Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I think perhaps we are now arguing about a technicality. Where we have a substantial disagreement—maybe it is not a term of art in our tax laws, but it is commonly known as 'negative gearing'—is on the idea of people acquiring an asset for the purpose of making a loss on it with the expectation that other taxpayers, the vast majority of them locked out of the property market, should pick up that loss. I find that utterly objectionable. And this is one other area where we are in agreement. Demand is a huge factor in housing affordability. One of the major drivers of demand are these massive tax concessions, paid for by people on low and medium incomes, many of them themselves locked out of the property market, that incentivise bidding up the price of property and pricing first home buyers and owner-occupiers out of the market. Until the two of us can make eye contact on that, I suspect we are wasting our time. I do not want to verbal the Labor Party; you are absolutely right. I have no idea what their position is on many things. But, on this issue of negative gearing, what I want to acknowledge is that, unlike yourselves, they have not slammed the door shut on debate. They are at least willing to take on the taboo. I think it is to your great discredit that you are not. I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7714:

(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (line 1) to page 32 (line 22), to be opposed.

I hope, in the few seconds remaining in this debate, that somebody up that end of the chamber has a change of heart on behalf of first home buyers.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.