April 22, 2025 • 16 mins
When Peter Dutton’s son, Harry, fronted the media to talk about his dream of home ownership, it was an attempt by the opposition leader to seem relatable.
The 20-year-old apprentice said he was “saving like mad”, but it’s unlikely he’d be able to save enough in the near future.
But it seems his father may have failed to anticipate the obvious question: would he help his son with a deposit?
As reporter Mike Seccombe observed, “if he said he wouldn’t help Harry, he would look mean and/or untruthful – and if he said he would help, it could be seen as an admission that despite his promises to fix the housing affordability crisis, his son, and by extension other people struggling to get into the housing market, still couldn't achieve home ownership without parental help”.
Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper Mike Seccombe, on why both major parties have policies that will see house prices rise – and what it means for the housing crisis.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: National correspondent for The Saturday Paper Mike Seccombe
Photo: AAP Image/Dean Lewins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So, Mike, I want to start with Peter Dutton's son, Harry.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I mean, we're saving luck mad but it doesn't look
like we'll get there in the near future, but we'd
love that to change.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
What did you think when you saw that press conference
where we had the opposition leader's son talking about his struggles.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Well, I thought it was an effort to kind of
humanize Dutton. I guess. I mean Harry's twenty, right, he's
a second year apprentice, and so his inability to save
enough to get into a house. It's a common story
and millions of other would be homeowners might relate to it,
except in one regard, which is, of course, that Harry
Dutton's father is a very wealthy man due to his
(00:39):
buying and selling of real estate.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Mike Secam is a reporter for the Saturday Paper. He's
been watching closely as Peter Dutton has made the dream
of home ownership for young Australians central to his campaign.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
But it seemed to me that he failed to anticipate
the obvious question when he trotted Harry up, you're doing
pretty well yourself.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Why won't you support him a bit and give him
a bit of help with getting his house.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
I haven't finished the excellent points I was making. The
next point is to why people should vote liberally.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
We so, having failed to answer quite a period of
time elapse better part of a day, and eventually, belatedly
on Tuesday, Dutton came out and conceded that he and
his wife would at some stage give Harry and Harry's
two siblings helped to buy a home.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
And I think our households are no different to many
households where you want our kids to work hard to
save and will help them with a deposit at some stage.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Which is lucky for them because frankly, under the housing
policies that their father advocates, the cost of buying a
home is only going to increase. On that all the
expert opinion is just overwhelming.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
But it's not just the Coalitions housing policy set to
drive up prices. Experts agree that Labour's will too, and
with the majority of Australians either owning their own home
or paying one off, it seems that maybe the point
schwarts Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am today.
National correspondent for the Saturday paper, Mike Sekham on what
(02:08):
the major parties are offering on housing and what it
means for the housing crisis. It's Wednesday, April twenty three,
so Mike, to begin with, can you just lay out
for me what Peter Dunne has said about housing in
(02:29):
this election campaign and what we know about his plans.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Dutton was very clear about this in his Budget reply
speech last month. He promised, and I'm quoting him, I
don't want young Australians locked out of the property market
or having to rely on the bank of Mum and dad.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I don't want young Australians locked out of the property
market or having to rely on the bank of mum
and dad. I want to see fewers Australians homeless and
more Australians in homes.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
There are two aspects to the Coalition's policy, and when
I spoke to the veteran independent economist Saul Eslick, he
described it as a contender for the title of worst
public policy of the twenty first century. So that's how
bad he thought it was. The first part is called
the Super Home Biers Scheme, and this has been Coalition
policy for a while and it would allow first home
(03:15):
buyers access to up to forty percent of their superannuation
balance up to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars to
put towards a deposit. Leaving aside the impact that would
have by allowing young people to raid their super and
what the impact that would have on their retirement, the
measure would inevitably pump up prices, says Eslack, and if
I might quite him at some length, sixty years of
(03:37):
history shows, without any shadow of it out that anything
else that allows people to spend more on housing than
they otherwise would whether that's first home an a grants,
stamp duty concessions, mortgage guarantee schemes, shared equity schemes, lower
interest rates, easier credit conditions, or tax breaks for property investors.
