James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is the day after the budget. It is perhaps the last sitting day for the Senate before an election. And what do those opposite choose to focus on? Not the budget. Not debt. Not deficit. Not tax. Not the government's economic plan for jobs and growth. They are not choosing to use this opportunity to share with the Senate and, through it, the Australian people their vision for the economy or their vision for the budget in the years ahead. They are revisiting an issue which they have spoken about in previous sitting weeks and which they have chosen previously to take note of after question time, and that is housing affordability.

I can understand why they might not wish to talk about their plans for the budget, because, frankly, it has been a pretty embarrassing week for the Labor Party on budget matters. This is the Labor Party which has been uncovered as having a $19½ billion costing black hole in just one of its revenue measures proposed for the upcoming election. This is a Labor Party which proposes to raise $100 billion of new and increased taxes on the Australian people if it is elected to government. This is a Labor Party which in government has a shocking record on debt and deficit. No wonder those opposite are embarrassed to talk about it.

But I do agree with the senator that housing affordability is an important issue. I am from a generation of Australians who do not yet, in many cases, own their own homes. I personally do not yet own my own home. My wife and I are saving for a deposit, and we look forward to buying our own home one day. I am fortunate, with this privileged position that I have in the Senate, that that is something that we will be able to afford, but I know many other young people will not.

But all the international evidence demonstrates that the most powerful thing you can do to improve housing affordability is to take action on the supply side of housing. All the international evidence shows that cities which have the most liberal land release laws and the most relaxed planning laws are also the cities which have the most affordable housing. In Australia, which levels of government are responsible for those policies? They are, first, state governments, which control the release of land, and, second, local councils, which have an important role to play in planning. There is in truth, with the Constitution we have and the way the government is set up in this country, a limited amount that the federal government can do to improve housing affordability.

The level of government which can help to do something about housing affordability is state and territory governments. It is interesting that the senator who has continually raised this issue in Senate question time was until recently responsible for a territory jurisdiction. I would encourage those interested in these issues to look at the record of the ACT government in this area. It is not something that the senator has spoken about in this chamber to my knowledge, because it is not something which would reflect very well on their housing affordability policies. The ACT has some of the most restrictive land release laws in Australia. It has some of the most restrictive planning laws in Australia and coincidentally—or perhaps not—has some of the least affordable housing in Australia, despite having one of the most wealthy and highly paid workforces in Australia.

All that those opposite propose to improve housing affordability is to put a big new tax on housing investment. This will do nothing to assist young people in my generation to afford their first home. If anything, young people who are seeking to invest in new homes, which are built for the first time, will have to compete against a much greater pool of buyers because investors will only be able to get negative gearing when it is available to them in a new home rather than an existing residence. The opposition's policy in this area also includes some totally unrelated measures, like changes to capital gains tax. This will have no beneficial impact on housing affordability but will raise revenue. And there are the changes to negative gearing on shares, which will have no impact whatsoever on housing affordability but will, again, raise revenue.

That suggests what the real agenda is, of the Labor Party, in this policy area: to raise revenue and, at the same time, pretend that they care about housing affordability. The truth is, there are many things they could do to assist. They could support the passage of the Australian Building and Construction Commission through the Senate so that housing can be built more efficiently and cheaply through the construction sector that functions without the lawlessness and intimidation of the CFMEU. They will not do that—because they are not sincere about improving housing affordability for young Australians.