Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Hansard source

Who could believe that we'd live through a period in Australian history where we would see a government announce a new plan to smash Australians with $77 billion in new taxes and, at the same time, admit that as a result of those new taxes we would have 35,000 fewer houses? Who would believe that that would be our reality? But that is our lived reality in Australia today.

The issue with the $77 billion in new taxes is that it's going to hit the whole economy. It's going to hit younger generations. It's going to hit people who don't have a lot of money and just want to invest in a couple of shares or a couple of ETFs or a small business or want to bootstrap a small startup. Every single person with an ounce of self-starting initiative is going to be hit by this minimum tax rate of 30 per cent. We live with one of the most punitive pay-as-you-go systems in the world. We have the second-highest pay-as-you-go system anywhere in the OECD, and we see no relief for working people. What we see is a new tax that hits them in every way that they might try and lower their tax burden to try to get going and make something for themselves. It is quite shocking that that is our lived reality, but when you look at the economic figures—low productivity, high inflation, high interest rates and anaemic growth—maybe it's all consistent; this is all part of the plan.

On the issue of the capital gains tax now becoming a minimum of 30 per cent, that gives us the world's highest CGT. Many people will be paying 33 to 47 per cent in capital gains tax, and it's going to be a jobs killer. Why would you stay in Australia if you have the ability to do something with ingenuity, something innovative? I think it's going to push people out of this country.

In a housing supply crisis, why on earth would you deploy anything that is going to limit the number of houses you can get and—what's more—why would you have a policy that is going to reduce housing supply? But, when you are spending $80 billion to build fewer houses, again, maybe this is a natural design feature. Who could believe that you could spend all this money, billions and billions of dollars, on these housing bureaucracies—Housing Australia Future Fund, Housing Australia, these boondoggles that don't build houses—and you could then say, 'We now think we're going to have a new tax policy that's going to collapse housing supply by 35,000'?

I'm surprised the government decided that, on page 158 of the budget papers, they would so clearly say, 'As a result of our new taxes on housing, there will now be 35,000 fewer houses.' It actually restores my faith that the government have some sense of supply and demand, some sense of basic arithmetic. Yes, higher taxes do mean less stuff. So there'll be 35,000 fewer houses, and we've already gone from an average of 200,000 houses a year under the last government to 170,000 houses a year, and now we're looking at fewer houses even though the government have allowed 1.4 million people to come into the country and have built only 600,000 houses over the course of that time. This is the worst possible time to be deploying more taxes which reduce supply.

Of course, they've tried to cover the tracks by saying, 'We're going to spend more money on infrastructure to cover our tracks.' But who could believe that this government could properly administer a program that would actually result in trunk funding going to places where it will supply more housing and actually provide the roads, sewerage and water that are needed to unlock supply? They've had four years, wherein they collapsed housing supply from an average of 200,000 down to an average of 170,000. They've spent billions and billions. They brag in their budget papers: 'We're spending $47 billion.' That's what they say; it's actually $80 billion. They brag about the money they're spending. What I want them to brag about is how many houses are actually being built in this country.

When you have a bigger population, you need more houses. The housing problem is only going to be solved through building more of them. It seems insane to me that the government's policy is to build fewer houses. The Labor Party's policy is that there should be fewer houses in Australia but more people. That is their policy. That is their position. This budget guarantees and locks in Labor's policy of having more people in this country but fewer houses. It is a deliberate design to have pumped up prime house prices combined with a five per cent deposit scheme, which is going to send house prices still higher and higher. This is a budget that locks in higher house prices for younger Australians. This is a budget that guarantees that younger people won't get a go. They won't get ago if they want to invest in small business or a start-up. They won't get a go if they want to buy a house, because Labor have locked in a low-supply model—low supply, high population growth and a criminal five per cent deposit scheme that guarantees that younger people will have to pay more for their first home.

Then there's the hypocrisy. The Prime Minister, who spent decades negatively gearing and building up a property portfolio, now wants to cut that opportunity for young people. It's all good for Mr Albanese to use negative gearing to build his own portfolio, but it's no good for someone else who's a young person who wants to do negative gearing, wants to build some wealth or wants to rentvest because that's their only way in. That's all going to go. You can forget about that. What's more, they're also carving out their best mates in the super funds. The super funds who support the Labor Party politically and fund their campaigns are carved out of all of this. They're all good. It's all good for them. If you're a super fund, you can do whatever you want. I'm coming back in the next life as a super fund because I think that gives me the greatest opportunity for graft and theft!

Then we have them giving up on their other housing policies. They're giving up on their New Home Bonus program, where they pay the states to build houses. They've gutted $2 billion for that because they've given up on their housing target agenda. They've clearly discovered that they can't be bothered asking the states to build more houses, so why on earth would they pay them? They've also admitted in the budget that their housing fund is 'at risk'. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been a disaster. It has wasted $10 billion just to build no houses. The five per cent deposit scheme has forced up house prices and has locked in the higher price model for young Australians. Now, we have this third gimmick: the new tax model. The new tax model pushes down supply and takes away opportunities that Mr Albanese himself has used as a property investor from younger people.

Then we have this ridiculous claim that, according to Treasury modelling 75,000 people will be able to own a house. Well, the last time the government did modelling on housing was just after the election. They said that the five per cent deposit scheme was going to push up prices by 0.6 per cent over six years, and it resulted in prices going up by six per cent in six months. That's how good the five per cent deposit scheme modelling was! It would literally be one of the worst modelling exercises ever undertaken in the history of the Commonwealth. That's why this government has fought tooth and nail to cover it up. They're embarrassed.

They announced this policy during the election campaign. They said: 'There'll be free mortgages for everyone and free money for everyone because we live in a utopia where money is free. We'll just take away taxpayer funds and give anyone who wants it a free mortgage even though we've collapsed housing supply.' Then, after they won the election, they thought, 'Maybe we should model this.' So they asked the Treasury people to do some modelling. Treasury did the modelling. It obviously is wrong. They've covered up all the modelling so we can't see the parameters or any of the risks and sensitivities or anything that Treasury said about the Labor Party's failure on supply.

So here we are, with $77 billion of new taxes, 35,000 fewer houses projected over the course of the next 10 years, more taxes on everything, a sclerotic economy, with low productivity, high inflation and high interest rates, and these bribes and more housing gimmicks. Gimmicks don't work—like the housing future fund, the five per cent deposit and new taxes that will make things worse, not better. It seems unbelievable that that's their housing suite, but there you go.