Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time today the Prime Minister said, 'Labor's policy is so inequitable.' But on Monday the Prime Minister described Labor's negative gearing reforms as 'soak the rich, politics of envy' policy. Prime Minister, who is right—Monday Malcolm or Thursday Malcolm?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition knows he should refer to members by their correct titles.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, the last thing they want is for anybody to actually read their policy document. It is a rather confusing one. If one took it literally it would mean, for example, that net rental loses after 2017 on existing property could not be offset against a taxpayer's wages and salary, but it is silent on, for example, a barrister's income or a surgeon's income—that is not mentioned. My assumption has been that that was an oversight. I have not sought to make a big point out of that because I assume the honourable member, the shadow minister, meant to include all income from personal exertion, but perhaps he can clarify that.

What his policy is very clear about is that net rental losses can be offset against investment income. The only people with very large levels of investment income are, obviously, wealthier Australians. The consequence would be, as I said earlier, that a person with, say, an income of $90,000 under Labor's plan would not be able to claim a net rental loss of $10,000, but somebody on a much higher income with, say, $50,000 of income from dividends or interest on bonds—investment income—would be able to offset a much higher net rental loss against that.

It is up to the Labor Party to explain why that is good policy or why that is equitable, but on the face of it I think most Australians would perceive that as being extremely discriminatory and disadvantaging the hundreds of thousands of people on middle incomes who are deducting net rental losses—disadvantaging them while leaving the deduction available to those on very high investment incomes.

Those are the contradictions that the Leader of the Opposition has to explain. It is his policy. He has presented it and Australians, and indeed the government, are entitled to examine it and point out its contractions, its consequences, its dangers and its incredible uncertainty that it introduces into the single most important asset of every Australian family.