Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Gallagher today relating to housing affordability.

It is day one of the budget sell, and Malcolm Turnbull has wasted no time in reminding Australians how out of touch he is with everyday Australians struggling to buy their first home. It was really his Joe Hockey moment. Remember that? 'Go and get a good job in order to get a house.' Well, today we all got an insight into the world in which the Prime Minister lives, when, in response to being questioned around housing affordability, and Jon Faine explaining that his kids had been locked out of the housing market, the Prime Minister said, 'Well, you should shell out for them.' That is exactly what he thinks. He thinks that, in order to compete in the housing market today, young people should rely on their parents to give them the money to break into the housing market. I am not sure that the Prime Minister realises that there are one million households living in either mortgage stress or rental stress in this country.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He knows it better than you do.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think the comments that he made this morning would indicate that he understands how hard young people who do not have the benefit of parents in a position to financially support their entry into the housing market are doing it at the moment. We got a bit of an insight into it in Four Corners on Monday night, when we saw them showcase the individual stories of young people with quite significant amounts of money trying to compete in the Australian housing market as it is structured now and not being able to. It was unbelievable that a young woman who has saved $150,000 has spent nearly two years attending auctions around her city, trying to break in and getting outbid every single time—including in the episode we saw, within approximately one minute of the bidding commencing.

Perhaps if this were an isolated incident, perhaps if it were just a dismissive reference to housing affordability—but you have to see the Prime Minister's comments in the context of a budget that did absolutely nothing to address housing affordability. That budget was handed down last night. I am not even sure that it mentions the words 'housing affordability'. There was not one initiative in it that sought to rebalance the playing field and enable first-home buyers to compete in a level way with investors. There was no certainty for the housing agreements with the states. There was no certainty for the homelessness sector. More than 100,000 people sleep homeless every night in this country. The services that support them got no recognition in the budget last night. I see that a number of housing groups are coming out today bemoaning the lack of attention to housing affordability. So we have to see the Prime Minister's comments dismissing housing affordability as an issue, telling people that their parents should be buying them a house, in that context.

We should also see them in the context of what we saw last week, when the Prime Minister dismissed as 'beside the point'—I think those were the words used—the fact that high-income earners get the vast majority of the capital gains concessions because, as he explained for all of us, they tend to own more property. It was beside the point that they took the vast amount—I think the top 10 per cent of income earners take 70 per cent—of the capital gains tax concession as it stood in the budget.

Those are the contexts that you have to see these comments in. They are not isolated. They symbolise the leader of this country, the Prime Minister, who is heading into an election where housing affordability is a genuine issue that deserves attention from policymakers. There have been three years of no housing policy. There is no housing policy from this government. There is no housing affordability strategy. There have been three ministers responsible, and we have a Prime Minister who—and we can only judge him on the words he uses and the comments he makes—dismisses housing affordability as a bit of a joke or as something that you can pass off onto other people to pay for, for parents to pay for their kids to enter the housing market.

Those are the contexts that we see those comments in. They cannot be dismissed. They deserve the proper attention from a government that cares about the issue of housing affordability, because I know from the people who talk to me that there are millions of people who either think they will never buy a house or have certainly given up on the dream for the short term.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

What a pathetic, predictable performance from Senator Paterson. In terms of dealing with the economic issues, to say that we are not dealing with an economic issue when we are dealing with housing affordability just beggars belief. One of the biggest economic issues faced by any young family in this country, by any family trying to get ahead, is that of trying to afford to buy a house. If they are lucky enough, they scrape together a deposit for a house. Most young couples, now, have to rely on rental accommodation, with the rents going through the roof.

Not everyone can do what the Prime Minister did. He told Jon Faine the other day that he should 'shell out' for his kids because he is a 'wealthy man'. Not everybody can shell out to provide economic support for their kids. Too many Australians are battling to survive on their own, now. They just survive to put food on the table. If Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is so out of touch that he thinks people can easily shell out to get their kids a home, so be it. Faine said, 'That's what my kids say: that I should shell out for them.' The Prime Minister said, 'There you go. You have the solution in your own hands. You can provide a bit of intergenerational equity in your own family.'

I think The Prime Minister has been providing some intergenerational equity in his own family. According to an article in Domain, the Fairfax real estate pages, on 6 July 2013, the PM's daughter, Daisy Turnbull Brown—then 28—had listed her Potts Point apartment, for sale, for offers over $3 million. It went on to say that Ms Turnbull Brown is a history teacher!

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where at?

