Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, it was not capped when Mr Keating and Mr Hawke were around. It was not capped then; it was 17 per cent that I was paying in the Hawke-Keating days. Unfortunately, my bank statements are back at home, but I will get them and bring them down to you, Senator Sherry. There was no way in the world that I was paying 22 per cent when Mr Howard was the Treasurer. From memory, it would have been about seven, eight or, perhaps, nine per cent—I do not know—but it certainly was not 22 per cent.

I think you should get up at the end of this debate and apologise for misleading the Senate by alleging that, in the time that John Howard was Treasurer, homeowners were paying those sorts of interest rates, because I—and I am sure anyone else in my situation—will be able to prove the lie to your statement. You trawl out figures quite regularly now in the hope that you might mislead the media or anyone who might happen to be listening to you about the situation back in the days when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister and John Howard was Treasurer. But people will understand that you are not telling the truth, and I would urge you not to pursue it further. I will bring my bank statements down, and one day in the next session of this parliament I will table a couple of my bank statements from those days to demonstrate what I was paying in interest rates when John Howard was Treasurer and what I was paying when Paul Keating was Treasurer.

With regard to this motion, a lot of the rhetoric that goes on these days is, again, the Labor Party trying to recreate history, trying to amend history to lessen the knowledge of the Australian people on what poor financial managers the Australian Labor Party are when they are in government. Why are they poor financial managers? It is for this reason: they spend, spend, spend because it gives them an immediate and short-term electoral popularity. They give money to anyone who comes along with a bit of a sob story. They give them a handout and pay them whatever they like. Labor Party governments never understand that someone has to pay for this largesse that goes out in the way of electoral bribes. They are incompetent and incapable of managing an economy.

In the few minutes left to me I want to pursue a little further the theme that Senator Parry was speaking about in the speech immediately previous to mine. The real problem for new homeowners is not interest rates but the cost of government taxes. I quote from a recently released report from the Property Council called Reasons to be fearful. It says:

On a national average, a quarter of the money Australians pay for their new homes or units is made up of taxes and compliance costs associated with producing new housing. The figure is as high as 35% of the cost of a new detached house and up to 28% of the cost of a home unit.

Further, this research report, which is a very detailed report—all credit to the Property Council for doing this—makes the point:

These costs—

of state governments and local governments—

are now arguably adding anything anywhere from $360 per month up to $1,445 per month in mortgage payments (assuming that new home purchasers are funded for loans of 7.25% over 25 years). By contrast, an interest rate rise of 0.25%—

which we had a couple of days ago—

(which would result in banner headlines across the nation) would only add $65 per month to a mortgage of $200,000.

I will repeat those figures: an 0.25 per cent increase in interest rates is an increase of $65 per month, and the costs that are imposed because of state government charges and taxes are anywhere from $360 per month to $1,445 per month.

Further, the Property Council relates this example: a purchaser of a $1.8 million home in upmarket inner city Mosman would pay about $85,000, or 4.7 per cent, in taxes on a purchase. By contrast, a young family purchasing a new home for $570,000, a house and land package in Sydney’s outer north-western development corridor, is paying $130,000, or 23 per cent of the purchase price, in taxes alone—that is, stamp duty, land taxes, state development levies, local government development levies and the GST.

We heard Senator Carr making the old Socialist Left plea for the workers and young families, but he forgot to mention that those workers and young families who try to get a home are slugged to the extent of $130 by the state Labor government in New South Wales. Why was Senator Carr not decrying the state Labor government for that? Sure, he had a lot to say about a 0.25 per cent increase by an independent Reserve Bank, but his friends in the Labor government in Sydney whack on those sorts of costs and you do not get a peep from Senator Carr. I think Senator Carr’s approach and the misinformation—if I might politely put it that way—of Senator Sherry are, again, examples of the Labor Party trying to rewrite history, desperately trying to attack the credentials of this government when it comes to financial management.

I remember that before the last election, while this government was running the economy properly so that pressure was kept off interest rates, the best Mark Latham could do was to get there before the TV cameras and sign an interest rate pledge. Do you remember that? Somehow he thought that picking up a pen and scribbling a signature with it would bring interest rates down. No wonder the Labor Party are trying to rewrite history, no wonder the Labor Party want to forget their recent past and no wonder they want to raise any bit of misinformation that might be around to try to alter the fact that the Howard government has been an exceptionally good government in running this country. I have confined my remarks to the housing market, as many other senators did, but the way of the housing market is indeed very instructive in other areas of the economy.

Debate interrupted.