Doorstop Interview

‍Subjects: Increased house prices under Labor, 5% deposit scheme, Net Zero, Newspoll results

E&OE………

Senator Bragg

What we've seen over the last month is an absolute disgrace in Australia. We've seen a government that is almost deliberately increasing house prices at the entry level. So, the 5% deposit scheme, which was debased on the 1st of October, when the government opened it up to children of billionaires. We've now seen the evidence from that first month. And what we've seen is the biggest increase in house prices at the entry level in years. Now, the government knew that it had failed on supply. It had failed to get the houses built, so it increased demand, and the product of a constrained supply side and increasing demand was always going to be higher prices. And so, it's very unfair on younger Australians. We're now seeing the highest growth in entry-level house prices in their living memory. So, this 5% deposit scheme is directly increasing house prices, and directly making it harder for young people to get their slice of the Australian dream. So, I want to make it very clear that if you're a younger person trying to buy your first house, it's going to be harder because the prices are higher because of the government's 5% deposit scheme. The 5% deposit scheme is making your life harder, not easier.

Now, we have tried, since July, to get the modelling behind the 5% deposit scheme. We suspect the Treasury issued detailed warnings that would have shown the Minister and the Prime Minister, how bad this scheme is going to be, and the impact on prices - we've been trying since July. We can't get any outcome because the government uses its executive power and treats the Senate like dirt. As we saw last week, the government doesn't control the Senate, and they should be very careful here. If the Senate has ordered the production of documents, that should be supplied by the executive. We're not here to fly down here to Canberra, to the Bush Capital, to waste taxpayer's funds just to do bugger all, and go to a hotel and go to sleep at night. We're here to do work for the Australian people. Our job is to get to the bottom of things, to get documents, to get transparency and accountability. The government is wasting taxpayer funds and making people's lives harder with this scheme. We want to know the truth behind what Treasury said about this scheme, and we will try again this week to get to the bottom of it. And if that means the government's going to have longer Question Times or more difficult times - who gives a rats, because we're here to do a job, and the Australian people would expect that we will not give up in getting documents which belong the Australian people.

Journalist

Senator Bragg, to play devil's advocate, the Coalition policy, the housing policy to help first home buyers that you guys took to the election, was also criticised by economists that it would also push up house prices. Do you concede that, in an attempt to offer financial support to first home buyers, that's just a matter of things – that it will push up house prices?

Senator Bragg

Most of our policies at the last election were on the supply side. In the future, I can guarantee you that 85% of our policies, or thereabouts, will be on the supply side, because we know the government has failed to get the houses built. Under the last government, we were getting about 200,000 houses a year on average. Now we're down to 170,000 a year on average. So, that's the key. There can be a place for demand-side measures. But in this case, the government has opened it up as a free-for-all for everyone, including, eventually, children of billionaires. So, it's the wrong design, and it's increasing and inflating the prices right here and now.

Journalist

We'll shift to the topic of climate policy. Should Net Zero by 2050, so regardless of whether it's a legislation, just Net Zero by 2050, be up to debate and any compromise between the Liberals and Nationals?

Senator Bragg

Well, I think the Nats make a fair point when they say that the Net Zero mandates have been negative in some communities. But, it's not exactly the fault of the Paris Agreement or Australia's international treaty obligations. This is the failure of domestic legislation. This is the failure of domestic policies. So, what I'd say to you is it makes sense for Australia to show fidelity to its treaty obligations, and that's very important. But, we've got to make sure that we're getting the domestic rules right, to make sure that you get cheap power, reliable power, but also cut emissions. So you've got to do all of those things.

Journalist

You've been a champion of Net Zero. Are you happy to have just a policy that aims to reduce emissions without the wording of Net Zero?

Senator Bragg

You have to have Net Zero in some form. I mean, there's no doubt that Australia has very serious treaty obligations. Now, the question of how you get to Net Zero is something for each country to make up their own mind on. So, the Paris Agreement says we've got to get to Net Zero in the second half of this century, not necessarily by 2050, although that would be the optimal approach. So, my point is we're a serious country. We're a trade-exposed nation. We're not going to walk away from international agreements, never. But, what I would say is that the domestic rules have made life harder for Australians. So, Labor's Net Zero has been a complete disaster. I would say that the way the Labor has tried to do Net Zero is actually eroding community support, particularly in the regions, in relation to transmission infrastructure, in relation to new energy infrastructure. So, we've got to work harder to maintain Australia's international obligations, but do it in a way which actually suits the Australian economy and the Australian society.

Journalist

So you're a senior Minister, a senior Shadow Minister. You just said that Net Zero, you have to have Net Zero in some form. Your Coalition partner yesterday said that they're not going to have Net Zero. Can you understand that people, as they assess the situation, it's difficult to see how you can reconcile those two?

Senator Bragg

I think it means different things to different people. My point is that we've got to be in the international agreements that Australia has always been a part of - that's very important. The question of how you implement that domestically, is up for debate. I think we can do it better than Labor, and my hope is we can work through our very public debate internally in a constructive way. And that's my hope.

Journalist

So when you talk about the Net Zero mandate that's in legislation - so, you clearly don't think that Net Zero needs a legislation or a policy?

Senator Bragg

No. I mean, every country does it differently. When you go to the G20, what you find is that different countries get to Net Zero on a different date. 2047, 2053, 2050, 2060, 2070. I don't think that's the main point. The main point is that you've got a commitment to get there, and the question of how you can do it domestically is a matter for Australia.

Journalist

I was just going to get you on the Newspoll as well. Obviously, there weren't particularly glowing to Sussan Ley. What's the reaction from that from the party?

Senator Bragg

When you have a culture of transparency, I mean, everyone knows what everyone thinks in the Liberal Party, that's not necessarily a bad thing. We're going to have some rocky days. And I always thought it was going to get worse before it gets better.

Journalist

Let me ask one more question about the Net Zero stuff. If the party, the Coalition, can't reach a point where it can even have reference to the words 'Net Zero', do you have to consider your position on the frontbench?

Senator Bragg

I'm confident we will maintain fidelity to our international agreements. How we implement those domestically is a matter we need to work through. But I think we can do it better than Labor, which has caused people to have higher power prices, loss of industry, and frankly, not a great story to tell on emissions reductions. Okay. Thanks very much.

[Ends]