Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

All around Australia, people understand that there are challenges for housing affordability, that there are young people in particular trying to buy their first home and finding it harder and harder. All around Australia, there are parents and grandparents who are wondering how their children are going to get into the housing market and have the sort of security that they have had through their lives. All around Australia, people understand that, except in that chair—except for the Prime Minister of Australia and those who sit behind him. They do not seem to understand that at all. They seem to treat this matter with contempt. What we see is a government which completely does not understand housing affordability and does not have a plan to deal with it.

It started before the last election. I recall the debate between the former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, when he was shadow Treasurer, and me, when I was Treasurer, in the lead-up to the last election. It was a Q&A debate. The then shadow Treasurer was asked about housing affordability. He got into full bluster mode, full Hockey bluster—you remember what that was like. That was quite a sight to behold. He said:

I have some plans on that—

on housing affordability—

which we'll be talking about before … the election.

He meant the last election. What followed was tumbleweeds, not a word about housing affordability, and it has been tumbleweeds ever since—except that of course this government has form when it comes to housing affordability.

While I am on the topic of the former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, remember his great contribution to the housing affordability debate? Firstly, he denied that it existed, because he said:

If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it …

He declared it not a problem by Treasurer's edict. Housing affordability was not a problem because some people were buying houses. And then he went on to say that the answer to housing affordability was to 'get a good job', at which the dentists and the people who were all working hard across Australia, all of the nurses and teachers and everybody, said: 'Oh, that's good advice; I hadn't thought of that. Go and get a better job? I hadn't thought of that!' Then we had the wonderful contribution from the former Treasurer suggesting that young people access their superannuation to buy their first home, which would have had the obvious impact of driving up the price of housing at the same time as driving down the retirement incomes of Australians. So bad was that idea that it was dropped within an hour.

And of course it goes on. The government has cut funding from the National Rental Affordability Scheme, axed the help-for-seniors program, abolished the national affordable housing council, abolished the National Housing Supply Council and cut funding to Homelessness Australia. The Liberals just do not get it. They do not get that the government of Australia is looked to by Australia's young people in particular for assistance when it comes to housing affordability.

Then the new Prime Minister came in, and there was a sense of relief around the country. People said: 'I'm glad that there's a new Prime Minister. He might be able to have a sensible conversation about some of these big issues. He might be able to make a big difference on some of the challenges facing the nation, like housing affordability.' And yet what we see is the now Prime Minister refusing to do so, instead engaging in a scare campaign and doing so in a condescending fashion.

Just yesterday the Prime Minister was asked about housing affordability. A journalist asked the Prime Minister about negative gearing and housing affordability:

Do you have a message—

this is a very important point—

to young people who don't have parents who can act as a guarantor on a mortgage, who can't afford a deposit of say, $100,000, and probably face the prospect of renting for the rest of their lives? And only ever seeing housing going up … in the capital cities? Do you have a recommendation for what those young people can do?

There was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to send a message to those young people, to talk directly to those Australian citizens, about his plans for housing affordability, about how he understands the challenges and their problems. He said this:

Look, let me just say this to you. The Labor Party's policy on negative gearing and capital gains tax are calculated to lower the value of Australians' homes.

Not an idea, not a plan, not a bit of vision, not even a bit of empathy for Australia's young people, but a scare campaign. And it gets worse, because the journalist pulled him up and said:

But, young people can't afford homes?

And this was his answer:

Turning to capital gains tax, let's just consider this—

and he went on with the rest of the scare campaign.

He had two opportunities to send a message to Australians concerned about housing affordability. He sent a message all right. The message is: 'I don't care.' I am indebted to the member for Griffith, who said on national television that the Prime Minister could condescend for Australia. Well, there was an example of it: condescending to Australia's young people, saying to Australia's young people that he does not care about their opportunity to get a house; he does not care about their opportunity to get into the housing market.

We hear a lot about aspiration from those opposite. We hear about how they embrace aspiration. How about the aspirations of young people to own a home? How about the aspirations of young people to build their wealth through their house? One house would do it. That is what they want to start with: to get into the housing market. All they have is condescension and a lack of a plan.

We are told that the government have taken decisive action on housing affordability on the matter of foreign investment. What they have done is that they have told the owner of a $39 million mansion in Point Piper that he must vacate the premises. I was deluged by people in my electorate saying: 'Thank goodness, I can now afford a house! I can now get that $39 million mansion in Point Piper!' 'That's housing affordability for me,' said people in my electorate and the electorates of all my colleagues! They were so grateful to the Prime Minister for that decisive action on housing affordability!

But we on this side of the House recognise the challenge. We recognise the problem. Since the 1980s and 1990s, ownership rates have fallen, and the largest decline is amongst those aged between 25 and 44. Thirty years ago, you needed 3.2 times an average income to buy a house. Now it is 6.5 times. First home buyers are now just one in seven purchasers right across Australia and investors are 50 per cent. It is harder and harder for young people in particular to buy into the market. It is harder and harder for parents to put aside money to help their children. We understand that and we understand that when looking at housing affordability we do need to look at the taxation treatment. We understand that we have the most generous taxation treatment of property investment in the world. What we need to know is that that has an impact.

I had thought that the government were running an outrageous scare campaign deliberately. After their question time performance I am prepared to give them a little benefit of the doubt. Maybe they just do not understand it because we had the Treasurer of Australia stand at the dispatch box and call negative gearing 'claiming deductions against investment income'. That is what is allowed under Labor's policy for existing properties and that is not negative gearing. If the Treasurer of Australia does not understand the policy, no wonder he does not support sensible changes to the policy. I thought he was bad, but I did not think he was that bad. I did not think he actually misunderstood the complete basis of the policy.

We know that the answer to housing affordability is to boost supply, to get more supply into the market. We are not the first ones to think of this; many housing experts will tell you this. Other governments have dealt with it—state governments, Labor and Liberal. We all know about the first home owner grants that were introduced many years ago and have been implemented by governments of all persuasions. State after state, Labor and Liberal, have said: 'What we need is more supply. We will only allow first home owner grants for new housing.' Has the market collapsed? Has there been Armageddon? Has there been a major collapse in housing prices because state governments have said, 'We are going to focus our policy on supply, on getting more houses and apartments into the market'? No, there has not.

Here we have the alternative government making a sensible suggestion for better targeting negative gearing, putting negative gearing to work for all Australians, keeping negative gearing and saying, 'We want to see a dividend for every single Australian from negative gearing.' Ninety-three per cent of existing negative gearing goes into existing houses. That is a 93 per cent failure rate if your objective is new housing construction. If we had a 93 per cent failure rate, you would want to review that government program. We on this side of the House are up for that discussion. We on this side of the House are up for leading the debate. We on this side of the House are up for suggesting and proposing better and new policies.

Those on that side of the House, robbed of their plan to increase the GST, have nothing—not a jot of an idea, not a jot of a vision or a jot of a proposal; just old-style Liberal scare campaigns. The Australian people deserve better. The Australian people are looking at this Prime Minister and they are very disappointed because they hoped for better. They hoped for this Prime Minister for a bit of character, a bit of honesty, a bit of hope and a bit of ticker. Instead, he has given them nothing. This Prime Minister has reverted to the old-style Liberal scare campaign when robbed of his plans. It can now be truly said of this Prime Minister:

His promises were, as he then was, mighty; but his performance, as he is now, nothing.

See this speech in context