Given that a lot of people actually know what they are talking about when it comes to house prices and those people say doing things like this will actually only make house prices more expensive, because there would be more people able to borrow more, therefore increasing demand for houses, which INCREASES THE PRICE, doesn’t James Paterson see something in their criticisms?

Paterson:

We have a comprehensive plan that includes $5 billion for infrastructure to unlock 500,000 homes – that’s building the water and sewage and roads and electricity that allows housing developments to be commenced and bring those houses onto the market. (This is a subsidy for property developers)

We’re also reducing demand by cutting migration. We believe we’ll reduce migration by 100,000 a year in net overseas terms compared to Labor. And over the next few years, that will free up 100,000 homes.(this is a bit of a fantasy) We’re also going to reform the building industry to bring down costs of construction, because the CFMEU has been out of control, and that’s added to the cost of construction.(this has mostly been a commercial property site issue, not a private housing issue)

And we’re going to help deliver the skills we need to industry so they’ve got more workers who can help build homes with a $12,000 payment to small businesses who take on apprentices and trainees. (this will not lower house prices) It’s a comprehensive plan. Taken together, it reduces the pressure on demand – particularly from international visitors – it increases supply, and it backs first-home buyers, giving them a real advantage in the market.

You know what actually would work? Reforming the tax system so that housing wasn’t treated like an investment. The Greens have a policy which would grandfather negative gearing (on one property) for investors but would scrap the tax breaks moving forward.

On housing, James Paterson is asked:

Q: For first-home buyers, you’re promising to allow them to deduct interest akin to negative gearing. Do you know what this policy would do to house prices? Because a number of economists have some pretty serious concerns about this.

Paterson:

I have seen some of the commentary from economists and others, and I have to say when it comes from someone who owns their own home and probably bought it many years ago, it’s going to come across to many Australians as, frankly, pretty out of touch and tone-deaf.

I think people underestimate the generational despair among young Australians who’ve lost hope that they’ll ever be able to buy a home. Some polls show that up to three-quarters of young people believe they will never be able to buy a home.

That’s a disaster for our country.

Frankly, there is quite a lot of intergenerational resentment from young people. This is a really important point, I want to finish quickly. There is intergenerational resentment from young Australians who believe the cards have been stacked against them, and we want to fix that.

Q: But only a couple of weeks ago, your leader and Shadow Treasurer were pretty solid saying, “No, there’ll be no tax cuts. You wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility.” Have you been influenced at all by the coalition’s declining position in some opinion polls that you’ve decided this is a lever you had to pull?

James Paterson tries to sell this:

The difference between what Labor is proposing and what we’re proposing is ours is timely, it is targeted, and it is meaningful. It’s not baked into the budget forever, costing billions and billions and billions over many years. But it’s going to give people much more when they actually need it. So the same week that they’d be receiving a 70 cent-a-day tax cut under a re-elected Albanese Labor government, they could be receiving up to $1,200 from the Dutton Coalition government in a way that will really assist them when they really need it, but doesn’t bake in a structural spend in the budget.

Liberal party spokesperson James Paterson is next up on the media carousel. He seems a little cranky this morning.

He is asked by the ABC hosts:

Because we are in WA, I wanted to start off with a very WA-specific question. Why do you think that this used to be a Liberal Party stronghold – why do you think that Western Australians have turned away and that this is now a stronghold for the Labor Party?

Paterson:

Well, I wouldn’t get too ahead of myself if I was the prime minister and the government. Not a single vote has been cast yet, let alone counted. And it’s presumptuous to assume how Western Australians are going to vote before they have the opportunity to do so. But speaking more generally over the last couple of years, it’s certainly the case that state Labor governments in WA have been popular, particularly during the pandemic period. We know that the former premier was well-regarded because he closed Western Australia’s border and kept COVID out of the state for some period of time. That’s certainly lifted the Labor brand in WA.

Q: Let’s go to some WA. policies. Maybe let’s start with tax. Your party was pretty clear on this a couple of weeks ago, saying that Labor’s tax cuts in the budget were a blatant bribe. How then would you describe your tax offset, or tax payment, for low- and middle-income earners which was announced yesterday?

