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

I had a look at One Nation's policy in relation to housing and to say that it is a scant policy would be overselling the position. Senator Hanson talks about One Nation working for the people. If you were actually serious about housing policy, you would support many of the policies Labor has put forward to deal with housing issues. To simply come in here and run a rant against foreign investment, when it is not the biggest housing policy issue that this country is facing, just demonstrates what One Nation are about. They are about division and they are about pushing a line that plays to the lowest common denominator in this country. They do not have a clue about dealing with housing policy.

On 21 April, Labor announced a tranche of policy which is about trying to deal seriously with the issue and not just using it as some attack on migration and on foreigners, playing to the lowest common denominator within Australia. We have a comprehensive package of policies on housing and we will continue to develop our housing policy leading up to the next election. There is a crisis for many young people in this country who are trying to buy a home and set up a home for the future. The housing crisis is only getting worse. You look at the skyrocketing prices in places like Melbourne and Sydney and other places around the country and you wonder how some young kids are ever going to get into a home. Home ownership is at 60-year lows and home ownership rates for 25- to 34-year-olds have collapsed from around 60 per cent to less than 40 per cent in the past 30 years. Rental stress is also on the rise, with the proportion of low-income households in rental stress now at more than 40 per cent. So 40 per cent of people who cannot own their own home and are renting a home are in rental stress. To pay the rent they are not putting food on the table; they are not getting the kids new shoes when they need new shoes. These are the practical issues that, surely, One Nation, if they claim they are working for the people, should be addressing. But, no, let's go for the easy hit, and that is foreign investment, and let's never develop a policy that actually goes to the real issues—that is One Nation.

Only a Labor government will tackle housing affordability. We are building on our existing proposals with new policies to improve affordability, increase housing supply, boost jobs and reduce the economic risks associated with distorted investment decisions. Any housing affordability package that does not involve reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts is an absolute sham. Unless One Nation start to adopt those types of policies, then their argument that they stand up for working people in this country will, like many of their policies, be shown to be nothing more than a sham. Labor's plan involves a number of issues. Firstly, we want to reform negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. Why should investors, backed by taxpayers' funds, be able to lock out young people trying to get their first home? We just do not think it is right and we have taken a strong position on that. We also want to limit direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds. Rich people with millions of dollars in superannuation are using those superannuation funds to invest in housing and, again, locking people out of the housing market who are simply in there trying to buy a home—especially first homebuyers.

We would facilitate a COAG process to introduce a uniform vacant property tax across all major cities. We would increase foreign investor fees and penalties. We think that is an issue, but we do not think it is the basis of a housing policy. We think it is an issue we should deal with, but it cannot be the key issue in any housing affordability package.

We would establish a bond aggregator to increase investment in affordable housing. But we realise that a bond aggregator on its own will not bridge the gap between the investment and returns that are needed to build more affordable housing. We will have more to say about that in the lead-up to the next election. Simply, we accept that the bond aggregator is a positive step but that on its own it is not enough.

We would boost homelessness support for vulnerable Australians. If One Nation say that they stand up for Australian working people, why are they not asking the federal government: 'Why have you taken $44 million a year out of support for low-income housing? And support for women who are trying to get away from domestic violence?' Why would they be silent on that and simply come here and do a 10-minute speech on foreign investment when that is not the key issue that is driving rental stress and problems for working families in this country?

We would also argue that we would get better results from the National Affordable Housing Agreement. There is $1.3 billion going into the National Affordable Housing Agreement every year. We would deal with that in the context of getting better results out of that money that is put into place—more accountability from the states. These are all complex issues, but issues that anyone who knows anything about the housing affordability problem would be dealing with. You would not come in here and just run us a racist line about foreign investment.

We would also re-establish the National Housing Supply Council and reinstate a minister for housing. The National Housing Supply Council, when it is up and running, would be able to give advice to government about how to deal with some of these issues in a more comprehensive and sophisticated way. It would actually do the analysis about what is causing the hikes in house prices and come up with policy that assists government to deal with that issue.

We would also reinstate a minister for housing. When the coalition came out with this so-called package of housing at the last budget, people around the country who are dealing with this issue basically dismissed it as being ineffectual and not dealing with the key issues. We certainly believe that the Foreign Investment Review Board rules currently apply a range of restrictions on foreign purchasers of property in Australia, but that is not the key issue. It is not the key issue—the key issue is the tax benefits that rich Australian get, supported by poorer Australians' tax, to go in and run negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. That is one of the fundamental issues. A young person goes into a bidding game against someone who is getting the support of government through negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, and they have absolutely no chance of winning that bidding war.

Again: when these rich people are using self-managed super funds to then boost their capacity to outbid young Australians to buy a home, that is a problem. I am sure we will hear the arguments that this is all about allowing firies, police and teachers to invest. The reality is that the bulk of the benefits from negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions go to some of the richest Liberal seats in the country. They do not go to National Party seats where people are battling. They do not go to battling Labor Party seats. They go to the richest seats in the country. Unless we deal with that unfair advantage, then coming in here and arguing about foreign investment does nothing for working families in this country.