Interview with Melinda James ABC Illawarra

Subjects: <Housing, CGT, EPBC ACT>

E&OE.........

Melinda James

You're with Melinda James on ABC Illawarra. It's 16 minutes past 7. Well, Senator Andrew

Bragg is the Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness. He'll be in Nowra today as part

of a roundtable hosted by the Housing Industry Association to deliver a speech. Maybe to give

us a little sneak peek of what'll be in that speech, he joins us now. Senator Bragg, good morning.

Thanks for joining us.

Senator Bragg

Hi Melinda, how are you?

Melinda James

Yeah, very well, thank you. So this roundtable, you'll be delivering a speech. Can we expect

you to outline what the Coalition's policy is in relation to housing?

Senator Bragg

Well, sure. Effectively, we're going backwards under this government. We're building fewer

houses than we need, and we need a big change in Australia. I mean, the economy is very sick,

and home building is on the front line of the failures of this government. So today I'll be talking

about some of our ideas around the National Construction Code, the EPBC, and a range of

other things to do with housing in Australia.

Melinda James

Okay, well, let's deal with a few of those things. Maybe if we just start with the supply issue at

the moment, because what we are dealing with right now is an expectation that building

materials, that the transport of goods, etc., will make construction a heck of a lot more

expensive. Due to constraints and challenges that are kind of beyond Australia's control. So

how should we as a country deal with that, the fact that actually building new housing at the

moment when we need it most is going to be much more expensive?

Senator Bragg

Well, the government are spending $80 billion to build 30,000 fewer houses each year. I mean,

they build bureaucracy, not houses. That was already the position before the Iran war. The fact

that Australia's been left so unprepared by this government is of course adding to the fuel costs

and the supply costs, the input costs for builders. I mean, even just the fact that we have 42

years of oil underneath Australia, which we can't get out of the ground because of their crazy

environmental laws, has actually made a bad situation worse. So look, it's a tough time for

home building because supply costs are up, labour costs are up, productivity is down because

the CFMEU of course is strongly enforced in various parts of Australia. And so it's, look, it's,

to be frank with you, Melinda, it's, if you're a builder, it's hard to make a buck out of building

houses. And this is one of the big problems that the country has.

Melinda James

So what exactly can be done about that? I understand the simplification of the housing

construction code. That's one thing. But the, just the sheer cost of building, what can be done

in that regard?

Senator Bragg

Well, I always like to focus on what you can control and as a national government, really it

comes down to taxation and regulatory costs. So, 45% of the cost of a new house in Australia

is lost in regulatory charges and costs and fees, taxes. So, looking at the National Construction

Code, for example, is something that I'm going to talk about today. I mean, effectively it's 2,000

pages of gobbledygook and I think we should be trying to have a National Construction Code

which is more like 200 pages. That would make a real difference. I mean, just to make it simple,

I mean, in Australia, if you want to build a cheap house, you're not allowed to. And I think

that's really unfair. So I think if you want to build a cheap house, you should be able to. And

then more broadly, there's a conversation to be had around taxation. You know, the government

canvassing having higher taxes on housing, that will make a bad situation worse. So we won't

be supporting that.

Melinda James

Look, I want to get on to, because I'm getting quite a few texts here, so clearly it's something

that people are concerned about, and I know it's something that people within your own party

have talked about as well, and I'm thinking primarily about Andrew Hastie, for example, about

intergenerational inequality when it comes to entering the housing market. So we've had

someone talk about negative gearing and CGT, capital gains tax discounts, are a failed

experiment giving benefits to the wealthy. It's middle-class welfare. People saying my kids

can't afford housing because of the greed of their grandparents' generation. Get rid of cap gains

and negative gearing. And Ginny in Kanahooka says, "Morning Mel, yes, generational

difference." And she says, "However, is this generation happy to settle for a small 900 square

metre home like my parents in the late '50s or '60s or 13% interest rates when my husband and

I built our first home in the '80s?" Each generation has their challenges, reckons Ginny. But

this whole notion of the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing really being a benefit

for those who are better off and older at the expense of those who are younger.