Anything that allows people to spend more than they otherwise
would results in more expensive housing. So it just means
(04:01):
more money chasing less housing. Essentially, you know, you have
two sides to the housing equation. One is supply, one
is demand. All of these sorts of things pump up
demand and do nothing for supply.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, And for it to work at all, Mike, young
people would presumably have to actually have the super to
be able to draw down. So how realistic is that?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, You make a very good point, and I found
tax Office starter. It's a few years old. In twenty
twenty two, the median superannuation balance for a woman aged
thirty to thirty four, you know, peak home buying sort
of age group, was just thirty four thousand dollars, and
for men of the same age it was just a
shade under forty thousand dollars. Now, bearing in mind that
(04:47):
the Coalition policy would only allow them to withdraw forty
percent of that nest egg, that would you give a
woman thirteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty dollars eighty cents
and fifteen nine hundred and eighty dollars forty for.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Men, Well, that's not going to get you very far.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Not in not in today's housing market. You're quite right,
And of course that was across all people. When you
look at the data for people who are in rental accommodation,
a quarter of them had balances of less than six
thousand dollars, which means, you know, they would only be
able to pull two four hundred dollars out of their suitpit,
you know, which is essentially nothing in today's market. Perhaps
(05:26):
the only real redeeming feature to it I suppose is
that it wouldn't cost taxpayers a lot. This would just
allow people access to their own superannuation money. So that's
a big aspect of this plan, and it's quite different
from the second aspect of the Coalition's plan, which the
Opposition as estimated would cost taxpayers one point twenty five
billion over the first four years of its operation. And
(05:49):
I've seen a number of commentators say it will probably
cost a lot more than.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
That, right okay, And this is the scheme like where
you can claim tax deductions from up to six hundred
and fifty thousand dollars dollars of your mortgage. So tell
me more about exactly how that would work and what
economists are saying about its impact.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Right okay, Well, this is the one that came pretty
much out of a clear blue sky at Dutton's policy launch.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
A Coalition government will allow you to deduct interest payments
on the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
a mortgage against your taxable income. We will allow these
deductions for five years, provided you continue to live in
that home for that period. This policy will be available
to individuals with the taxable income of one hundred and
seventy five thousand dollars or less, enjoyed applicants earning a
(06:36):
combined income of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or less.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Probably the most salient factor here is that this would
also disproportionately benefit people who are doing better. Going back
to Solsli, the way he sees this is one aspect
of the Coalition's policy. Super for housing allows people to
put down bigger deposits, which in turn allows them to
borrow more and pumps up the price of houses. The
interest deductibility on mortgages allows people to borrow a lot
(07:03):
more because it's the equivalent of reduction in interest rates
of roughly one third. So what's likely to happen is
that the beneficiaries of this scheme will just bid up
prices and make housing more expensive for everyone else. It's
hard to recall another policy that has been so comprehensively
bagged as the first home by a mortgage deductibility scheme.
(07:26):
There were hit pieces all over the place about this,
you know. One professor of economics called it frankly terrible
tax policy. Another said that it was incredibly administratively burdensome,
and if you wanted to just give people first home
bio grants. Then just give them first home bio grants.