Paterson:

We describe it as a cost-of-living tax offset, and it’s desperately needed by many Australians because they’ve suffered so much from rising cost of living under the Labor Party’s watch, under the Prime Minister. I mean, grocery prices are up 30% over the last three years. Electricity prices are up 32%. Gas prices are up 34%. The Prime Minister promised Australians before the last election that they would be better off.

He even said that they would have cheaper mortgages. But that’s not Australians’ experience. They need help to try and restore their standard of living. We’ve got a comprehensive plan to do that. It includes immediate up-front relief with a reduction in petrol and diesel tax that will save people $14 every time they fill up. And ongoing assistance with reduced energy prices through our gas plan. But it also includes this one-off cost-of-living tax offset, because a lot of Australians have racked up big credit card bills on Labor’s watch over the last three years, and they need help.

What the Coalition is offering is a temporary return to the low and middle income tax offset, which the Morrison government set to phase out, and then Labor just continued on that path. It was created when the stage three tax cuts were originally laid out (because the Morrison government’s stage three tax cuts overwhelmingly favoured the wealthy) so the $1,500 for low and middle income workers was a little short term cushion for the permanent and terribly distributed stage three tax cuts. Labor changed the distribution of the stage three tax cuts, and then at the last budget (delivered last month) announced a modest ‘top up’ tax cut for most tax payers, which the Coalition called a “cruel hoax” and an “election bribe”.

The Greens will announce their latest policy – free university. They plan on increasing the tax for big corporations to pay for the $46.5bn plan.

Adam Bandt said its not only fair, it will also help even the playing field once a student has finished their degree.

(As a reminder, in 2023-2024, the Australian Government collected almost five times more from students ($5.1b) than from petroleum companies through the  Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT) ($1.1b).

Bandt said

Young people are being crushed by increasing student debt while they struggle with paying rent or affording the basics, in a housing and cost of living crisis.

IIn a wealthy country like ours, everyone should be able to have a good quality education. One in three big corporations pay zero tax. We should tax big corporations and billionaires to fund what we all need, like free tertiary education.

Experts predict we’re headed for a minority Parliament. This election, the Greens will keep Dutton out and get Labor to act on cost of living relief for young people, including by wiping all student debt and making university and TAFE free.”

Does Jim Chalmers expect house prices to increase with the 5% deposit idea? (The government is expanding the scheme where it will guarantee the rest of a (limited number) home buyer’s deposit, and lowering what is needed under the scheme from 10% to 5%)

Chalmers says:

On our advice, we’re not expecting there to be a substantial impact on demand or on prices. But also, you’ve got to recognise, James, that this is not the first step we’re taking in housing. We’ve got a $43 billion agenda, and the primary focus of that agenda is to build more homes. And again, that’s what goes to the difference here. We’re talking about smaller deposits and more homes. Our opponents are talking about fewer homes and higher prices. That’s because they will cut the Housing Australia Future Fund. That will mean fewer homes. And so, again, I think yesterday was a really important opportunity for the two sides to lay out their agenda. If you vote for Labor on the 3rd of May, you will get more homes and you’ll get smaller deposits. If you vote for Peter Dutton and the coalition, you’ll get fewer homes and high prices. That’s the difference.

Q: On the 5% – to stay on your policy for a minute – if we see a whole lot more first-home buyers rush into the market and then there’s a market downturn, will that mean that the government could be on the hook if people default on their loans?

Chalmers;

First of all, it’s very unusual in Australia to see that outcome. Secondly, we know from the existing program that there has been an absolutely miniscule amount of defaults on these debts. So we are extremely confident that this is a very responsible way to get more first-home buyers into the market – and not in isolation, but by building more home for first-home buyers as well. So we’re dealing with the supply issues, which are the most important issues. We’re dealing with the issues around the deposits. Because those are the two biggest obstacles, to young Australians in particular – first-home buyers right around the country getting a toehold in the market. So we’re dealing with deposits and supply. Again, our opponents are dealing with – they want to propose fewer homes and higher prices for younger people, and that will make it harder for them, not easier.

