Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I don't agree with this motion. Malcolm Gladwell says that, when good people meet bad environments, the environment always wins. Mr Burns is a good person, and this motion is a very, very bad motion. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party cry tears for those who cannot afford or find housing, but they do everything they possibly can to make sure that that's the way it stays. This motion starts off talking about home ownership but ends up demanding that government owns people. You should be ashamed of yourselves for putting this motion up. I will quote from The Economist.

Ms Claydon interjecting—

You need to listen, because you need to hear this.

Opposition members interjecting—

No, that's how they end up in this policy cul-de-sac where they believe that they're right and everyone else is wrong, because they don't listen to anyone else. This is from an earlier edition of The Economist:

But just as pernicious is the creeping dysfunction that housing has created over decades: vibrant cities without space to grow; ageing homeowners sitting in half-empty homes who are keen to protect their view; and a generation of young people who cannot easily afford to rent or buy and think capitalism has let them down.

…   …   …

The soaring cost of housing has created gaping inequalities and inflamed both generational and geographical divides. In 1990 a generation of baby-boomers, with a median age of 35, owned a third of America's real estate by value. In 2019 a similarly sized cohort of millennials, aged 31, owned just 4% … In Britain areas with stagnant housing markets were more likely to vote for Brexit …

…   …   …

The Economist suggests that the number of new houses constructed per person in the rich world has fallen by half since the 1960s. Because supply is constrained—

that's the issue: supply is constrained—

and the system is skewed towards ownership, most people feel they risk being left behind if they rent. As a result politicians focus on subsidising marginal buyers, as Britain has done in recent years. That channels cash to the middle classes and further boosts prices. And it fuels the build-up of mortgage debt that makes crises more likely.

I point out at this stage that the most indebted household sector in the world is here in Australia. It does not have to be this way. Not everywhere is afflicted with every part of the housing curse.

In Tokyo, there was no property shortage between 2013 and 2017. It put up 728,000 dwellings—that's more than England did—without destroying quality of life. The number of rough sleepers has dropped by 80 per cent in the past 20 years. Switzerland gives local governments fiscal incentives to allow housing developments and helps people buy houses by increasing supply. This is what this country needs. This is what Australians need—not more social housing or more planning by central government. What this country needs is more Australians owning more of their own houses. It needs planning reform. It needs to move from stamp duty to land tax. We need to have value sharing, as the member for Bennelong pointed out, so that we align infrastructure with where we're making developments.

In 2020, the Reserve Bank commissioned Keaton Jenner and Peter Tulip to do a study on the cost of housing in Australia. They found that 68 per cent of the cost of an apartment—and I'm looking at you two, the member for Macnamara and the member for Dunkley, about this—is due to zoning laws. It's not due to a lack of social housing. It's not due to a lack of subsidies. It's due to zoning laws. Where is that in your motion, Josh? Where? It's nowhere. The fact of the matter is that this woke, regressive conspiracy is nothing but a giant vampire squid wrapping its tentacles around the face of humanity. All you want to do is suck us dry.

Ms Murphy interjecting—

And you laugh, but that's all you really care about.

See this speech in context