Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about a range of things, and one is the incredible transformation of the Labor Left over the last few years. I am not of the Labor Left—I am a conservative—but I find it absolutely amazing what the Labor Left have currently decided they agree with. We know that they now believe in the new terrorism laws. It is amazing that the Labor Left has decided that this is part of their new policy platform. I imagine there are a lot of people in the Labor Left who wake up and wonder what party they are in. They are about to agree to the repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act. I used to believe that that was a tenet of the Labor Left—that it was one of the fundamental things they stood by. But they are about to vote for its repeal. In their quest to attain their goal they are about to put aside and compromise themselves on one of the most fundamental things that a lot of people out there—and I was talking to some the other day at the GetUp seminar in Canberra—believe the Labor Party believe in.

They also now believe in more uranium mines. That is a big turn-up for the books for the Labor Left. It is absolutely fascinating that they are now starting to believe in uranium mining. I understand what they are going through because, in some instances, I have had to cross the floor to support my belief structure. The Labor Left has been completely and utterly worked underground. They are now the absolute doormats of the Labor Right. They are making an absolute debacle and they are completely compromising all the people who formerly believed in them. These people are going to go out and find another home and I imagine that it will be, unfortunately, over there with the Greens. They do not even say it at the door as they go through in the morning—there is not even a ‘boo’ out of them. It is not an issue anymore. I was talking the other night at the GetUp conference and the thing that got the biggest laugh was the comment that if Mr Rudd gets any closer to Mr Howard, he is going to have to get permission off Jeannette. It is beyond scope. My advice to Mr Howard is not to encourage Mr Rudd. When he starts making approaches to you, do not encourage him. Otherwise I can see it coming when Mr Rudd is going to invite Mr Howard out to dinner. I can see that coming a mile away. When you get one those of unwelcome advances, you should try to throw some cold water on it, keep it down and keep it under cover.

Anyhow, with the Labor Party trying to deal with that, they have come up with this brilliant new housing policy! This is the most confusing, concocted policy that has ever come into this place. I will start with one of their documents, and this is worth reading. This is from New directions for affordable housing, by the Australian Labor Party. It says:

Government policies, including economic management, aimed at keeping downward pressure on interest rates can play a significant role in alleviating Australia’s housing affordability problems.

That statement is an endorsement on the coalition’s position on economic management. Their own document endorses what we are doing. So the question to the Australian people is: why would you go for second best when you can get the real thing? Why would you go for the cardboard cut-out when you can get the real deal? It is quite a good document. I had to check it a couple of times to see if we didn’t put it out. But apparently the Labor Party put it out.

There are a few other things in it. There are the smiling dials of Kevin Rudd, Tanya Plibersek and Wayne Swan. Federal Labor’s national rental affordability scheme will offer institutional investors annual tax incentives and financial support for big business every year. And for how long? For 10 years. For 10 years they are going to be pouring money into institutional investors with tax incentives and financial support. Who gets that? Big business does. Who does not get it? The individual—mum and dad do not get it, but big business does. Their belief is quite simple and here we have a clear policy differential. The Labor Party believes that you should end up in a public housing scheme renting a house—the carbuncle of housing projects. The conservative parties believe that you should own a house. That is the difference. We believe you should own it; they believe you should rent it. And to keep big business and their union mates onside they believe that you should rent it with a premium going back to the banks and the superannuation funds or whoever manages to tickle their wallet before the next federal election. This is an amazing turnaround.

We also have another document which says, ‘Federal Labor to invest $500 million in housing plan saving for homebuyers.’ The only problem is that one of the things that they ask for is a reduction in stamp duty. I thought that was Labor Party state policy. I thought that stamp duty was run by the state Labor Party, but apparently not. Kevin Rudd believes in cooperative federalism and he is so strong on cooperative federalism that he has asked Mr Beattie to stop council amalgamations—but Mr Beattie has told him to go jump in the lake. That is where cooperative federalism is with the Labor Party. It is quite obvious that, if there were any semblance of truth in this, the first thing that would happen within the Labor Party—because they are part of the same party—would be they would reduce stamp duty. But that is just not going to happen. The document says:

Australians should not be forced to pay extra for their new homes due to unnecessary planning delays and red tape and increasing infrastructure burdens. Federal Labor’s Housing Affordability Fund will target areas ... where the lack of infrastructure acts as a barrier to the release or development of land.

I wonder who is responsible for that lack of infrastructure in a lot of areas. It also says:

... where infrastructure is needed to enable homes to be better linked to where people work and use services like shops, transport and community facilities.

Once more, at a state Labor level, who is responsible for that?

It is amazing that we now have a clear differentiation of policy. We on the conservative side believe that you should own your own home. It is the most fundamental instrument of protection of your wealth. The Labor Party believe that you should rent, and rent for life. Not only do they believe you should rent for life; they are going to subsidise the big banks, the big superannuation funds, to make sure you do. They are going to cut a deal with them to give them a tax incentive and a financial incentive so that you can rent for life, so that the mum or dad driving home tonight through peak hour traffic knows that what the Labor Party has in mind for them is a public housing project where they rent. I think that would be the complete opposite of what most Australians want.

Australians want the security of owning their own house. They want to have an investment in their nation, to be part of the growth of their nation, to have that security so that when they retire or something goes wrong in their life, such as divorce or whatever, there is a fundamental, stringent asset there which they can rely on to leverage themselves into their next position in life, whether that is in a retirement village or it is settling the accounts on an unfortunate family break-up. You cannot do that when all your money in your life has gone into the rental bin, and that is the Labor Party policy—putting money into the rental bin.

The only benefactors of this are major banks, union-sponsored superannuation funds and certain property developers. I ask the Labor Left: where were you in this debate? What happened? What has happened to the Labor Left? When are the Labor Left going to stand up and have another voice in this nation? Or is it the case that they are out for lunch? Is it the case that they are now no longer relevant? Is it the case that the Labor Right are now supreme—that they have completely run over the top of you? (Time expired)