Melinda James

What do you make of this argument and what are your thoughts about if we see capital gains

tax discounts changed in the budget or negative gearing tinkered with? Would the Coalition

support that?

Senator Bragg

Well, it won't make any difference. I mean, the main game here is supply. We have to build

more houses. So you've had 1.6 million more people come into the country since the

government was elected, since Labor was elected in 2022, and you've only built a bit over half

a million houses. That's the major issue. We need to build more homes. If you have more taxes,

you'll have fewer homes. Look, if the government want to do this because they think it's going

to be popular, I mean, it won't solve the problem. So, I mean, I just think Australia needs to

have an abundance of stuff. We need to have more homes, more energy, and if you have more

taxes, you're going to have less of it. I mean, it's pretty simple.

Melinda James

But would the coalition stand in the way? For example, if the government were to make

changes and they did get the support of the Greens and you then came to power, would you

Would you repeal it? Would you try to change it? How committed are you given that Angus

Taylor—

Senator Bragg

Let the homebuyer go.

Melinda James

Yeah, but Angus Taylor said no new taxes. We will not be an opposition calling for new taxes.

Never support higher taxes. But there are others who think maybe we should look at it. So what

would be the Coalition's stance? Would you let it lie if it's changed?

Senator Bragg

Well, I mean, you're asking a series of questions here. The answer to the first is we wouldn't

support higher taxes because that wouldn't build more homes. I mean, our laser focus focus is

on making it easier to build houses. We need to be building more like 250,000 or 260,000

houses a year. Now, under the last coalition government, we built about 200,000 houses a year

on average. This Labor government's only built 170,000 houses a year on average. So, more

taxes will result in fewer homes. So, we won't be supporting measures which reduce home

building. That's pretty simple. If Labor find a way to get these things through the parliament,

then we'll have to consider what we do if we come to government, but that's a hypothetical on

top of a hypothetical. The main point is that we won't be supporting higher taxes.

Melinda James

The other thing that you're expected to talk about today, and I've heard you talking about

previously, is the government's 5% deposit scheme. You think this should be means tested.

What do you think is the result of having the 5% deposit scheme available to many?

Senator Bragg

Well, the government have had a couple of gimmicks in the housing space. They've had this

Housing Future Fund, which has built no houses and wasted billions of dollars. Then they've

had these 5% deposits, which have pushed prices for younger Australians to the point where

younger people won't be able to buy a house or they will have to have a 95% mortgage

themselves just to get into the market. So this was a very bad idea, reckless idea to have

deployed in an environment where the government had presided over a collapse in supply. So

I don't understand why the taxpayer is being asked to provide taxpayer support to people who

don't need taxpayer support. If you're going to have these schemes, they should be targeted at

lower-income people who really need access to them rather than opening up as a free-for-all.

And what you've seen is higher house prices. I mean, house prices are too high in Australia for

younger people. It's not fair. And Canberra should be trying to make people's lives better, not

worse.

Melinda James

And just briefly and finally, because my apologies, we're about to run out of time, but you said

previously that you don't think You don't think tinkering with the migration numbers will

actually make much of a difference when it comes to housing. So late last year you said that

our housing crisis here in Australia can't be blamed on our nation's migration intake, that even

if you cut migration to zero, you'd still have a whopping housing crisis. Is that still your

position?

Senator Bragg

That's right, but migration is an input. On the demand side. So migration has been too high and

it has impacted the housing system, but it's not the only solution to the housing equation. So

we should look to reduce migration. We should look to recalibrate it to bring in more tradies.

We have, you know, we have too many Uber drivers and not enough tradies. But ultimately

this isn't the only way to solve the housing crisis. It's an important part of it, but it's not the only

solution.

Melinda James

We'll watch your speech with interest today. Thank you so much for talking to us this morning.

Senator Bragg

Thanks, Mel.

[Ends]

‍