Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate Senator Pocock's interest in this matter and listened to his contribution with interest. I want to acknowledge and thank him for his support over the term of this parliament for practical measures to support better housing outcomes, including his support for the Housing Affordability Future Fund.

It was extraordinary, though, to listen to Senator Reynolds's contribution. When asked to seriously consider what the measures are in relation to increasing the housing stock, it was the stock standard political attack. It underlines what the problem is with this opposition. They have not paused for a second to reflect on how bad a government they were. They've not internalised that message about how bad the Morrison government was on a whole lot of fronts, particularly economic ones, how little progress was made and how bad a Prime Minister Mr Morrison actually was, corrupting the processes of the federal government, including multiple ministries and an absurd bunyip-aristocracy attempt to pervert the processes of government in his own interests. Indeed, there's been no reflection on her own performance.

What I would say about Senator Pocock's proposition is that there are a series of lines of effort that are required from the Commonwealth and then from the states, ideally in cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. The first and most important, in my view, goes to the supply of housing. That is structurally dealing with the challenges in affordable housing for low- and middle-income Australians by approaching the question of supply. Then there is a series of questions that go to planning, much of which are formally within the province of the states but which, again, in this government's view and in my view, should be the subject of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states, particularly where Commonwealth funding is engaged in these broader supply efforts. Then there are issues around the supply of labour and skills in the construction industry and making sure that our skills match the requirements of building the homes that we need to build. That is, indeed, an enormous task. Despite the language from what passes for a federal opposition, it will require attending to our skilled migration settings and fixing up the smoking ruin of the skilled migration program that was left by the previous government.

This motion asks us to consider the tax questions. Some of those that have been drawn to the attention of the Senate are within the province of the Commonwealth government, but there are issues around stamp duty and a range of other charges and levies that the states have. I would say two things in relation to the tax question. Firstly, this government, both in opposition and in government, has been very clear about its position in relation to capital gains tax exemptions and negative gearing. There will not be changes in relation to those questions. We will not change our approach on that issue.

The second more substantial policy point, though, is that it is, I think, possible to argue that the taxation settings have been part of the rise in house prices over time, but it is also possible to argue that the removal or adjustment of those measures would have no positive impact on the ill that we are trying to solve. It sounds like a big argument. It sounds like a big proposition—'All you have to do is do these reforms.' But, in fact, they would have a series of perverse impacts on the challenges that we are trying to solve. That is why this government is focused on housing supply and why it rejects the notion that the kind of tax changes suggested by Senator Pocock will be adopted by the government. (Time expired)