Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year, the government promised a tax green paper, a white paper, then the 2016 budget. Then it became a tax statement, then the budget. Yesterday it was, 'Let's skip the statement and go straight to the budget on 10 May.' Today it was reported that the budget will be delivered on 3 May, and Senator Fifield has said the tax statement is back on. Prime Minister, will there be a tax statement, when is the budget and will the government start issuing use-by dates on every answer it gives on these matters?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition was suffering from short-term memory loss because he had given a speech at the National Press Club about various economic matters and he asked not one question about it, so I assumed it had slipped his mind between the Press Club and the House of Representatives chamber. So I imagined that today he would return to it—but, alas, no!

The constant speculation at this time of year about the contents of the budget is understandable, but honourable members and indeed everyone has to wait until the budget is delivered. The one thing we do not have to speculate about in terms of tax and changes to taxation is what the Labor Party's policy is, because they have put forward a series of changes to taxation which are absolutely calculated to reduce housing values, undermine business confidence and consumer confidence, restrain economic freedom, stop or slow investment dramatically by increasing the tax on the gains from investments, and undermine the freedom of Australians to invest.

Under the misleading heading of 'Positive plan to help housing affordability', the Labor Party propose that there can be no negative gearing in any asset except new residential housing. They think this will drive jobs; that is how naive they are. On the outskirts of our cities, in the big subdivisions and new developments there, who are the main buyers? They are homebuyers, very often new homebuyers. That is where Labor will be pushing all the investors. So, if you are a young couple wanting to buy a house-and-land package in an electorate in outer Sydney, in the western suburbs, you will be competing with all the investors that will no longer be able to buy established housing. Then of course, if you are dealing—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order on direct relevance: the question goes to a series of issues relating to the government's budget. He is not referring to any of that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question had—how can I say it politely?—an extensive preamble about a range of economic policies. The Prime Minister is in order.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the major concerns, obviously, is ensuring that there is an ample amount of affordable rental properties, and that is of course an issue for every housing policy of every government. What the Labor Party is proposing is that people who own residential property that is typically tenanted—say, in big multi-dwelling units closer to the city—will only be able to sell it to homebuyers who will be residents. So, over time, the pool of rental stock will naturally decline, there will be fewer properties to rent and rents will inevitably go up. Rents will go up and home values will go down. That is what a Labor budget would look like. No wonder they are waiting to see what a real budget looks like— (Time expired)