Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year the Prime Minister said changes to negative gearing would 'push up rents'. Budget papers confirm rents will rise as a result of the government's new housing tax. Why is Labor pushing up rents for all Australians when it promised not to?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. You need to look at the whole housing package that we've put together. Our budget helps with the cost of living. It builds resilience, and it backs aspiration. We're going to help more Australians achieve the dream of owning their own home. We do that, as the person next to the member for Lindsay knew when he wrote his book, by giving young people a crack and by fixing the system. We want people to be able to aspire to a better life for themselves and their families. Importantly, negative gearing will still be available for new builds, so people can invest in themselves and invest in the nation. That's the big difference with the change that we brought in on Tuesday. The change that we brought in will allow negative gearing to still exist, but, because people will invest, if they are looking to invest and use negative gearing in new builds rather than old properties, competing with first home buyers, what it will do is also boost supply, and that is the position that we have.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is now warned.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The package makes it very clear in the budget papers that there will be more houses, not less, as a result of the things that are in the budget. That's on top of the measures that we have spent four years implementing, that are now rolling out in spite of those opposite doing everything they could to block the Housing Australia Future Fund, everything they could to block build-to-rent, everything they could to block Help to Buy—everything they could to block all of the measures that we have put in place to help build supply.

One of the things that we have done is not just housing, but, of course, when it comes to helping people, which goes to the question, we have the reforms that are in the budget about Medicare and about making sure that cheaper medicines are available and that there's more bulk-billing and record funding for hospitals.

Our budget helps people under pressure right now. We've had five separate tranches now of tax reform, of tax relief. We're cutting people's taxes because we want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those opposite have never ever in their history put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission saying there should be an increase in real wages. They opposed our tax cuts, and I assume they'll oppose— (Time expired)

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How will the Albanese Labor government's budget help more Australians into homes and make our tax system fairer? How does this compare to other approaches?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moore is an absolute champion for the working people of the west, and that's what this budget is about; it's a budget for workers. The tax reform package in the budget is all about levelling the playing field and better aligning the tax treatment of workers compared with people who receive their income from other legitimate sources. It's about helping more Australians recognise the dream of homeownership by getting a toehold in the property market. That's what makes it a very aspirational tax reform package. We understand, on this side of the House, there's nothing aspirational about stacking the deck against younger Australians. And that's what the tax system does now in the way that it interacts with the housing market.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We understand, even if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't—he's been interjecting about ladders—that not everybody's born at the top of the income ladder. Not everybody inherits their opportunity in this country. We have to make sure that more people who work hard can get ahead in our economy and in our society. There's not much point having a ladder if the first couple of rungs are missing, and that's the situation that those opposite want to defend when they talk about the ladder.

Our changes to tax policy have been broadly supported by a lot of people who know what they're talking about. Richard Holden said, 'I think the negative gearing changes are a step in the right direction to level the playing field between owner-occupiers and investors.' Westpac said: 'Measures to boost housing supply and level the playing field are meaningful, particularly on tax settings. This does so in a way that still encourages new construction.' Bob Breunig from the ANU said, 'Australia's most ambitious budget in decades deserves support.' The Grattan Institute said: 'The budget does actually take major strides towards dealing with something that's been in the too-hard basket. It's a budget we've been waiting for for some time.'

But perhaps my favourite supporter of the steps that we've taken in the budget is the shadow treasurer. We've heard what he's had to say in his book and in the parliament, and I've got another instalment. This is what he said to the parliament:

We need to make sure … that we don't create a system that entrenches privilege and vested interests and a system where people are able to earn more from the income from and the growth of their assets than from their labour. That is one of the most fundamental principles of a truly liberal society.

… when you actually entrench interests through law, particularly through a rigged tax system that favours the few at the expense of the many, what you do is turn around to the next generation of Australians and say: 'We will, at your expense, protect those who came before you …'

He'd want to be careful. If he keeps this up, he might find himself on the front of the Daily Telegraph with a little hammer and sickle near his face. He's saying a lot of things which we have been saying when it comes to the reform of the tax system. (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Your budget is framed around intergenerational equity, and I congratulate you for seeking to tilt the balance back towards young home buyers. A tax system that overburdens young workers is not only unfair; it is also unsustainable in an ageing population. But to help young Australians build their wealth, we also need to reduce their income tax rates. This budget raises more than $77 billion in extra revenue over the medium term. When will you legislate to return that extra revenue to taxpayers by reducing income tax rates?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the very substantial amount of work and thinking that the member for Wentworth has done when it comes to tax reform, with her participation in the reform roundtable and in other meaningful ways, as well as the very serious input and contributions being made by people on this side of the House.

