Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. The member for Lingiari is often hard to get over the line on this one, but I think party solidarity will get us there! As I was saying, the bill deals with a number of minor Treasury law amendments, most of them pretty straightforward. I'll go through and speak to each of the five schedules.

Schedule 1 increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy, changing the thresholds in line with changes to the consumer price index. This is obviously necessary to ensure that that income threshold keeps pace with cost-of-living increases, with a modest increase this year of some $400 that is nonetheless meaningful over the longer term. The changes cut across single households, pensioners, families and students and will keep the Medicare levy payment thresholds in line with inflation. We'll be supporting that.

Schedule 2 expands the objective of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018, otherwise known and hereafter referred to as NHFIC, to allow NHFIC to assist eligible single parents with dependants. The stated purpose of this measure is to allow the government to implement its policies in relation to support for single parents entering the housing market. It's a modest proposal, and we're going to support it. But we don't for one moment pretend this is going to be a solution for the housing problem affecting Australia at large. On our assessment, this will benefit single mums—I think about 10,000 of them; there are about 100,000 mothers who fit the category—who are currently earning a salary somewhere between $80,000 and $120,000 a year, not rich by any stretch of the imagination if they've got a family that they're supporting. But I think all fair-mined people would have to acknowledge that it is a relatively small proportion of single mums who are seeking a housing solution who will be benefited by this. It's not a reason to oppose it, but it is a reason to say that we actually need to do a lot more than this.

Look at the problem that we have with homelessness and the problem that we have with housing affordability. Anybody who has been going to housing auctions in the last few months will have seen, week after week, young couples turning up only to have their hearts broken, as the house that they had their hearts set on purchasing will have sold for prices 10, 20, 30, 40 and sometimes even as much as 50 per cent above the indicative price. I was talking to a staff member—not of my office, but of this place—in recent weeks. They said a house they went to bid on went for over $100,000 above the advertised price, and this is not an isolated incident. Our great concern is that most of the policies that are emanating from this place, and from other parliaments as well, are actually making the problem worse, not better. They're putting more fuel on the fire and not doing anything with the supply side of things and not doing anything to level the playing field.

It's why we were vehement in our opposition to a proposition that was being peddled by some members opposite to raid superannuation to make payments to purchase a house. The problem with a policy like that is that it hurts somebody twice. It robs them of retirement savings, but it also means that that one-off and sustained effect will push housing prices up immeasurably. We don't need a crystal ball to work that out. We only need to talk to real estate agents around the country and ask them, 'What is the net impact of schemes like the HomeBuilder scheme on auction and housing prices around the country?' They'll all say: 'Well, it's great for us. Our commissions are bigger because the housing market is booming and the housing prices are going up. We love it. We're big advocates for it. We're the No. 1 fans, because it means as house prices go up our commissions go up.' And house prices are certainly going up: six per cent last month alone and a forecast for 10 per cent this year and another 10 per cent next year. That's a 20 per cent increase in a little under 18 months. As house prices go up, commissions go up—bully for them. I make no criticism of real estate agents, that's their business, but it does nothing to assist with housing affordability. In fact, it makes the problem worse.

It's why the member for Grayndler, the leader of the Labor Party, made the centrepiece of his budget-in-reply address housing and our housing affordability measure. It's not the whole answer, it's a part of it, and there will be more to come. But it is important to acknowledge that there is a group within our country for whom—due to whatever circumstances—private home ownership is either not currently within their grasp and not likely to be currently within their grasp or private home ownership is never likely to be within their grasp—because of income or other reasons. We can't throw these people on the scrap heap; we can't leave these people behind. We have to ensure that there is a housing solution for them, which is why I was so proud that the first instalment of our measure is 30,000 new homes.

And the great thing about that policy announcement is that it's a jobs policy as well. The 1-in-10 rule tells us that one in every 10 workers on a site—which would be funded and working to deliver these 30,000 new homes under Labor's policy—would be an apprentice. And what a damn good thing that is, because we've got a shortage of apprentices. We've actually got less apprentices working and less apprentices in training today than we had in 2013. The population has gone up and workforce has gone up, but apprenticeship numbers have plummeted. That is an indictment on this government playing catch-up. If you're struggling to get a sparky, a plumber or a chippie out to your house, or the prices you are paying seem extraordinary, it's because we've stopped training for a decade. And the lazy solution, which is to just bring people in from overseas—is lazy, indeed—is also robbing our kids of the opportunity to get a trade and get a start in life and perhaps some day start their own business. Which is why this policy, the Labor policy, is superior to what the government is proposing.

