Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to tackling housing affordability, there is absolutely an urgency to act, and we need to act with purpose. But this bill doesn't do that, and I can't support it. Rental stress in the Blue Mountains, in my electorate of Macquarie, is three times higher than in the Prime Minister's local council area of Woollahra. Prices are out of reach of average income earners in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains without enormous stress. By refusing to act on capital gains tax and negative gearing, the government is actually making the situation worse. We will never see a material change in housing affordability with the measures that are being proposed under this legislation and this amendment. I think John Daley from the Grattan Institute described it well when he said:

You'll need a scanning electron microscope to see an impact on prices.

He went on to say that he couldn't see any reason why the measures would make a discernible difference to housing affordability or a discernible difference to the number of young people who buy a house. Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance fellow at the University of New South Wales, commented on these proposals:

… the biggest minus of all was the absence of any measure whatsoever to address negative gearing and CGT—

capital gains tax—

exemptions for rental properties.

That's what's missing. Any housing affordability package that does not address these concessions is totally toothless.

The majority of the benefits of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions go to the wealthiest in the community. The top 10 per cent of income earners reap 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing and 70 per cent of the benefit of capital gains tax concessions. The government needs to lead the way and propose real measures for easing affordability. Preferencing tax concessions for property investors buying their fourth or fifth property over young, first home buyers is not leadership. It's just thinly veiled, bad policy that will in fact just lock in intergenerational inequity.

I look forward to speaking in more detail in this debate about the two individual proposals. One is the plan to allow young people to access their superannuation, a plan that is a little bit like building a poorly thought-through road. It will simply push the traffic problem further down that road. I also look forward to addressing some of the issues around the proposal to allow people close to retirement to downsize their homes. That in itself is not a bad idea. It's a pity that it has not been put in separately in these so-called housing affordability measures. But, in this particular package, it fails to do anything to address the intergenerational inequity. As well as changes to the tax system, there are many other things that we could be doing rather than the two things in this bill.

Increasing the stock of social housing is vital, and the National Rental Affordability Scheme that this government cut was one of the best schemes ever for increasing the amount of affordable social housing in areas where workers needed to be and where families could not afford to live. We need to look at long-term transparency and accountability within the national partnership agreement on homelessness. We need to look at the inclusionary zoning that is being used really effectively in the UK, where 50 per cent of the build has to go to social housing or some alternative payment to allow social housing to be developed. These are innovative ideas that might actually make a difference. These are essential issues that aren't even being looked at here. Older women and young people who are coming out of care are, more and more, finding themselves becoming homeless or getting close to homelessness. That means that they are feeling quite hopeless and helpless. Rental security and uniform tenancy standards are also issues that need to be looked at if we are going to deal with rental housing affordability.

The position in this bill that the government has adopted is simplistic. It is really very disappointing to see that they can't come up with more ideas than this. What they are proposing will not solve the problem for young people who cannot access the market. We really need to have a level playing field. We have to support renters. We have to support those who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of losing their housing. We have to support the generations to come. While this is a thinly veiled attempt to appear to be doing that, it very much will do the opposite. It will push up the prices for first home buyers, as every measure done in isolation has that same impact. Using superannuation as a substitute for real measures on housing affordability is shallow and short-sighted and probably what we would expect from this government. I'm very conscious that I'm about to lose the last of my time tonight. I look forward to talking in more detail about this bill and the problems with it when we come back to it, hopefully, tomorrow.