Wed 16 Apr
This debate is now closed.
The idea that it is unfair that young people will have to pay off the debt is incredibly silly concept. Think of the alternative. To have debt we cut spending on the hospitals that these young people are born in. We cut the schools that these young people will be educated in. The infrastructure they will use. Young people benefit from government services.
We get to the fight over the deficit and spending.
Everyone is spending, everyone is more serious about the deficit yadda, yadda, yadda – you have heard this all before.
I can hear Grogs screaming from my email, so I’ll check what he has to say.
Q: Would you put pressure on the states to give renters more certainty?
Albanese:
We delivered a renters’ rights program in agreement with states and territories that improved the rights of people renting and in addition increased maximum rental assistance by 45% in this term. In addition, Peter just raised super. If you give everyone super access to $50,000 and everyone at the auction will have $50,000 more, it will bid up prices as it did in New Zealand.
Again, it does nothing for supply. What we have is a reservation of 100,000 homes, just for first home buyers that will give them an opportunity because they won’t be competing with investors. We see that working in South Australia. We want to a place on Monday. 110 house-houses built, 40 will be just for first homeowners.
We get to rentals and it is maybe the first time Peter Dutton has had to consider the one-third of Australian voters who rent.
Q: Now, rent in capital cities has gone up a lot more than incomes over the last few years since COVID. Five times more than incomes have gone up. Many renters have been contacting us, raising concerns about what is in this election for them. They can’t afford a crippling mortgage in Sydney or Melbourne. Are either of you willing to give renters more rights? One of their concerns is the instability. That I can only get a 12-month tenancy.
Peter Dutton:
As you said, David, it’s an issue for the states. There’s a leadership role for the states. In terms of trying to protect the rights of renters and landlords, yes, you want a sensible position You would support longer rentals. I’m happy to support sensible reforms. As you pointed out, it’s for the states.
The focus on this election who is better to fix the housing crisis this Government created. Our policy is to allow young people to put money back to super when they sell the house but it gets them in the property market to start with. To do that we increase their overall net position. As people age and pay off mortgage and go into retirement, that I’re in a much stronger position if their mortgage is paid off completely, they have lost home hope of that under this government.
The idea that the housing crisis just emerged in the last three years is absolutely laughable.
There is no policy at this election that will juice demand for housing than allowing people to access their super to buy a house. This policy will be the biggest gift for people who own houses and the worst thing for people trying to buy a house.
Albanese:
Can I make this point. Peter’s suggestion this has been a problem that developed in the last two years is a nonsense. Everyone watching this program knows that this has been developing for a long period of time. We have not had enough homes been built. The former government did not bother to have a housing minister for half the time they were in office. What we’ve done since we came to office, is look towards the big issue which is supply.
Q: Can I ask you to come to the question, which is about the tax breaks for investors. Negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount. Why aren’t you willing to touch those?
Albanese:
The experts say that what that potentially do is is diminish supply, not increase it. That’s why the key to fixing the housing issues is supply. That is why Peter speaks about his infrastructure plan. We’ve already announced and are rolling out two rounds of our housing infrastructure fund, doing exactly that, making sure that sewerage and energy and that is fixed up, as well we work with states and territories to increase density where it is appropriate to make sure more homes can be built.
Q: Coming back to the tax treatment of housing investment, Mr Dutton, do you have any problem with investors using tax breaks to buy multiple properties, four, five, six?
Dutton:
Let me come to that. Anthony, your government modelled negative gearing changes and CGT. The Treasurer has done that.
Albanese:
That not right. It is Under our public service, we rigghtly value the public service, we value them coming up with ideas and various assessments, that is what happened. (There is an argument over whether it was commissioned or modelled)
I have been very clear of our position and why that is the case.
Speers:
Was it modelled?
Albanese:
It certainly wasn’t commissioned by us.
Dutton:
It was modelled by the Government. That’s publicly available. This Prime Minister has a problem with the truth. It’s not just in relation to this debate. There are many aspects that you could pick up in the course of this campaign. That’s where the Prime Minister misled the Australian people….
Speers ignores him:
Multiple properties, all these tax breaks no, problem with that?
Dutton:
I have stated very clearly, we want a sustainable housing market, which includes rental stock. Now, if you want to cut out negative gearing, as the Labor Party and the Greens would love to do, you will stop investment taking place for properties that are ultimately rented by young Australians. All of us started renting something, somewhere, and the dream was to buy a home but they lost that dream. If we stop negative gearing we will drive up the cost of rents they are already up 18% under this government. I want to make sure we have an investment class that is an asset class that is able to be invested in. The Greens, who likely could form a minority government with the Prime Minister if he is successful at this election, they have as a stated policy that they want to abolish negative gearing.
There is some argy bargy over negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts and both agree that they won’t be doing it because they don’t think it will solve any problems (sure, Jan) but they argue over who is more right about that.
Peter Dutton says it will increase rents.
As Grogs says:
In the 1980s negative gearing was removed for a couple years and in some cities rents went up in others they didn’t. Negative gearing has no real impact on rental prices. But it is a handy line to pretend it is anything other than a tax dodge
Just a reminder that over the last 10 years the population (demand for housing) have increased by 16% but the number of dwellings (supply of housing) has increased by 19%. Supply is increasing faster than demand.
Peter Dutton:
Why do we find ourselves in a position in this country, it’s important to say. Over the past two years, the Government has brought in people all of who want homes and competing with younger Australians to purchase a home or a rental property. That’s a million people, 70% higher than any 2-year period in our country’s history.
The demand the Prime Minister generated has created a housing crisis, at the same time you have had the CFMEU and others who choked supply, stopped houses being built. It’s been this perfect storm that every Australian understands.
Q: Coming back to your plans that will boost demand even more.
Dutton:
We have five elements to our plan. The first element is a $5 billion fund where we work with councils and identify where they have land releases that are stalled at the moment, simply because they can’t afford the sewerage or the water or the road upgrade, so that will bring on 500,000 new home lots. That is on the supply side a very significant benefit.
The second part is we reduce migration by 25%, so that we can allow the housing stock to be built up again and by doing that, as well as stopping foreigners for two years from purchasing Australian homes, we give Australian, young Australians a go. The next part of our plan, which I think is incredibly important is to make sure that we can say to young Australians locked out of the housing market, under the government at the moment, that for the first $650,000 of your mortgage, that will be interest that you can claim against your income.
So for an average household, about $11-12,000 over five years.
Q: It is a lot more for higher income earners than low. This is regressive. It helps wealthier investors.
Dutton:
It provides for an average taxpayer $11,000 a year, $1,000 a month. More on high incomes. It serves two purposes. One is when you go to the bank you have a higher level of disposable income, so you are more likely to get a loan.
Secondly it helps you service a loa. David, in our country at the moment, young Australians are putting off having kids and parents and grand parents staying in the workforce longer because though they worked hard and saved for their retirement, they can’t afford to retire because they have to chip in for their kids to pay the mortgage.
Migrants are not driving up house prices. When the borders were closed house prices increased 20%.
