Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to engage in this matter of public importance discussion tonight and certainly to follow Senator Paterson, who used his own circumstances as an example. How dare someone from this place on a $200,000 base rate complain about housing affordability and still being able to only rent. If he gets re-elected time and time again, as we seem to see with the Liberals in Victoria, he will have a career that most people would be envious of—not his politics but the career he will have here earning plenty of money to look after his wife and family in the future. Unfortunately, that is not the position most people find themselves in. They can only dream about having a base rate of $200,000, such as Senator Paterson has.

We get an argument from One Nation and the coalition. They are joined at the hip on every issue now. On taking penalty rates away from workers they are joined at the hip. On this issue of housing affordability they are joined at the hip. Senator Hanson should just apply to rejoin the Liberal Party—that would close the circle—because really Senator Hanson does nothing more in here than vote with the Liberals. That is the position. They are always votes in this place that hurt working-class people in the country.

The argument Senator Roberts has put up is simply about tax—there is too much tax. I wonder how people think we build edifices like this. Where does the money come from? Where does the money come from for health? Where does the money come from for education? Where does the money come from for infrastructure? It comes from taxes. When One Nation and the coalition are out there talking about small government and small taxes, working-class people need to understand that they are going to be in big trouble because they will not be able to get decent education, decent health, decent infrastructure and decent transport. These are the challenges. Housing is not a challenge in isolation. Housing is about being in a situation where you can access health, education, and transport to and from your job. Housing is not just simply about fixing high taxes and everything will be okay. If it were that simple, probably this neoliberal government would have done it. It is not that simple.

The argument that has been put forward again by Senator Paterson is that it really is a state issue, that we have got limited capacity, that there is an artificial constraint there—the artificial constraint being the Constitution—and that, if you fix supply and fix taxes, everything will be okay. Let us have a look at the record of the Abbott and Turnbull governments. The coalition government have been there for nearly four years and all of a sudden they have discovered housing affordability. There has been only one member of the coalition that I remember actually talking about housing affordability seriously and it is John Alexander in the other place. He has been arguing that capital gains tax and negative gearing have to be fixed.

Let us look at this government's record. This is the mob who say: 'It's not our doing. We should just simply leave it alone.' When they came to power they refused to countenance any reform to negative gearing and capital gains tax simply because of ideological grounds, not because of any economic analysis or economic imperatives. It is simply: let the big end of town, rich people, get tax benefits paid for by poor people. That is the position over there, supported by Senator Hanson. So they refuse to deal with negative gearing and capital gains tax.

They closed the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was one of the best schemes delivering good housing at reasonable cost across the country. There are 30,000 new affordable units and we were on track to achieve 50,000. That was the first increase in housing stock in this country for decades, and it was a Labor government that did it.

They scrapped the first home saver account, which was helping people save for their first home. Senator Paterson came in here whinging about having to live in rented accommodation. I bet his rental accommodation is not like working-class people's rental accommodation. I bet it is nothing like that. I bet he is doing all right, and you would be with a $200,000 base wage. He came in here whingeing he cannot get a house. They cut $44 million a year from homelessness services. That is the other aspect of housing—homelessness. They failed to provide funding certainty under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. They drip-fed it. And good people out there, working hard to help homeless people, were unsure of whether they were going to have a job under this government. The government have just refused to appoint a dedicated minister for housing and homelessness. If they are actually serious about housing and homelessness, appoint a minister. Get a minister to be there to look at the issues and deal with the issues.

Let me come back to negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is not just Labor that is saying this. This morning, the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, gave a speech that I was at. He again ruled out negative gearing reform. This was at a breakfast hosted by the Australian Institute of Architects. It went down like a lead balloon. The president of the Institute of Architects, Professor Ken Maher, got up and made his speech. He said that the tax treatment of property, including negative gearing, was clearly in need of reform. Add that to the line of experts who say that capital gains tax and negative gearing need to be dealt with. Add that to that list of eminent economists and eminent analysts in this country who say that.

Another one is John Daley of the Grattan Institute. He says it is long overdue to change negative gearing and capital gains tax. He said it would save the Commonwealth government about $5.3 billion a year, Senator Hanson. Will One Nation support getting rid of negative gearing and capital gains tax and save the Commonwealth $5.3 billion a year? Then the institute say that the interaction of a 50 per cent capital gains tax with negative gearing distorts investment decisions. It makes housing markets more volatile and reduces home ownership. Senator Paterson wants to get into a house. He feels that he cannot get a house. He is in rental. The first thing he should do is support Labor to get rid of capital gains tax and negative gearing. It will then be easier for him to get a house. And with his $200,000 base salary, it would become even easier. The Grattan Institute say that if you do the two measures, not just negative gearing but also capital gains tax, if you get rid of them, it will reduce the cost to the public purse by $11.7 billion every year. They also go on to say that most of these tax concessions, these tax breaks, largely benefit the wealthy. That is where the money is going—to the wealthy. It is not like you hear in here that it is going to emergency service workers. The bulk of the money goes to the wealthy. That is where the money goes. Why should workers who are getting their penalty rates ripped away at the weekend by people like Senator Hanson be subsidising the wealthy in this country? So the message I have got for the Liberals and Senator Hanson is: fix capital gains tax and negative gearing. Make it fairer and maybe Senator Paterson might get a house to own one day.