Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

After a year in this place and after my first budget, it's time to reflect on the philosophy of this government, which, after four years, has become clear. The Prime Minister sums it up when he says his core philosophy is no-one left behind and no-one held back. He really summed up his approach the other day, acknowledging that this is a tough decision. He knows that this is well and truly contested in the community. But he said that if you see something wrong—he said it a bit more eloquently than I'm quoting him—do you just throw your hands in the air and say, 'I can't do anything about it? I'm only the Prime Minister'?

Fundamentally, what has become clear to me—and this is something which I have been keenly urging the government on, and the Labor Party, frankly, for many years—is that this is a government which is challenging the status quo. There was an interjection today—forgive me for not remembering the member's electorate. The Prime Minister said, 'It's hard to buy a house,' and the coalition member yelled out, 'And it's getting harder!' The Prime Minister seized on that and said, yes, it is getting harder. This is a government which doesn't shy away from the fact that the status quo is not delivering for the Australian people and the Australian community. He doesn't shy away from the fact that people are doing it tough and that in many ways people feel like it's getting even harder, and not just in housing. There are two ways to tackle that. You can throw your hands up in the air and say, 'I'm only the Prime Minister. I'm not going to do anything about,' or you can tackle it head on—be courageous, have the courage of your convictions and make the changes which you believe are going to have an impact.

So let's have a look at what that status quo is. The reason why I'm so energised by what the government is doing in this budget is that we have now had decades of an agenda of privatisation, economic rationalism and unfettered free trade, which has seen the working class communities that I represent decimated in many ways. Whole industries have been decimated. The textile and clothing industry is gone, after decades of unfettered free trade. The manufacturing industry is on the ropes. Having taken an approach—and just remember that the coalition were in government for 20 of the last 30 years—where you leave housing to the private sector and don't invest in public housing, having taken an approach where you leave energy creation to the private sector and don't invested in public energy, it is unsurprising that you end up, 30 years later, with a housing crisis and an energy crisis.

I like the way the members opposite are having a little bit of a smirk at me. Is Labor really the enemy at the moment? I think that's what the opposition members need to ask themselves. As they pander to the supporters of One Nation, are they really getting any benefit by attacking us? It's not us coming for you in your seats at the moment. It's not us that are focused on ourselves, like the three parties of the right are. I don't know that they really should be smirking at the moment, but they are. I guess that's the sort of attitude that's landed them in the position they're in. It's sad, in a way, to be here in the parliament to watch the demise of the once great Liberal Party, but there it is. Ultimately, it is this status quo that they have implemented over the years, with their ideology of privatisation, economic rationalism and unfettered free trade.

This government is tackling the areas of housing, health, mental health, child care, skills, industry, energy, aged care, NDIS and tax. Over four years, this government's agenda has become clear. It is an agenda of sticking up for working class people again, ensuring the services that we all pay for. We dig the stuff out of the ground. We farm the fields. We work in the factories. We work in the aged-care centres. We work as teachers. Working class people build this nation and working class people should have a share in the wealth that's created by this nation. When John Howard became Prime Minister, Australia was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, yet, 30 years later, we have become one of the most unequal countries in the world. That's why they shouldn't be smirking, because the backlash is going to be severe in their electorates.

I think the government acknowledges that tax is the most contested area in this budget, despite the fact that we're about to see the opposition yet again vote against another tax cut. The changes around CGT and negative gearing have created a lot of conversation in the community. I've only sat here through the member for Mayo's speech, but I'm sure there's been the same half-truths and misinformation supported and trotted out as in question time.

I had a conversation with somebody called Mark last night. He said to me, 'I can't support this budget because I've had a strategy to retire'—he's probably a little bit younger than me, in his 40s—'and that's all gone out the window now.' I said: 'I like to listen; I don't really like to argue and persuade, but can I just try this one out on you? You know the capital gains tax exemption discounts are still going to be there. They're going to be indexed.' He went: 'No. What does that mean?' I said it means that you're going to be able to deduct inflation off the actual capital growth. I explained it to him because he didn't know it was going to be there—because it is in the interest of those on the other side to maintain these mistruths.