Brendan Coates from the Gratin Institute said he was frankly
mystified about what compelled the Coalition to put this forward
(07:47):
when no quoting him, no serious housing policy expert had
called for it. He called it nuts.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Coming up after the break is Labour's plan nuts as well,
so Mike. On the same weekend that the Coalition announced
this doublem housing policy, Labor also announced their own. So
(08:17):
tell me what is on offer from them.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
What Anthony Albanez you promised at the campaign launch was
that if Labor were re elected, the government would allow
all first home buyers, regardless of their income, to buy
a home on just five percent deposit.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Our five percent deposit plan will be opening to every
Australian looking to buy their first home. It will be
available for homes valued all the way up to the
average price in every city and region, and you won't
have to pay a single dollar in mortgage insurance. Our
government will cover it.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
But the view is that just guaranteeing a lower deposit
would encourage what one called imprudent borrowing. The fact that
they know that the government will be covering them and
they left, but five percent buyers will probably once again
bid up the prices of housing. When comparing the respective
policies from the major party, Saulslake told me, quote, while
I don't like either of them, Labour's policy is less.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Worse, right, well, less worse is hardly an endorsement Mike
in the debate, though, last week Anthony Abernezi He was
arguing that Labor does have a policy to deal with supply.
So it's not just about helping people get into the market,
but it's also about broadening what is actually available. So
tell me a bit about that plan to boost housing stock.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Actually, both parties have plans that they say will increase supply,
but let's start with Labours because it's the bigger. Labour's
latest promise was to invest ten billion dollars in the
form of grants and zero interest loans in partnership with
state developers and the housing industry, and it claims that
by supplying these funds that will see up to one
(09:59):
hundred thousand new homes built, and those homes would be
reserved solely for first home buyers. Labor, of course has
a whole suite of other housing policies.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
There's the Help to Buy a scheme under which the
government would take an equity stake of forty percent in
first home purchases. It has a Build to Rent scheme
which offers tax incentives to developers to provide affordable units.
And it's ten billion dollar Housing Australian Future Fund, which
aims to build some thirty thousand social and affordable homes.
On the Coalition side, the big new promise was a
(10:30):
five billion dollar investment to go to local government to
help with the supply of infrastructure like water and surge
and roads and so on for new housing developments, which
it claims would help accelerate was the word they used,
the development of five hundred thousand homes. So the point
here is that both parties do have supply side measures
as well as things that pump up demand. But what's
(10:52):
really worth noting here is that neither of the major
parties is talking about reforming aspects of the tax system
that have long been identified as contributing to the housing crisis,
such as negative gearing and the overly generous discount on
capital gains tax for housing investors and stamp duties.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, I mean, as far as the major parties are concerned,
that conversation seems to be definitively over for the time being.
But what about the cross betch what do they have
to say about that?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, this I think is really interesting. As the act
Independent Senator David Percock told the ABC a week or
so back, what the community, he said, was crying out
for was a long term vision.
Speaker 5 (11:37):
We want to plan for this. We want to tackle
the things that have been in the too hard basket
for too long. When it comes to our tax system.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
He itemized them. He said, capital gains tax discounts, negative gearing,
stamp duty. They were all things that quote, we should
be dealing with, he said.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
And one of the ones that actually makes a lot
of sense, I think, given the politics and given the
need to start to turn the ship around, is to
grandfather existing arrangements to then cap going forward negative gearing
to one investment property seventy percent. People only have one
investment property. That seems pretty fair. And then to reduce
the capital gains tax discount to twenty five percent for
new bills for new supply.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Likewise, the Greens would limit negative gearing to one property
and grandfather the capital gains tax. Tasmania's Jackie Lamby would
be a little more generous to landlords. She would allow
maybe two or three negatively geared properties. And Allegraspender, who
took the Blue ribbon seat of Wentworth from the Liberals
at the last election, has actually produced possibly the most
comprehensive analysis of what needs to change.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
We need to put tax reform on the table. Just
look at stamp duty New South Wales. Trufetory says that
we could increase home ownership by six point six percent
in New South Wales if we replace stamp duty with
land tax.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Stamp duty is charged by the state and the general
criticism of stamp duty is that it imposes a big
transaction cost and that slows down the turnover of housing.
So the idea is that it should be replaced with
a land tax, which would remove the cost of buying
a house, but replace it with a long term tax
on actually living in that house. And so the theory
(13:07):
is that if that were done, you know, more of
those empty nesters who are living in big houses once
their kids have flown, would be encouraged to sell up
and buy something more suitable and there would be a
round robin of effects and as a result, more people
would be able to buy housing.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
And so, Mike, you have been paying very close attention
to the housing debate in Australia for a long time now.
