The Greens and Coalition have joined forces in a move that kicks Labor's $10 billion housing policy into the long grass.
It leaves the federal government's plans for a Housing Australia Future Fund at a major roadblock and stuck in the parliament for at least another month.
The government had sought to pass legislation establishing the fund this week, but is facing entrenched opposition from both the Coalition and Greens.
For the last two days, Labor has unsuccessfully tried to limit the debate and bring it to a final vote, despite the near certainty the bill would fail.
The Greens and Coalition teamed up to prevent the government from doing so, prompting fiery exchanges on the floor of the Senate.
"How cynical," said the government's leader in the senate, Penny Wong, aiming her comments at the Greens.
"At least have some courage. Either vote for it, or vote against it."
Greens Senator Nick McKim later argued the bill simply isn't ready to vote on.
"The Labor Housing Future Fund is a steaming pile of neo-liberal rubbish, that doesn't guarantee the building of a single house in this country," he said.
The Coalition and Greens together ensured the bill won't be considered again until mid-June, at the earliest.
The Coalition argues the fund will worsen inflation, while the Greens are calling for a range of changes, including significantly increased spending on housing and increased support for renters.
It's a blow for the government, given the Housing Fund is a key election promise now facing a very uncertain future.
Senator Wong directed her strongest criticism at the Greens housing spokesman, Max Chandler-Mather.
"He's had a taste of the media spotlight," she said.
"[Mr Chandler-Mather] is prioritising media attention, from stunts and obstruction, over housing for women and kids fleeing domestic violence.
"How shameful. This man's ego matters more than housing for women fleeing domestic violence, and older women at risk of homelessness."
In a press conference after the vote was blocked, Mr Chandler-Mather responded to senator Wong's criticism.
"When you run out of arguments to prosecute the detail of the housing bill, of course you're going to revert to personal insults. Let them do that," he said.
"We're focused on the millions of people across this country, who need a roof over their heads."
What's the housing fund again?
The Housing Australia Future Fund would invest $10 billion dollars, and use the returns on that investment to build social and affordable housing.
So the $10 billion itself won't be spent building housing — it'll be invested. It's the money made on top of the $10 billion that will be spent on housing.
The total amount that can be spent will be capped at $500 million a year, though in a minor concession to suggestions from the crossbench, that will now be indexed to the inflation rate from mid-2029.
The government says the fund would see 30,000 social and affordable homes built in its first five years.
Of those, 20,000 will be social housing, with 4,000 reserved for women and children seeking to escape family violence, and older women at risk of homelessness and 10,000 will be affordable homes for frontline workers, like police and nurses.
In another concession aimed at securing the support of the Jacqui Lambie Network, the fund will take "reasonable steps" to build at least 1,200 homes in every state and territory.
It's aimed at ensuring smaller states and territories, like Tasmania and the ACT, are not overlooked in favour of larger states.
What's the opposition?
The Greens have a whole range of problems with the bill.
The first, and probably foremost, is the structure of the housing fund.
They argue funding for housing should not rely on an investment fund making money or not.
Under the government's model, the housing fund would sit under the Future Fund, which is broadly up 10 per cent over the past decade, but lost money in the 2021-22 financial year.
The model isn't dissimilar to a handful of other government schemes — like the Disaster Ready Fund, and the Medical Research Future Fund.
But the Greens say given the dire shortage of housing in many areas, the government should be spending $5 billion a year of its own money building homes.
And it wants action for renters too, who they argue are ignored by the bill.
The Greens want a national rent freeze, something the Commonwealth doesn't have the power to do.
But the Greens argue the government could work with the states and territories, and incentivise them financially, to freeze rents — something that is within their power.
Ultimately, the Greens may settle for less — as is often the case with political negotiations.
Or they (and the Coalition, who remain steadfastly opposed) could hand the Albanese Government its first significant defeat on the floor of parliament.