As the Treasurer said, when you actually look at the impact that this change to indexation will have on shares, if you extrapolate that over the last 20 years, there will be either no change or, in some cases, people will be better off. They would have been better off had there been a system of indexation over the previous 20 years. When I sit down and crunch the numbers with the people that are sending me emails, as I do, there are many scenarios where people who have bought a house or an apartment are going to be better off under indexation.

Ultimately, when you do crunch those numbers, what you're trying to see is government moderating capital growth in housing. To put it in investment terms, this is about trying to get that wild capital growth that we saw of sometimes eight, nine or 10 per cent a year. That's when house prices doubled almost every seven years over the last couple of decades. What we're trying to do is moderate that capital growth and actually bring it back more in line with inflation. Isn't that the whole point? Shouldn't wages and house prices be coupled together? Isn't there something broken in the system when those two things break apart?

Let's take the example of five per cent capital growth and three per cent inflation—we wish! Take that example and apply that to marginal rates of tax. In that example, it's pretty easy to see that some people will actually be substantially better off. But I'm sure those opposite aren't spending any time talking through the facts with the people that email them.

Again, I don't want to single out the member for Mayo, because I know that this is the line that's being trotted out by the opposition—and it is a line. In some of the emails I've got, there has been this concern that they have been using shares to save up their deposit because they, frankly, are not able to get themselves into a leveraged property. The only way to take $10,000 and make it grow is to invest in shares, with a dream, perhaps, of one day buying a house. I totally get that. But there is an extraordinary irony in the statement that you can't get your foot on the first rung of the housing ladder and so therefore you need to invest in shares. Shouldn't the solution be about bringing that ladder back down so that people can get their foot on the first rung? Really, it is an injustice, and it is an injustice to working class people, particularly. In 2000, when these capital gains tax arrangements were introduced, for somebody on a median income the price of a house was something like four to five times their median income; now, the multiple is eight to 10 times. How is it that house prices have become so completely decoupled from wages? It is people in the electorates that we, especially, in the Labor Party, represent—working-class electorates—that are doing it the toughest.

When there was investment in public housing, and when there was a tax system that was designed not to reward housing investment as an investment, you saw, at the high point, that homeownership was had by something like 72 or 73 per cent of the population. That has now fallen to about 66 per cent. And, when you look at that 25 to 45 age group, homeownership has completely fallen off a cliff.

So, yes, this is contested. Yes, this is a tough decision. But do you just throw your hands up and say, 'We're only the government'? Do you just throw your hands up, or just sit there and nod, when you're talking to a 65-year-old woman whose lease is about to run out in three months' time and who is not going to be able to afford to find somewhere for her and her 13-year-old dog to live? Do you just throw your hands up when you come across a 55-year-old woman with a severe disability whose home is going to be sold by the owner, and she's not going to be able to find somewhere to rent, because how do you rent on a disability support pension? Do you just throw your hands up when you talk to working-class trades men and women who are living in two-income households, earning good money, who can't afford to buy a house? Do you just throw your hands up and say: 'We can't do anything about it, I'm sorry; you're just going to have to put up with it as it is'?

I tell you what: out there in the electorate—this is something everybody in this room has in common—they are not going to put up with the status quo. The electorate has had enough—that is a message to all of us. But it is only the Labor Party that has taken that message on. It is only the Labor Party that recognises the problem that exists and is determined to do something about it, whether that be in housing, whether that be in health care, whether that be in mental health, whether that be in child care, whether that be in skills, or whether it be in industry policy.

For the first time in so many years, we've got an industry policy. Do you know what free trade meant for working-class people in the communities we represented? I'm reminded of an example—of, I think, the Mitsubishi plant in Lonsdale, in South Australia. When that car plant closed down, they actually did a study of the workers and tracked them over the next few years. Thirty per cent of those workers went and got a good job; 30 per cent of those workers went and found precarious employment—casual employment, on reduced hours; and 30 per cent of those employees never worked again.

So this government's not going to accept the status quo. We're going to do something about it.

Unbelievably, we are already seeing results. We are seeing first home buyers, over just two weekends in, who are able to compete against investors, as they aren't using the money that they were getting from taxpayers to prop up their bids. Already we're seeing results. It might have taken us 40 years to get into this mess, but we don't have 40 years to fix it. And so I commend the bill to this House, as part of the government's strategy to fix things up for— (Time expired)

See this speech in context