You and I have had many conversations about it. What
is your view now on why it is that neither
major party really seems up to the task on this
particular issue, an issue that really I think almost every
(13:44):
voter has a stake in at this point.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Well, that's absolutely right. And perhaps the first point here
is that until a few decades ago, home prices increased
at roughly the same rate as wages, right, and then
they decoupled and house prices took off. Part of the
reason for that was various governments, state and federal level,
pursued policies that pumped up demand. You know. There were
various generous first home owner grant schemes, both state and
(14:08):
federal that put more money in the pockets of home
buyers so they could bit against other home buyers. And
there were also tax breaks you know that made housing
attractive to investors. You know, it's notable. I think that
the real escalation in home prices coincided with a decision
by the Howard government way back in nineteen ninety nine
to have the capital gains tax, and John Howard famously
(14:28):
celebrated the fact that that led a rocket house prices
and said that no one had ever complained to him
that the value of their home was going up. So
while these dumb policies over decades have seen a large
and growing number of people struggling to get into the
housing market or locked out of the housing market, it's
still the fact that an even larger group of people
(14:49):
own or are paying off a house. And so you know,
the parties have been pandering to that majority, and that majority,
naturally enough, wants to see the value of their asset increase.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Mike, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Also in the news today, both the Prime Minister and
opposition leader have taken time out of their election campaign
to mark the Pope's passing at age eighty eight. Prime
Minister Albanezi attended an early morning mass in Melbourne yesterday
where he told the press the Pope will quote be
recorded in history as one of the most significant of
all the Holy Fathers. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton paid his respects
(15:39):
at a mass held at Saint Mary's Cathedral in Sydney.
It's estimated that around twenty percent of the Australian population
just over five million people a Catholic, and more than
one hundred leaders from universities and colleges across the United
States have denounced the Trump administration's unprecedented government overreach and
political interference within higher education. The statement published yesterday comes
(16:02):
after a campaign by the Trump administration against many universities,
including Harvard. Harvard University is the first school to sue
the federal government after President Trump threatened to freeze two
point three billion dollars in university funding over its handling
of anti Semitism on campus. Harvard has previously rejected a
list of demands by the Trump administration, labeling them overreach.
(16:25):
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. See tomorrow.
So, Mike, I want to start with Peter Dutton's son, Harry.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I mean, we're saving luck mad but it doesn't look
like we'll get there in the near future, but we'd
love that to change.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
What did you think when you saw that press conference
where we had the opposition leader's son talking about his struggles.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Well, I thought it was an effort to kind of
humanize Dutton. I guess. I mean Harry's twenty, right, he's
a second year apprentice, and so his inability to save
enough to get into a house. It's a common story
and millions of other would be homeowners might relate to it,
except in one regard, which is, of course, that Harry
Dutton's father is a very wealthy man due to his
(00:39):
buying and selling of real estate.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Mike Secam is a reporter for the Saturday Paper. He's
been watching closely as Peter Dutton has made the dream
of home ownership for young Australians central to his campaign.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
But it seemed to me that he failed to anticipate
the obvious question when he trotted Harry up, you're doing
pretty well yourself.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Why won't you support him a bit and give him
a bit of help with getting his house.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
I haven't finished the excellent points I was making. The
next point is to why people should vote liberally.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
We so, having failed to answer quite a period of
time elapse better part of a day, and eventually, belatedly
on Tuesday, Dutton came out and conceded that he and
his wife would at some stage give Harry and Harry's
two siblings helped to buy a home.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
And I think our households are no different to many
households where you want our kids to work hard to
save and will help them with a deposit at some stage.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Which is lucky for them because frankly, under the housing
policies that their father advocates, the cost of buying a
home is only going to increase. On that all the
expert opinion is just overwhelming.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
But it's not just the Coalitions housing policy set to
drive up prices. Experts agree that Labour's will too, and
with the majority of Australians either owning their own home
or paying one off, it seems that maybe the point
schwarts Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am today.
