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

I've been asked this question a number of times in the course of the last week or two, and I'm happy to answer it again. I do get advice from my department from time to time on contentious issues, and that shouldn't be seen as unusual. Those opposite did it, too, when they were looking at jacking up the GST and changing negative gearing when they were in office. We've made it really clear that our policy is not to knock off negative gearing or the capital gains discount. That's because, unlike those opposite, we are focused exclusively on building more homes. We are focused on housing supply. As the Prime Minister has said, as I have said and as others have said, we are not convinced that ditching those tax breaks would build more homes, and we want to build more homes in our communities.

We have a housing policy, and that's not part of it. We have tax policies, and that's not one of them. What is common between our housing policies and our tax policies is that elements of both of those are in the Senate right now. If those opposite were serious about housing, tax reform or budget repair they would vote for them in the Senate, not oppose them. I think it speaks volumes about this shadow Treasurer and this opposition that, faced with a severe shortage of housing, with a debate raging on housing policy not just in here but around the country, they would not take any steps to inform themselves of the impact of existing policies. We know why that is, and we know why the shadow housing minister is asking this question. It's because they don't want to talk about inflation falling. They don't want to talk about the fruits of our stabilising our relationship with China. They don't want to talk about the two surpluses this Labor government has delivered after those opposite delivered none.

See this speech in context