Given independent candidates like Allegra Spender have wanted to see more on tax reform and a return to the Henry review, will a Labor government be looking at it for inspiration?

Jim Chalmers:

I understand, and I engage respectfully with the crossbench on some of the issues that they’ve raised with us in the tax system.

The Henry tax review is about 15 years old now. This was – the announcement that we made yesterday – was one of the recommendations of the Henry tax review.

But we have also made progress on tax reform in a number of other areas – production tax credits in our Future Made in Australia agenda, tax breaks for small business, three income tax cuts, changes to the PRRT, multinational tax reform, and so there’s been more tax reform in the first term than I think people have acknowledged.

And the tax reform that we proposed yesterday is important for all the reasons I’ve talked about – a simpler system, more cost-of-living relief going hand in hand with our tax cuts for every taxpayer, remembering – as I said before, and the coalition can’t dispute this – they’re going to the election with a policy to legislate high income taxes for all 14 million taxpayers. So that’s an important difference.

One of Labor’s announcements – the $1,000 tax deduction for work expenses, came from the review Kevin Rudd ordered of the tax system in 2008 (it was published in 2010). It was chaired by the then secretary of Treasury Ken Henry, which is why it’s known as the Henry review.

Labor didn’t do much with the review at the time (bit going on in 2010 as you may remember) and it’s just sort of sat there, being picked over from time to time for piece meal announcements.

Asked why he returned to it, Chalmers said:

I think this is an important tax reform because it simplifies the system, it makes it easier for people to interact with the tax system at tax time, and it also provides some additional cost-of-living relief as well.

If you think about our three rounds of tax cuts for every taxpayer, another $6 million or so stand to benefit from these standard deductions to help with the cost of living. If you’re on the average full-time wage up to a bit more than $300 a year on top of that $2,500 we’re providing with our tax cuts – so it’s another way to reform the tax system, to make it simpler, to make it easier for people, and also to provide a bit more cost-of-living help.

Jim Chalmers is out and about early while the Labor campaign gets ready to leave WA (it has been there since Friday).

Chalmers tells the ABC:

I think this election is going to be incredibly close. I think it will tighten up between now and election day. We’ve still got a few weeks until Australians will be asked to make a really important decision. And the choice that we’re asking Australians to make is between stability and responsibility from Labor in an uncertain world, or cuts and chaos under Peter Dutton and the Coalition. I think what we saw in the launches yesterday was that really important choice laid bare.

Labor helping with the cost of living, higher wages, lower taxes, making our economy more resilient amidst all of this global economic volatility, versus Peter Dutton and the Coalition, who are all about lower wages, higher taxes, no ongoing help with the cost of living, and these secret cuts to pay for their nuclear reactors.

So that’s what the choice will be between now and May 3. We are not complacent about the outcome. We take no outcome for granted. We think it’s going to be very close.

Hello and welcome to the third week of this five week election campaign. This week is the last chance Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have to convince voters of their plans before the easter break, and early voting begins, so the pressure is on.

We will examine the big housing and tax promises made at the Sunday campaign launches – as we reported when Peter Dutton was doing his budget reply speech, the Liberal party was considering making mortgage repayments tax deductible and well, they have hit the panic button and done it.

Labor meanwhile is looking to expand government’s role in building houses – but it doesn’t look like it will actually be going all the way and have the government directly involved in the building.

But, as we have been banging on about in this little blog, it seems that a vibe has taken hold this election and voters know the lay of the land.

As AAP reports:

When asked to predict the outcome of the May 3 election, 64 per cent of [Newspoll] respondents said they expected a Labor government while 36 per cent said they thought the coalition would win.

A Labor minority government – being backed up with the support of minor parties or independents – was thought the mostly likely result by 43 per cent.

The survey of 1271 voters was conducted online between April 7 and April 10, before the formal campaign launches of Labor and the coalition on Sunday.

Newspoll remains on 52-48 to Labor, but the Coalition’s primary vote has slipped again (I think this is the third Newspoll it has gone backwards)

We’ll cover all the day’s events with a little bit extra – we have some fact checks and explainers to drop out across the day.

Second coffee is on. It will not be the last.

Ready?

Let’s get into it.