This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2016/mar/14/new-poll-suggests-coalition-is-holding-its-ground-while-turnbull-slides-politics-live
The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 9 | Version 10 |
|---|---|
| Coalition should go full term, not shift budget timing, Greens say – politics live | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| 3.47am GMT | |
| 03:47 | |
| Ok, here’s part one of the reader’s edition. | |
| @murpharoo Does anyone else think it’s spectacularly creepy how much Tony and Margie look alike? | |
| KM: No Sonia, that’s just you. I’m always very disconcerted in the presence of very fit people, but that is just me. | |
| @murpharoo What is the funniest #QT intervention you've witnessed or heard of, NOT from the floor of the chamber? | |
| KM: NOT from the floor of the chamber? That would be telling Graham. A breach of my ethics. | |
| @murpharoo you have a $20 bill in your hand. You want to put on a bet on the election. What date do you go for? #qt | |
| KM: Just as the ballot is secret, so are the bets BuzzFeedz. Ask me in a week. | |
| @murpharoo Is spending half a billion dollars on a plebiscite on marriage equality fiscally responsible in these times of fiscal restraint? | |
| KM: Couple of points Noel. I don’t think it will cost that much. At least I hope not. Much and all as I think the parliament should do it’s job and legislate for marriage equality, I don’t actually trust the parliament to do that at the present time. I know people say the numbers are there, but I’m not entirely sure about that. A yes vote at a plebiscite (assuming that’s where we end up) would give certain recalcitrants a nudge, so in that sense it could be money well spent. | |
| 3.37am GMT | |
| 03:37 | |
| I’m actually laughing so hard it’s hard to proceed, but we will. This is brilliant. | |
| 3.30am GMT | |
| 03:30 | |
| Oh man I’ve just seen the reader’s edition questions coming in. You folks are priceless. Give me a minute and I’ll start scooping them in. | |
| 3.28am GMT | |
| 03:28 | |
| A neat shutdown from Bowen but Morrison’s broad point is valid: the opposition will have to pick up its efforts to explain and sell the consequences of its policy given a large number of people seem to be undecided about it at this stage. That’s clear from this morning’s Ipsos poll. That poll showed shows 42% of the sample opposed changes to negative gearing, 34% are supportive, and 24% are undecided. That suggests a pretty open contest for a policy discussion. Probably best for the party proposing a substantive change to make sure people comprehend the details of the package rather than have them framed by opponents of the policy. | |
| I mentioned earlier on that I’ve sought an answer from Labor about whether or not they will support the Muir motion on the ABCC. This is from a spokeswoman for Labor’s senate leader, Penny Wong. | |
| From a spokeswoman: | |
| Labor hasn’t seen the terms of Senator Muir’s proposed motion varying government business in the senate this week. We will, of course, consider the motion on its merits. Labor is interested in the scope of the Liberal-Greens deal to ram through senate voting changes this week ahead of a double dissolution election. Will the Greens gag and guillotine debate on the government’s bill? Will the Greens deny other Senators the opportunity to debate their dirty deal with the Liberal party? | |
| Clearly the opposition doesn’t want to telegraph its position in advance. The opposition also wants eyes on the Greens ahead of the debate on Senate voting reform legislation. Will the Greens gag the debate? | |
| Another question could be asked that’s equally valid in this context – will Labor filibuster the debate to invite the Greens to support a gag? | |
| 3.18am GMT | |
| 03:18 | |
| Sticking with live for now. The shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, is in Queanbeyan speaking to reporters. | |
| Q: Mr Bowen, the treasurer has called on Labor to say what the effect on housing prices will be if your negative gearing policy. Will housing prices go down? | |
| Chris Bowen: | |
| At the risk of my colleagues thinking I’m going a bit soft, I’m almost feeling sorry for the treasurer. I mean, he has been reduced to a pathetic laughing-stock. Former strong treasurers of both persuasions must be shaking their heads that the treasurer of Australia, weeks before a budget is due to be brought down, is reduced to trawling through old newspapers and asking silly questions about Labor’s policy which have already been answered. | |
| So before we’ll take Mr Morrison’s questions seriously, he should answer a few of his own. Three basic questions: What day will the budget be on? What is your tax policy? You said there were excesses in negative gearing, what will you do about them? Until then, his pathetic press releases should be treated with the contempt they deserve. | |
| Labor’s policy has been costed out. We have answered hundreds of interviews. The first question on his list I answered on the Insiders program the day after I made the announcement. | |
| If he spent more time working on his own policies and doing his day job instead of engaging in silly press releases, Australia might be better off. | |
| 3.12am GMT | |
| 03:12 | |
| Bring me your questions, folks | |
| As there is no question time today I’ve made a snap decision to clear the floor for readers. I’ve just issued an open call for #auspol questions. Let’s call this the Politics Live readers edition of question time. | |
| Send them my way either here, on Twitter, or on Facebook. I’ll deal with them in and amongst keeping you up to speed. | |
| 3.02am GMT | |
| 03:02 | |
| Not really. Just trust me, there were footnotes. | |
| 3.01am GMT | |
| 03:01 | |
| I should note there were footnotes with the Morrison questions. If you need them sing out. | |
| 2.59am GMT | |
| 02:59 | |
| The shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has produced a shorter list of questions that he’d like Morrison to answer. Call this a preview of question time this week. | |
| 1. What date will the budget be held on? | |
| 2. What is the government’s tax policy? | |
| 3. What will the treasurer do with the “excesses” of negative gearing that he has previously identified? | |
| 2.57am GMT | |
| 02:57 | |
| It’s been reasonably brisk in politics today despite the fact these folks are still travelling to Canberra. This is my first opportunity to post the questions treasurer Scott Morrison says Labor should answer about its negative gearing policy. Call this a preview of question time this week. | |
| 1. What is a “new” property? How would you classify a knock-down rebuild? Substantial renovations? Would a property no longer be new once purchased, or once lived in? | |
