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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Given that it is now over two years since former Commonwealth Bank chief executive David Murray called on the government to examine a raft of tax breaks that distort borrowing, including negative gearing and capital gains tax, why will the government not heed his advice and assist young homebuyers and reduce intergenerational inequality?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are doing is trying to provide incentives and opportunities to young Australians to get a home. We are doing that through a series of policies and measures that will give them the opportunity to get ahead. I quoted in answer to your leader, Senator Cameron—had you been listening to the first question asked—what the government's record on job creation has been. It has been a fantastic record: the strongest rate of jobs growth since the GFC. That is a result of this government's policies. Most of the beneficiaries of those new jobs have been younger Australians. That is what we are doing, Senator Cameron—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Cameron?

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

On relevance. The question went to the issue of David Murray's inquiry and his position on negative gearing and capital gains tax. The minister has not gone to those issues.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I make this point in relation to your point of order—and probably to previous points of order—and for those to consider when they make future points of order: it is not for me to judge the merit of the minister's answer; it is for me to judge whether the minister is directly relevant to the question. Senator Cameron, your question was, 'Why will the government not heed his advice?' You added a bit more to that, but the prime portion of your question was: 'Why will the government not heed his advice?' The minister has been directly relevant. Whether you like the answer or not, he's been directly relevant, because he's indicating possibly why the government is not heeding his advice. That's the way I have to interpret, and that is the way I will continue to interpret. So I don't want points of order to be where you restate the question. I've been very generous with points of order for a long period of time. I just emphasise that I will judge whether the minister is being directly relevant to the question and not the merit of the answer. Senator Wong, on the point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could seek leave to—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to entertain a further point of order, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will certainly have regard to what you have said. We accept your ruling. I would simply make the point that Senator Cameron was making a point of order in relation to direct relevance. I accept that you didn't accept that, but that was the point of the point of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've made my ruling and I call the Attorney-General.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm simply making the point to you, Senator Cameron, that when you make the economy more prosperous, as this government has done as a direct result of its policies, when you create more jobs, as this government has done as a result of its policies, when jobs growth is stronger now than it has been at any time since the GFC almost a decade ago, directly as a result of the government's policies, and when you put more young people in particular into work, into good jobs, into full-time jobs, at better wages, which has happened as a result of this government's policies, then those young people have a greater opportunity to get into the housing market, as they are doing. Nevertheless, Senator Cameron, since you asked me more particularly, let me give you the details of some of the other measures, apart from growing the health of the economy, that the government has also taken to address the issue of housing affordability. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question?

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

Australia is the second most expensive housing market of advanced economies, and home ownership for all age groups is declining under the Turnbull government. When will the Prime Minister concede that the distortions identified by David Murray are increasing inequality as homebuyers face stagnant wages and are locked out of the market by wealthy investors?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say, Senator Cameron, given your history and, perhaps, recent events, I am very surprised to hear you invoking the chief executive of a bank as your authority on a question on equity.

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

It was the chair of the committee of inquiry.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be that as it may, Senator Cameron, let me tell you—through you, Mr President—about some of the other measures the government has taken in order to enhance housing affordability. Through our Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Plan, the government is committing $570 million in spending and new incentives to unlock supply, to encourage more investment in affordable rental housing and to deliver additional homelessness funding. We are providing practical solutions across the entire housing spectrum, from Australians struggling to put a roof over their heads right through to older Australians looking to downsize. Our package will make more homes available— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question?

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

Isn't it clear that the Turnbull government's refusal to level the playing field between first home buyers and wealthy investors is worsening inequality in Australia?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the very opposite of the truth, Senator Cameron. If you merely listened to the answer, rather than staring off into space, you might learn something. The package that I've just outlined will make housing more available through collaboration across all levels of government to increase the supply of housing. The plan, which I'm asking you to listen to, Senator Cameron, involves a $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility to build the critical infrastructure needed to bring forward the supply of housing; a new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with the states and territories to provide funding certainty for homelessness services; and Commonwealth land releases, including the release of 127 hectares of Department of Defence land in Maribyrnong, to open up more land for development. The package will make housing more affordable for Australians through savings incentives. (Time expired)