A lot of the tax reforms that we announced on Tuesday night come from people working through these issues in a considered and methodical way, and I acknowledge that that's how the member for Wentworth comes at some of these questions. Her question really goes to, I think, the core of the tax reform package that we announced on Tuesday night, because it is—as she rightly identifies in her question—about better aligning the tax treatment of people who work for a living with the people who get their income from other legitimate sources. That really is one of the main motivations for the tax reforms that we handed down.

The member for Wentworth is right to point out that that has two elements. One element is making things easier for people who work for a living. Another is making sure that the tax arrangements for people who earn their income from assets is more sustainable. That those two things are in closer alignment—that's what we've tried to do with this tax reform package. So the CGT changes and the negative gearing changes are part of the story but not the whole story.

This is a government which, only being here for four years, has now cut income taxes five times in three different ways. Three income tax cuts have come from higher thresholds and lower rates, and one from instant deduction, which provides a bit more tax relief. The last piece is the working Australians tax offset. What that does is it creates some new architecture to provide tax relief only to working people. It means that, in the future, a government of either political persuasion—to be fair—has a broader range of options when it comes to returning bracket creep, as this government has been doing enthusiastically and regularly.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear the ill-informed guffaws from over there. They seem to have forgotten that they went to an election with a policy to increase taxes on every working Australian. They might want to think about that before they interject.

On the serious issues that the member for Wentworth raises, of course this is a government that looks to give bracket creep back when it's affordable and responsible to do that. We've done it five different times already in the four years that we've been in office. We'd like to get the opportunity to do that again into the future. I'll come to the medium-term outlook, which was also cited in the honourable member's question. With the big improvement over the medium term in the budget position, by the end of the 10-year period, three times more of a contribution is made by our savings effort than the changes in taxes. But, if and when there's more room to return more bracket creep, of course we'll look to do that. (Time expired)

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget supporting local governments to deliver the roads and community infrastructure Australians rely on?

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. As a South Australian, she knows and is aware of the road funding anomaly that has meant that South Australian councils, in particular, have not gotten their fair share of roads funding through the financial assistance grants. For 20 years, there has been a temporary top-up in budgets, and each and every time they've had to come to the Commonwealth to ask for more money. This government is now fixing that permanently, thanks to the advocacy of the member for Boothby. Not only have we delivered an ongoing road funding base for South Australian councils—we've also increased it through indexation. Now councils in South Australia have funding certainty to deliver safer roads and freight routes that their communities need.

The budget has, of course, also delivered for councils right the way across the country. We're delivering $3.6 billion in untied funding to local governments through the financial assistance grants, bringing forward $2.9 billion this financial year to help councils with the cost pressures caused by the ongoing Middle East conflict. Through our $2 billion Local Infrastructure Fund in Minister O'Neil's portfolio, which is an extension of the existing Housing Support Program, we're supporting councils to unlock much-needed housing development through infrastructure. This fund will be open to local government and state utility companies to build that critical last-mile infrastructure—like water, power and sewerage—needed to support new housing development, building on our previous $1.5 billion program that they copied. Half a billion dollars over the next 10 years will also fund new shared paths, cycleways and other pieces of infrastructure that make it safer and easier for people to walk and cycle. Delivered through the Active Transport Fund, that's $50 million each and every single year, primarily going to local councils.

We're delivering an additional $750 million for the Growing Regions and Thriving Suburbs programs: more funding for our local councils and not-for-profits to build the spaces our communities rely on. It's building on the two rounds of Growing Regions and the one round of Thriving Suburbs that we previously had that are building 180 parks, town centres, theatres and sporting facilities right the way across the country—$1.7 billion worth of them overall. And we're continuing our increased investment in local governments, Roads to Recovery, committing $4.4 billion nationally over the current five-year funding period. That's $1.8 billion more going to every local council than over the previous five years. We are, of course, delivering increased funding for our Black Spot Program and also the Safer Local Roads and Infrastructure Program.

And let me assure the House that not a single one of those programs that I have announced today and that are in our budget look at the colour of any of the electorates. Unlike what those opposite did with their regional rorts programs, we're funding every single local council fairly. (Time expired)