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

I do not know where at, Senator, but I know that history teachers in New South Wales, after a number of years of experience, are on about $65,000 a year. But Miss Daisy Turnbull Brown is able to buy a subpenthouse, with knockout views of the harbour and city skyline, in 2008—she was then aged 23—for the pricey sum of $2.7 million. A history teacher. There was a bit of intergenerational equity getting moved in that one, because there is no doubt that Ms Turnbull Brown had no chance, under her own steam, of getting such a penthouse with stunning views.

People around the country just cannot do this. We know what is going on around there. We know the electorates with the biggest gains are in the top 10 electorates, with the biggest net rental losses. They are: Wentworth—the Prime Minister's; Curtin—Julie Bishop; Kooyong—Josh Frydenberg; Bradfield—Paul Fletcher; and on it goes. The top 10 suburbs, to get access to negative gearing and money from negative gearing, are all the well-heeled Liberal electorates. It is the surgeons, anaesthetists, lawyers, mining engineers and finance managers who are getting the benefit. It is not ordinary working people.

If you go to areas where I live, out in the western suburbs of Sydney, in Parramatta, the average wage is $51,303. They will not get one brass razoo, not one bit of tax relief from this budget. And what is the median house price in Parramatta? It is $1.042 million. Tell those people they should be supporting their kids to get into housing. Tell the people in Parramatta. Tell the people in St Clair, where the average income is $49,000 and the average house price is $620,000. Tell them negative gearing is a good thing. Tell them they should support their kids. I know what they will tell you: get real. Get in touch with the real-life people of this country and stop the nonsense that negative gearing promotes. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron always plays politics and had a dig at a very successful businessman and his wife: the Prime Minister and Lucy Turnbull.

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

I did not mention her.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you tell us about your waterfront flat, down here, on the Kingston foreshore or how much your house is worth? Why didn't you tell us about what you have? I will tell you now. My wife and I owned a $100,000 house and we mortgaged it for a second time to help my eldest son, David, to get into his house in Cairns so that he did not have to pay mortgage insurance. We helped them get there because they couldn't find a deposit themselves. That is what we did. It was from the perspective of very little money.

You have done very well out of working for the union movement, and you were supposed to be working for the battling unions. Let's have a look at your portfolio, Senator Cameron, before you attack the Prime Minister for being very successful.

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

It’s all there. Have a look.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I laugh, Mr Deputy President. When it comes to housing affordability—you can go out to the country towns—

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

No wonder, because nobody in New England will get a brass razoo!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you bloody listen for a change you might learn something, fool.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Senate will—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps, he might cease interjecting. That might be a good idea as well.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will give it a go.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want everyone to calm down. You will need to formally withdraw that, Senator Williams—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw; I gladly withdraw. Sorry for my—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I would ask that the Senate do come to order.

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

I will leave. It is not worth being here.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would probably help bring it to order, Mr Deputy President. That is good; thank you. You can go to country—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just wait one moment, Senator Williams. I do want the Senate to come completely to order before I set you off again.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On housing affordability, why don't you move out to country towns? You can go to where I live—Inverell, a beautiful town of 12,000 people. There are no water restrictions and water is guaranteed from Copeton Dam. Less than $300,000 would buy you a three-bedroom, brick veneer home on a 500- or 600-square metre block. We do not have a housing affordability problem in Australia; we have a land problem. The reason the houses are so expensive in the cities is not the houses; it is the land—that is the value. What do we have plenty of in this country? We have plenty of land. But people will not move out to the country areas, where we have all the room for the people, and we want to grow the towns and we want to grow the businesses. No, they all want to be on top of each other, stacked in a heap in the middle of an over-congested city. They wonder why houses are so expensive—it is because of the value of the land. This is outrageous.

Let us talk about the negative gearing changes that those opposite want to introduce if they are successful in the election. Some of you over there in the Labor Party should go up to Mackay and check out the 1,400 or so empty houses that mum and dad workers have borrowed money for to buy as an investment. Those houses are now empty and they are not getting any return—it is actually costing them for rates, insurance and upkeep on those houses—and you want to take away the little bit of tax benefit they get for the borrowed money. They will not be voting for you, when you want to destroy their livelihoods all because they had a go. What did they do? They had a go. This country is about rewarding those people who work hard and have a go. But those opposite want to reward failure and penalise success. That is what your policy of socialism is all about—supported, of course, by the Greens, who are the ultimate socialists in this building. They just say, 'If you work hard and become successful, that is so wrong.' I congratulate people who have worked hard, have become successful and have saved. You see it so often, but perhaps not often enough.