National correspondent for the Saturday paper, Mike Sekham on what
(02:08):
the major parties are offering on housing and what it
means for the housing crisis. It's Wednesday, April twenty three,
so Mike, to begin with, can you just lay out
for me what Peter Dunne has said about housing in
(02:29):
this election campaign and what we know about his plans.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Dutton was very clear about this in his Budget reply
speech last month. He promised, and I'm quoting him, I
don't want young Australians locked out of the property market
or having to rely on the bank of Mum and dad.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I don't want young Australians locked out of the property
market or having to rely on the bank of mum
and dad. I want to see fewers Australians homeless and
more Australians in homes.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
There are two aspects to the Coalition's policy, and when
I spoke to the veteran independent economist Saul Eslick, he
described it as a contender for the title of worst
public policy of the twenty first century. So that's how
bad he thought it was. The first part is called
the Super Home Biers Scheme, and this has been Coalition
policy for a while and it would allow first home
(03:15):
buyers access to up to forty percent of their superannuation
balance up to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars to
put towards a deposit. Leaving aside the impact that would
have by allowing young people to raid their super and
what the impact that would have on their retirement, the
measure would inevitably pump up prices, says Eslack, and if
I might quite him at some length, sixty years of
(03:37):
history shows, without any shadow of it out that anything
else that allows people to spend more on housing than
they otherwise would whether that's first home an a grants,
stamp duty concessions, mortgage guarantee schemes, shared equity schemes, lower
interest rates, easier credit conditions, or tax breaks for property investors.
Anything that allows people to spend more than they otherwise
would results in more expensive housing. So it just means
(04:01):
more money chasing less housing. Essentially, you know, you have
two sides to the housing equation. One is supply, one
is demand. All of these sorts of things pump up
demand and do nothing for supply.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, And for it to work at all, Mike, young
people would presumably have to actually have the super to
be able to draw down. So how realistic is that?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well, You make a very good point, and I found
tax Office starter. It's a few years old. In twenty
twenty two, the median superannuation balance for a woman aged
thirty to thirty four, you know, peak home buying sort
of age group, was just thirty four thousand dollars, and
for men of the same age it was just a
shade under forty thousand dollars. Now, bearing in mind that
(04:47):
the Coalition policy would only allow them to withdraw forty
percent of that nest egg, that would you give a
woman thirteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty dollars eighty cents
and fifteen nine hundred and eighty dollars forty for.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Men, Well, that's not going to get you very far.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Not in not in today's housing market. You're quite right,
And of course that was across all people. When you
look at the data for people who are in rental accommodation,
a quarter of them had balances of less than six
thousand dollars, which means, you know, they would only be
able to pull two four hundred dollars out of their suitpit,
you know, which is essentially nothing in today's market. Perhaps
(05:26):
the only real redeeming feature to it I suppose is
that it wouldn't cost taxpayers a lot. This would just
allow people access to their own superannuation money. So that's
a big aspect of this plan, and it's quite different
from the second aspect of the Coalition's plan, which the
Opposition as estimated would cost taxpayers one point twenty five
billion over the first four years of its operation. And
(05:49):
I've seen a number of commentators say it will probably
cost a lot more than.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
That, right okay, And this is the scheme like where
you can claim tax deductions from up to six hundred
and fifty thousand dollars dollars of your mortgage. So tell
me more about exactly how that would work and what
economists are saying about its impact.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Right okay, Well, this is the one that came pretty
much out of a clear blue sky at Dutton's policy launch.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
A Coalition government will allow you to deduct interest payments
on the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of
a mortgage against your taxable income. We will allow these
deductions for five years, provided you continue to live in
that home for that period. This policy will be available
to individuals with the taxable income of one hundred and
seventy five thousand dollars or less, enjoyed applicants earning a
(06:36):
combined income of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or less.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Probably the most salient factor here is that this would
also disproportionately benefit people who are doing better. Going back
to Solsli, the way he sees this is one aspect
of the Coalition's policy. Super for housing allows people to
put down bigger deposits, which in turn allows them to
borrow more and pumps up the price of houses. The
interest deductibility on mortgages allows people to borrow a lot
(07:03):
more because it's the equivalent of reduction in interest rates
of roughly one third. So what's likely to happen is
that the beneficiaries of this scheme will just bid up
prices and make housing more expensive for everyone else. It's
hard to recall another policy that has been so comprehensively
bagged as the first home by a mortgage deductibility scheme.
