Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's refusal to phase out billions of dollars in property investor tax concessions to property investors like yourself is denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. Noting that 75 per cent of all Labor members in parliament own investment properties, can you explain to the House why Labor supports big tax cuts for property investors, like negative gearing, that are hurting renters and first-home buyers by allowing investors to outbid renters trying to buy a home?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to remind members about improper motives in questions. That was pretty close to the wind.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure when he took that question to tactics, Senator McKim and Senator Faruqi, with her developments, were very upset with that question. But it goes to a policy question, in that I noticed that the Greens political party, having held up funding for public housing last year, now want to hold up funding to support Help to Buy for renters to get into home ownership. That's what they say they will do. I'll give the member a big tip, which is that it stands on its own and on its merits. The idea that there will be a discussion with that sort of juvenile approach that we've seen from those opposite will not occur. This is not a student council; this is a parliament. It's a parliament that has a responsibility to look after the people who put us here, not to grandstand. The key to that is supply. On supply, for example, our Social Housing Accelerator is developing around 1,500 in New South Wales, 769 in Victoria, 600 in WA, 600 in Queensland, 230 in South Australia and 110 in Tasmania. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will build 30,000 homes, something that those opposite held up.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance: we're close to two minutes through this question, and the Prime Minister hasn't once mentioned the tax concessions that many people in this place benefit from.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but, just in line with my previous rulings and my previous statements to the House, when you include a whole lot of information in the question and some extra preamble, the Prime Minister will deal with that question rather than just a short, sharp, one-sentence question.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did mention the Greens senators, who benefit from these programs, as well as the Greens members sitting next to the honourable member up there.

We have a comprehensive plan. When it comes to renters, we had the largest increase in rental assistance in 30 years. But the key, of course, is supply. Maybe you could have a word to the member for Brisbane, who is currently running a campaign against a plan by the Catholic archdiocese to develop church land into a retirement village for older people in his electorate. The member claims the proposal is too tall, would lead to a loss of neighbourhood character, and—wait for this—there might be visitors to the aged-care facility who increase local congestion! This includes 68 new three-bedroom dwellings and a four-storey retirement or residential-care facility. The applicant predicts the Sacred Heart site will generate between 90 and 85 active and public transport trips.

Those opposite in the Greens political party have never seen a new home being built that they supported. The key to this is supply. (Time expired)