When it comes to housing affordability, move out to the regional towns. Why don't you move out? Have a look at the senators here in this place. How many are based in regional Australia? Of the 76, you would probably get about 10—perhaps 10 of the 76. Get out to the country areas. I proudly have my office in a country area, to support the businesses and the money going into the town. These negative gearing changes proposed by those opposite are going to do nothing except reduce the value of those houses. You are going to force them to sell. Those people who bought these second-hand houses as an investment in a mining town when the mining boom was here and it was looking good—but, of course, that has passed us now, and we have the collapse in the iron ore and the coal prices—are now facing a disaster where their house is empty and they cannot rent it and probably cannot sell it, because there is not enough demand there. Yet you talk about a housing problem.

Housing affordability is really serious in the cities, but it has been brought on. As I said, go out to the country areas, where housing affordability is not a problem. In fact, you can buy a house for $250,000 and you can rent it for $300 a week. It would cost you very little to actually buy the house, as far as the rent return on it. But, of course, if you do happen to lose money, those opposite say, 'No, you can't negative gear that.' But those opposite do not like investment. You even brought in a law that said that, if you earn more than $250,000 gross income in Australia, if you buy a it is not tax deductible. That came in on 1 January 2013. So if you are doctor, a dentist, a solicitor or a politician, Labor say, 'We don't want you to buy a business or invest in land.' You would rather foreigners by our land, wouldn't you? That is how the people over there think and it is how they act. As far as housing affordability goes, there is one simple solution: move out to the regional areas—they are great places with great people and cheap housing—and your problems will be solved, hopefully, forever.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can tell it is the last day of school in the Senate, can't we! In question time, Senator Brandis really could not defend the Prime Minister's response to Jon Faine's questioning and the Prime Minister's quite unthoughtful—let alone un-thought out—answer that Jon Faine should shell out for his own kids' homes. I noticed that there was a lot of yelling and a lot of unseemly behaviour in question time today. I think those on the other side thought that, the louder they yelled, the more people would believe them. There are a couple screechers over there, but there are also a couple of very loud males who were getting fairly hot under the collar today, going quite red and sort of losing it. I have to say that it was a pretty disastrous attempt all round by those on the other side today—bearing in mind that this could be the last question time of this parliament.

Senator Paterson made a contribution to today's speech. He was talking about how he and his wife are saving to buy a home, and I thought that was absolutely legitimate. But then he said, 'Because of the privileged position I am in, I'll be able to buy a home.' He is absolutely right—we are all in privilege positions. Him saying, 'Because of the privileged position I am in,' and implying—and he can come back and tell me I am wrong—that, because he earns the money he earns, and we all earn, in this place, he can afford a house means that people who are not earning high incomes cannot afford a house. If you do not work in a privileged position and you do not have parents that have enough money to be able to shell out for you, what do you do? We know this government have absolutely no plan around housing affordability. They have completely ignored the whole issue for about three years. The Treasurer keeps describing things as a 'national economic plan', but what sort of national economic plan does nothing to address the major cost facing every vulnerable household—that is, housing?

The government had the opportunity to make housing more affordable for low- and moderate-income families by introducing changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. We have thoroughly researched and costed the plan to address this problem. We would be absolutely delighted for the government to adopt this plan as their own, as they have with a number of other things, not only in the budget but throughout the last three years—opening roads that we gave funding for and doing all sorts of things where we supplied the funding and they took all the credit. We would be absolutely delighted if they were to pick up our housing policy or to even come up with a housing affordability strategy themselves—because we have seen nothing. We certainly did not see anything in the budget, as the previous speakers on this side have said.

What can you say about a budget with no policy, no strategy, no ideas and no new financing option for affordable housing?

There is no increased Commonwealth rent assistance to assist renters, no increase to public housing funding to provide more public housing and no new money for rental affordability incentives to leverage private investment to provide more stock for renters.

I know that in Tasmania, my home state, houses are comparatively cheap compared to the rest of the country, but people still cannot afford to buy houses. My daughter—29 years old; married for a couple of years—is saving, saving, saving; she is trying to get into the housing market. It will take her a lot longer than it ever took us. And if you think back to the time when most of us were buying our first homes, we could do it at a fraction of the cost of our average income compared with what people are paying today for mortgages. And I would ask those on the other side to think that through.

Senator Williams's answer was for everyone to move to rural areas. I remind Senator Williams that it was his previous Treasurer who commented, 'Poor people don't drive cars'. In Tasmania there is no public transport—and I am pretty sure it is probably the same problem for a lot of the rest of regional and rural Australia. There is no public transport and there is no work, so there is not much point in just saying that we can solve this problem by everybody moving to rural and regional areas, because that is absolute rubbish! If there is no public transport— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.