(07:26):
There were hit pieces all over the place about this,
you know. One professor of economics called it frankly terrible
tax policy. Another said that it was incredibly administratively burdensome,
and if you wanted to just give people first home
bio grants. Then just give them first home bio grants.
Brendan Coates from the Gratin Institute said he was frankly
mystified about what compelled the Coalition to put this forward
(07:47):
when no quoting him, no serious housing policy expert had
called for it. He called it nuts.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Coming up after the break is Labour's plan nuts as well,
so Mike. On the same weekend that the Coalition announced
this doublem housing policy, Labor also announced their own. So
(08:17):
tell me what is on offer from them.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
What Anthony Albanez you promised at the campaign launch was
that if Labor were re elected, the government would allow
all first home buyers, regardless of their income, to buy
a home on just five percent deposit.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
Our five percent deposit plan will be opening to every
Australian looking to buy their first home. It will be
available for homes valued all the way up to the
average price in every city and region, and you won't
have to pay a single dollar in mortgage insurance. Our
government will cover it.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
But the view is that just guaranteeing a lower deposit
would encourage what one called imprudent borrowing. The fact that
they know that the government will be covering them and
they left, but five percent buyers will probably once again
bid up the prices of housing. When comparing the respective
policies from the major party, Saulslake told me, quote, while
I don't like either of them, Labour's policy is less.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Worse, right, well, less worse is hardly an endorsement Mike
in the debate, though, last week Anthony Abernezi He was
arguing that Labor does have a policy to deal with supply.
So it's not just about helping people get into the market,
but it's also about broadening what is actually available. So
tell me a bit about that plan to boost housing stock.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Actually, both parties have plans that they say will increase supply,
but let's start with Labours because it's the bigger. Labour's
latest promise was to invest ten billion dollars in the
form of grants and zero interest loans in partnership with
state developers and the housing industry, and it claims that
by supplying these funds that will see up to one
(09:59):
hundred thousand new homes built, and those homes would be
reserved solely for first home buyers. Labor, of course has
a whole suite of other housing policies.
Speaker 4 (10:07):
You know.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
There's the Help to Buy a scheme under which the
government would take an equity stake of forty percent in
first home purchases. It has a Build to Rent scheme
which offers tax incentives to developers to provide affordable units.
And it's ten billion dollar Housing Australian Future Fund, which
aims to build some thirty thousand social and affordable homes.
On the Coalition side, the big new promise was a
(10:30):
five billion dollar investment to go to local government to
help with the supply of infrastructure like water and surge
and roads and so on for new housing developments, which
it claims would help accelerate was the word they used,
the development of five hundred thousand homes. So the point
here is that both parties do have supply side measures
as well as things that pump up demand. But what's
(10:52):
really worth noting here is that neither of the major
parties is talking about reforming aspects of the tax system
that have long been identified as contributing to the housing crisis,
such as negative gearing and the overly generous discount on
capital gains tax for housing investors and stamp duties.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, I mean, as far as the major parties are concerned,
that conversation seems to be definitively over for the time being.
But what about the cross betch what do they have
to say about that?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Well, this I think is really interesting. As the act
Independent Senator David Percock told the ABC a week or
so back, what the community, he said, was crying out
for was a long term vision.
