Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, in response to a relatively direct question from Senator Faruqi, you refused to rule out changes to negative gearing under a future Labor government. Minister, will you take this opportunity to be clear and to rule out any future changes to negative gearing?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do remember that answer yesterday, and I have to confess this to the Senate chamber, which probably didn't listen to all of the content after the first bit of, 'Why won't you negotiate with us?' which I thought really was such an interesting question to ask, given that the bill we are talking about has been before the parliament for 290 days. It is amazing how long the Australian Greens can work to not get a vote, because they're so worried about voting with Mr Dutton. That's what it is.

Our housing policy is clear. It does not include the tax changes that you reference. It includes the bill before the chamber, and what I would say to you is that you should support the legislation.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that your policy on stage 3 tax cuts was clear as well, until it changed. In her 2015 book, Two Futures: Australia at a Critical Moment, the now Minister for Housing, Ms O'Neil, said, 'We need to wind back negative gearing,' and argued the case to do so. Minister, given the tricky words that you're choosing to use now and your refusal to rule out changes to negative gearing, can you rule them out now—or how can Australians believe Mr Albanese? (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's just be clear what we're doing here: those opposite are voting with the Australian Greens to stop houses being built. That's what's happening. Those opposite are voting with the Australian Greens to stop houses being built. So, in an attempt to find something else to talk about, they bring up a scare campaign from many years ago. The Treasurer has made clear that we have no plans to change negative gearing arrangements.

But what I would say to those opposite is: instead of talking about what we're not doing, why don't you talk about what we're doing? Why don't you allow us to bring on a vote on the bill? Why not, for a change, do something other than just vote no? You vote no, you vote no and you vote no, and the reason you do is that you don't have any positive plans for Australia. You're not about helping people; you're simply about obstructing.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, second supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister said in relation to the stage 3 tax cuts, 'My word is my bond,' and then he and all of you kept saying, 'Our policy is clear,' as you've just said about negative gearing. Minister, the government broke its word on stage 3 tax cuts, on superannuation changes, on industry-wide employer bargaining and on its promise not to touch franking credits. It's broken its word again and again. How can anybody believe you when you now won't make a crystal-clear statement on negative gearing?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what happened on stage 3? Do we remember what happened on stage 3? Did Mr Dutton say he was going to oppose it? Did Mr Dutton say he was going to oppose it before, miraculously, they voted for it? Miraculously, they voted for it, and now they come in here having a go about tax cuts that they—eventually, reluctantly—voted for because they were the right thing to do. That really is a demonstration of how, frankly, pathetic the opposition is. They are now trying to whip up a fear campaign around tax cuts that they supported. If we want to talk about people not telling people the truth, tell us about the $315 billion worth of cuts that Senator Hume wants. (Time expired)