Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports today that the current Prime Minister is preparing to cave into the former Prime Minister and protect what his own Treasurer described as the 'excesses' in negative gearing. Prime Minister, are these reports accurate and will this be a co-captain's call?

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

The Prime Minister will just resume his seat for a second. Whilst I have said to the House—

Government members interjecting—

Those on my right will cease interjecting—that a very strict reading of the standing orders would rule most questions out of order, and it has been the practice of the House for years, in fact decades—

Mr Swan interjecting—

The member for Lilley can leave under 94(a).

The member for Lilley then left the chamber.

I have made it very clear that, when I am addressing the House, I am not going to have members interjecting. Otherwise, I will simply move to the next question.

A very strict ruling of the standing orders would rule most questions out of order, but, for practicalities, speakers over years, indeed decades, have been more lenient. I have already flagged that the tag lines to some of these questions are pushing it beyond what I am comfortable with. I have said that to the member for McMahon. The member for Sydney heard me. I think the last part of that question, in particular, is over the line, in terms of ironical expressions and the rest, and I am not going to allow it. The Prime Minister can address the first part of the question. If there is a repeat of it, the entire question will be ruled out of order and I will move to the next question.

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

As the honourable member understands, the policy that she and her colleagues are proposing on negative gearing will have the consequence of ensuring that a person on average income—such as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman or a member of the Leader of the Opposition's former union—would not be able to get a tax deduction for the net rental loss on an investment property that they purchased if it was offset against their income. That is the object of their policy. When I raised that with her, yesterday, she gave a consoling interjection where she said under a Labor government these hardworking Australians—over a million of them are investing in investment property, now, just doing this—will not be able to do that in the future. They will not be able to make any new investments—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Honourable members say it is not true. They should change their policy. They establish properties, which is the vast majority of real estate, they will not be able to invest in. The member for Sydney's consolation was to say, 'They can always buy their own home.' Isn't it good that the Labor Party is not going to ban that. It really is good.

Ms Owens interjecting—

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

The member for Parramatta is warned.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am mindful of your previous ruling with respect to the fact that you cannot be aware of all personal explanations that are being given.

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

What is the point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 68 that a personal explanation has been given on this exact issue and the Prime Minister is simply repeating the information, which has previously been established in the House as inaccurate.

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

I was here for the personal explanation. This is, as I said to the House a week or so ago, it is obviously a new standing order that was adopted after the last election. The former speaker made a ruling on it that I concur with. The most important part of that ruling, as far as the Manager of Opposition Business is concerned, is it requires the member concerned to raise the point of order. That is the most important part. Without going over every part of what I said a week ago, and what was said in this House by the former speaker, it is a difficult standing order. In this case, where it relates to an interjection where the member for Sydney should not have been interjecting, it is unreasonable—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

The member for Sydney is warned. Apart from the fact it is difficult enough to know every word that is being said, it is unreasonable to expect the Hansard reporters to capture every part of an interjection, so I have very little tolerance on this point of standing order 68 being used to justify continual interjections.

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

Under the socialist paradise offered by the Labor Party, after the next election, teachers, policemen and nurses will still be able to go to the bank and borrow money to buy a home to live in. That will still be allowed. But they will not be allowed to go to the bank and borrow money to buy an established property to rent it out unless they are prepared to pay for any losses on that property out of their after-tax income. So naturally that is not a very attractive proposition. However, even the plans of the central planners, over, there will come awry because, in their haste, they have overlooked the fact that, of course, somebody with a large investment income under their plan—which is unlikely to be a teacher, a nurse or a policeman—will be able to offset net rental losses against their large investment income. The levelling instincts of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have just gone askew, here. She has missed her mark yet again. What she will do, what Labor will do, is undermine the value of the family home—the single largest asset class in Australia.