Speaker 5 (11:37):
We want to plan for this. We want to tackle
the things that have been in the too hard basket
for too long. When it comes to our tax system.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
He itemized them. He said, capital gains tax discounts, negative gearing,
stamp duty. They were all things that quote, we should
be dealing with, he said.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
And one of the ones that actually makes a lot
of sense, I think, given the politics and given the
need to start to turn the ship around, is to
grandfather existing arrangements to then cap going forward negative gearing
to one investment property seventy percent. People only have one
investment property. That seems pretty fair. And then to reduce
the capital gains tax discount to twenty five percent for
new bills for new supply.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Likewise, the Greens would limit negative gearing to one property
and grandfather the capital gains tax. Tasmania's Jackie Lamby would
be a little more generous to landlords. She would allow
maybe two or three negatively geared properties. And Allegraspender, who
took the Blue ribbon seat of Wentworth from the Liberals
at the last election, has actually produced possibly the most
comprehensive analysis of what needs to change.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
We need to put tax reform on the table. Just
look at stamp duty New South Wales. Trufetory says that
we could increase home ownership by six point six percent
in New South Wales if we replace stamp duty with
land tax.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Stamp duty is charged by the state and the general
criticism of stamp duty is that it imposes a big
transaction cost and that slows down the turnover of housing.
So the idea is that it should be replaced with
a land tax, which would remove the cost of buying
a house, but replace it with a long term tax
on actually living in that house. And so the theory
(13:07):
is that if that were done, you know, more of
those empty nesters who are living in big houses once
their kids have flown, would be encouraged to sell up
and buy something more suitable and there would be a
round robin of effects and as a result, more people
would be able to buy housing.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
And so, Mike, you have been paying very close attention
to the housing debate in Australia for a long time now.
You and I have had many conversations about it. What
is your view now on why it is that neither
major party really seems up to the task on this
particular issue, an issue that really I think almost every
(13:44):
voter has a stake in at this point.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Well, that's absolutely right. And perhaps the first point here
is that until a few decades ago, home prices increased
at roughly the same rate as wages, right, and then
they decoupled and house prices took off. Part of the
reason for that was various governments, state and federal level,
pursued policies that pumped up demand. You know. There were
various generous first home owner grant schemes, both state and
(14:08):
federal that put more money in the pockets of home
buyers so they could bit against other home buyers. And
there were also tax breaks you know that made housing
attractive to investors. You know, it's notable. I think that
the real escalation in home prices coincided with a decision
by the Howard government way back in nineteen ninety nine
to have the capital gains tax, and John Howard famously
(14:28):
celebrated the fact that that led a rocket house prices
and said that no one had ever complained to him
that the value of their home was going up. So
while these dumb policies over decades have seen a large
and growing number of people struggling to get into the
housing market or locked out of the housing market, it's
still the fact that an even larger group of people
(14:49):
own or are paying off a house. And so you know,
the parties have been pandering to that majority, and that majority,
naturally enough, wants to see the value of their asset increase.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Mike, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Also in the news today, both the Prime Minister and
opposition leader have taken time out of their election campaign
to mark the Pope's passing at age eighty eight. Prime
Minister Albanezi attended an early morning mass in Melbourne yesterday
where he told the press the Pope will quote be
recorded in history as one of the most significant of
all the Holy Fathers. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton paid his respects
(15:39):
at a mass held at Saint Mary's Cathedral in Sydney.
It's estimated that around twenty percent of the Australian population
just over five million people a Catholic, and more than
one hundred leaders from universities and colleges across the United
States have denounced the Trump administration's unprecedented government overreach and
political interference within higher education. The statement published yesterday comes
(16:02):
after a campaign by the Trump administration against many universities,
including Harvard. Harvard University is the first school to sue
the federal government after President Trump threatened to freeze two
point three billion dollars in university funding over its handling
of anti Semitism on campus. Harvard has previously rejected a
list of demands by the Trump administration, labeling them overreach.
(16:25):
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. See tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.