We don't oppose this, by the way. If we can help 10,000 single mums into a house—good! It's an important job to do, but it's not job done, which is why our policy goes much further than that, at not a cent to the taxpayer, by the way, which is a point that needs to be made. It's an investment and not a cent to the taxpayer because of the clever way that Labor's policies have been put together.

Schedule 3 of the bill is going to exempt eligible payments made by Australian governments to thalidomide survivors from income tax and social security and veterans entitlements income tax. It was an oversight when the payments were made and a good thing it is being fixed. The use of thalidomide in the 1950s and 1960s was a tragedy, an absolute tragedy. There are still people among us living with the disabilities and deformities that were a result of that failure in public health. So we welcome this provision, which will remove the eligible payments that they receive for the course of their thalidomide injuries from taxation and income tests for payments emanating from this parliament.

Schedule 4 is an interesting one. It is in a similar vein. Schedule 4 provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by the February and March 2021 floods and storms. It's a small measure of assistance for those businesses, and Labor welcomes it, but it does give us the opportunity to make the point, and again remind the government, that they've been damned good at making announcements about these funds but damned lousy at getting the money out the door. There are still households, businesses and enterprises which have been promised lots in relief for bushfires and floods but to whom the money hasn't flowed. They see that the Prime Minister, who wouldn't hold a hose during the crisis, won't hold a pen to sign the cheque that he promised that they were going to get, and that, frankly, is not good enough. So we welcome this provision but remind the Prime Minister that making an announcement is not delivering an outcome. If press releases were going to deliver outcomes to flood- and fire-affected communities, they'd be cock-a-hoop by now, but they're not, because the press release hasn't been followed up by the money that was promised, and that's not good enough. It is too little, too late and not good enough.

I will deal with schedule 5, which includes several new additions to the list of deductible gift recipients under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. It is welcome to see the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and the Judith Nielson Institute for Journalism and Ideas on the list, because on this side of the House we see the importance of independent journalism and quality journalism free from government interference—an important point. The media serves as a guardian of our democracy. It keeps us all honest in this place. Too often we see the government using, for example, the power of the purse string in relation to the ABC and SBS as a means by which to silence critics within those media organisations or the power of the pulpit to attempt to jawbone and silence critics from other media outlets. To their credit, the majority of journalists don't cower to this sort of pressure, but it doesn't stop those on the other side day after day—they've got glass jaws, and that's the problem. They're always the first on the front foot to go out to level a criticism, but they're the first to grab the box of tissues when somebody levels a criticism at them, and there is no bigger glass jaw in this place than that worn by the Prime Minister. So we welcome the fact that DGR status has been granted to both the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and the Judith Nielson Institute for Journalism and Ideas. Good, tick. But, if you really want to do something to support independent journalism in this country, get out of the game of revenge politics, punishing the ABC for quality and independent journalism, and stop using the pulpit and the forums available to you to badger, harass and discredit those who write articles about us which from time to time we might find uncomfortable. That's the best thing you could do for quality journalism in this country.

I also note that the Andy Thomas Space Foundation has been granted DGR status. For those in this place who don't know, Andy Thomas is an Australian hero. He was our first Australian astronaut, selected by NASA in 1992 to become a member of the Astronaut Corps. During his four space flights, he spent over 177 days in space. If you think being in lockdown during COVID was a restriction on your movement, just picture 177 days in a small capsule, floating outside the orbit of Earth. But what a contribution he made, undertaking vital scientific experiments, visiting the Russian Space Station, Mir, before it was deorbited, back in 1999. A foundation set up in his honour is a good thing, and listing it, as a recognition of the importance of the space industry and space science to Australia's future, is a great thing. It enjoys our support. Hear, hear!

The Great Synagogue Foundation is another new entry on the DGR list. They preserve the historic Great Synagogue in Sydney. It's a cornerstone of Australian Jewish history and the community in Sydney and more broadly in New South Wales. It should be supported. Another important Jewish institution, the Sydney Chevra Kadisha, has been listed. This is the organisation which provides assistance, financial and otherwise, for funeral arrangements for Sydney's Jewish community. I also want to welcome the listing of the RAS Foundation, which is a charity supporting regional and agricultural communities, as well as Youthsafe, a charity providing training and support for young persons' safety.

These are all worthy of DGR listing. Of course, there's a long list of other organisations that seem to always miss the government's list, and we'd call on the government, the next time it has the opportunity to bring one of these Treasury laws amendments bills before the House, to be a bit more balanced in the organisations that it brings forward. We support each and every one of these, but we'd like to see more worthy organisations added to the list. With those comments made, and a pre-emptive congratulatory message to the member for Indi for her excellent second reading amendment, which I've had the benefit of perusing, I commend both the legislation and the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context