Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. The day after the budget, the Treasurer was asked by Peter Stefanovic if he negatively gears any properties, and the Treasurer said, 'I don't, Pete, no. I did maybe a decade ago or something like that.' Can the Treasurer explain to Australians why it's fair for him to benefit from negative gearing and then rip up the same opportunity for millions of aspirational Australians?

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

Order! The imputation in that question wasn't particularly within the standing orders. Reflecting on a member in such a way, regarding his own financial benefit, is barely within the standing orders. But out of respect for the member for Flinders—

An honourable member interjecting—

Yes. I think we'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order because I'm not comfortable with the tone of the question. The subject matter is important, so I want to find a way that we can have this question answered.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, under page 555 of Practice, it's not in order for questions to be reflecting on the private affairs of a minister. That's entirely what this question does.

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

Let's hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. We may find a way with the question being rephrased, like we did last week with another question in that vein. But we'll find a way.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, last week you allowed questions to be asked of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing about their arrangements because they contained a contemporary hook to their portfolio responsibilities. This question is similarly constructed. I also note the ruling Speaker Smith gave about these types of questions on 15 October 2015. Questions are not permitted purely about a minister's or prime minister's private affairs. There needs to be a connection with their responsibilities. I have listened very carefully, and that connection has been made on this question. That's exactly what this question did. We made sure that it did, because this is all about—

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

Okay. We don't need to go into analysis.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to go into the analysis, but I won't.

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

I'm aware of that ruling. Where we intersect on page 178 is discretionary powers of the chair, which can always deal with some of these topics. I'm not happy with the imputation, just as I wasn't last week, but we're going to allow it. I remind the House that it's a bit of a dangerous slope to go down for everyone in the House if we're going to open this can of worms up. It is not within the dignity of the House to go to the specific financial matters of any individual member of the House. Language is important, but the manager is correct. There is a policy area that the Treasurer is responsible for, so I'm going to be very broad with allowing the Treasurer's response in light of what I've just said.

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

I'd be very surprised if the Leader of the Opposition wants to go down this path, which I suspect is why nobody on the frontbench asked that question. Just like the Leader of the Opposition, the questions from the Liberal and National parties are becoming increasingly desperate and more than a little bit pathetic. Our changes in the budget that we announced less than two months ago are about making the housing market fairer for everyone. They're about making sure that, for the first time in a quarter of a century, first home buyers—and, particularly, young Australians—get a fair go in a housing market that has locked them out for too long.

We understand that those opposite—all three of the right-wing parties over there with their divisive, antihousing, antiworker agenda—would like to leave the housing market and the tax system exactly as it is. They are entirely comfortable with this idea that, for a quarter of a century since Mr Howard and Mr Costello made a big policy mistake to distort the housing market and lock more young people out of the market—that is the status quo that they will go to any lengths to preserve. We have a different view about the housing market. No objective observer of the housing market in this country would say that it's working exactly as it should be, and it's especially not working for first home buyers.

Once you come to that realisation and acknowledge that truth, you've got two choices: (1) do nothing about it, which has been their approach for a decade; or (2) do something about this challenge to make it easier for first home buyers to get a toehold in a market that has been too difficult for them for too long.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

You're pulling up the ladder.

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

The Leader of the Opposition has been interjecting once again about the ladder, and I'll say once again to the Leader of the Opposition that not everybody fails upwards up the ladder like the Leader of the Opposition does. Not everybody starts their life at the top of the ladder. There's not much point in a ladder if the first few rungs are missing. That's the case when it comes to the housing market in this country. We are making the housing market fairer for first home buyers. We are proud to be doing that. No amount of increasingly desperate, increasingly pathetic questions from those opposite will deter us.