by $300 million in repayments before we got to the point of trying to get a return. This is not a strong, credible economic position to be starting from. I know the Treasurer has been at pains to try to establish the economic credibility for his new government, but that is exactly what this fund is. It is not a credible fund. Let's go further into some details— Government members interjecting— Mr HAMILTON: I do like interjections. That's what fills me up with a bit of joy at the end of a long MPI. We have a commitment from the government of $500 million a year to build 6,000 houses. Forgive me, but the engineer in me does love to hear these sorts of numbers every now and then. The member for Deakin was right; that's about $83,000 a home. Let's get a view as to what the great Australian dream looks like under this housing fund, at $83,000 a home. At $4,000 a square metre, which is the going rate at the moment, that's a house four by five metres wide—just a little bit bigger than a single bay shed. That is the great Australian dream being pushed forward by this Labor government under this commitment. It is laughable. It is laughable and not defensible. It has no economic credibility whatsoever. That is what you are selling to the Greens and to the people they're talking to—and you wonder why the Greens aren't with you on this one! Not even the Greens want to live in these tiny homes. Not even the Greens support this. What you have put on the table does not work—neither the mechanism nor the outcomes. They are laughable. That is why Australia is turning its back on this. That is why the Libs and the Nats are standing together. Under any scrutiny whatsoever, this falls apart like wet cake on a turntable. There is nothing to it that holds up. We've heard it described over and again as a Ponzi scheme, and the criticism sticks. This does not work. The idea that you're going to borrow money and that the great economic brains trust that we see before us is going to work out how to invest that money and get a greater return than what it's paying is laughable. If someone emailed that to you like a Nigerian prince saying, 'I've got a great way to invest,' you would delete it and hopefully report it. That's the level of scam this is. This is not a credible solution, and it deserves scrutiny. You opposite have all been arguing for it without thinking it through and without acknowledging that those are exactly the details you're putting in place. At best, if you are able to confirm $500 million a year, what you're providing for Australians is 30,000 homes that are four metres by five metres wide. What a fantastic solution you're putting on the table for those 25- to 29-year-olds. No wonder they are turning to the Greens! At least their idea is fanciful; yours is without any economic credibility. It deserves to be rejected outright, and I will continue to do so with every breath I have in this House, because that's our job—to hold you to account.