Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Today, when asked about negative gearing excesses, the Treasurer redefined 'excesses' and said that they are now 'enthusiasms'. Given the government has refused to tell Australians and the House what the excesses in negative gearing are, will the Treasurer now outline what the enthusiasms are?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, is it in order for the question to now verbal the Treasurer and pretend that he said something he did not say and then demand that he had a response to that? You have been very lenient. We have been lenient on the government side and not taken points of order. But their question time strategy is in complete disarray and they need to get themselves in order.

Mr Burke interjecting—

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

I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I am ready to rule on the subject. The Leader of the House raises a point of order that, essentially, relates to factual accuracy. As I think I addressed the House a fortnight or so ago, I am going to adopt the approach that Speaker Andrew adopted, in that I cannot assess the factual accuracy of questions if questions are factually inaccurate. That will be worn by the questioner. In denying a question where there is an alleged factual inaccuracy, as Speaker Andrew pointed out, I am also denying the minister an opportunity to refute it if they wish. So I am going to allow the question, and I call the Treasurer.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I referred today to the distribution of those who are engaged in incurring net rental losses across the income space and the various occupations that they have, and things of that nature. I said 'You can call them excesses,' 'You can call them enthusiasms'—you can call them whatever you like. They can refer to it as ever they wish. I simply made the point that across the income spectrum different Australians engage with negative gearing at different levels of activity. There is no great shock about that.

The thing that those opposite seem to constantly fail to understand is that the overwhelming majority of Australians who are engaging in negative gearing are ordinary mums and dads just trying to make their way and provide for their future. They go out and buy an investment property, an existing property, typically—what those opposite want to stop them doing. They want to stop ordinary people—nurses, police officers, Defence Force personnel, all of these types of people—from simply going out and using some extra money they have to acquire a property to build some wealth for their future. That is it. That is all they are trying to do. The vast majority of Australians do it. There are those on very high incomes who may have net rental losses of more than $50,000 and they would have an average income of more than $220,000 a year, and they are engaged in it at a much higher level.

What do you do when you look at the distribution of the way negative gearing is used to form a policy? You look at that and you decide what the impact would be if you made any changes there? You would think of the consequences of doing something like that? That is that the government is doing. It is a sober, rational process of policy development. Those opposite have just rushed out there. What the shadow Treasurer now finds is that he is out on the end of a very long pole. He is standing out there with his big hairy-chested negative gearing policy and thumping the table. But what he does not understand is that he has stung every nurse, every policy officer, every paramedic and every Defence Force personnel serving man and woman. He has stung everyone of them who is engaging in negative gearing or wants to in the future—and he has stung them hard.

We on this side of the House are not going to do that, because we believe that Australians who want to invest in their future—and those hardworking Australians who have done this—should continue to get those opportunities. And under this government they will.