| 2. How will the ATO determine that a negative gearer is only claiming a tax deduction in respect of a new home, or a grandfathered investment? | |
| 3. Has Labor spoken with state and territory premiers and chief ministers about increasing land supply and changing planning rules? Will Labor continue with their policy if the premiers do not cooperate? What impact would their policy have on house prices and rents if premiers do not cooperate? | |
| 4. What is Labor’s reply to former Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin, who has said in relation to changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax that: “Doing something big now, it’s not the right time to do it”? Why does Chris Bowen list McKibbin as a supporter for the Yes case on their reforms? | |
| 5. The Urban Development Institute of Australia recently found that it remains difficult to respond to changes in property demand quickly because of “delays and uncertainty in the rezoning, planning and approvals processes”. On what basis does Labor believe that these issues will be resolved by the time its policy commences, as Tony Burke has previously suggested? | |
| 6. Did Labor do any modelling of the economy-wide and property market impacts of its policies before announcing them? Why did Labor announce a policy that would affect hundreds of thousands of investors and millions of Australian home-owners without conducting any modelling beforehand? | |
| 7. Why is Labor refusing to release its PBO costing of this policy, or the assumptions behind it? Does this analysis quantify the likely impact of the policy on the property market? | |
| 8. How can Labor claim that two McKell Institute reports and an ANU study that do not quantify the impact of a Labor-like policy on house prices or rents are sufficient modelling for its policy? | |
| 9. Does Labor acknowledge that more than half of the executive and 70% of the research fellows at the McKell Institute are former Labor MPs, staff or officials? How can their research be considered an independent source of modelling? | |
| 10. ANU research often cited by Labor draws no conclusions about the impact of a Labor-like policy on rents, saying that the restrictions on negative gearing in the 1980s were made in a very different market context and little can be inferred from that experience. Will Labor continue to claim that this research supports their conclusion that rents will not increase as a result of their policy? | |
| 11. The same ANU research finds that a Labor-like policy would affect 1 to 1.1 million people but only 100,000 to 200,000 would opt to purchase a newly constructed dwelling and therefore retain negative gearing. How many investors does Labor predict will no longer invest in the property market in Australia as a result of their policy | |
| 12. Saul Eslake is a well-known critic of negative gearing, however he does not appear to have published any modelling of the economic impacts of changes to it, and certainly not in respect of Labor’s actual policy. Does Labor acknowledge that Saul Eslake has not published any modelling on Labor’s negative gearing and capital gains tax policy? | |
| 13. Does Labor acknowledge that the NATSEM modelling cited in their policy document is actually part of an Australia Institute paper commissioned by activist group Getup? | |
| 14. Isn’t it contradictory for Labor to claim that no investor will be worse off and also that negative gearing is an unsustainable call on the budget? Do they want the existing number of negative gearers in the property market or not? | |
| 15. Labor frontbenchers have repeatedly claimed that negative gearing is a tax loophole. Why then do they not shut it down completely? Are they worried that property supply will dry up? | |
| 16. Bill Shorten has claimed that the Grattan Institute had done modelling on their policy. While Labor says their policy will only slow down house prices growth, is Shorten aware that John Daley claims that Labor’s policy would actually decrease house prices by around 2%? | |
| 17. Is Labor aware that economist Dr Peter Abelson of Applied Economics has estimated that house prices will fall by 4% as a result of Labor’s policy? Are they aware that this would represent a more than $30,000 loss on a house worth $800,000? | |
| 18. ABC Fact Check has confirmed that the largest group using negative gearing are those with taxable incomes under $80,000, John Daley has previously found that middle income Australians claim the most under negative gearing, and the Re:think discussion paper found that the majority of tax filers with negatively geared properties fall into the middle income bands. Why does Labor want to impose a new tax on middle Australia, the predominant users of negative gearing? | |
| 19. Won’t this discourage investment in small business by preventing investors from managing losses through negative gearing (of net dividend income) in years when business profits are low? | |
| 20. Will this increase insurance premiums for landlords, including commercial landlords, since the risks they face if they make a loss are more significant when they cannot negatively gear? | |
| 21. Will Labor introduce complexity into the tax system through a new active and passive assets test for investors who want to use negative gearing in relation to their business? | |
| 22. Is Labor considering preventing self-managed superannuation funds from borrowing to buy investment properties, in addition to the restrictions announced in its negative gearing policy? (Is this consistent with their superannuation policy statement that says: “If elected these are the final and only changes Labor will make to the tax treatment of superannuation”?) | |
| 23. Labor’s capital gains tax increase would give us the second highest CGT rate in the OECD. Won’t Labor’s change encourage Australians to invest in property or other assets overseas? | |
| 24. Since superannuation funds are excluded from the change to the CGT discount (and will retain the 33% discount they currently hold), will the new policy allow people to use SMSFs to avoid the new rules? Has Labor factored this into its costing? | |
| 25. Labor’s policy cites Martin Feldstein approvingly, but he wants CGT abolished completely. Does Labor also support this idea? | |
| 26. Shorten has previously said: “higher taxation reduces incentives to work, save and invest, which I believe are essential building blocks for ensuring Australia’s long-term economic growth.” In light of his new negative gearing and CGT taxes, does he still believe this? | |
| 27. Under Labor, a property mogul could use rental losses from their tenth property to offset rental income from the other nine. But mum and dad investors with only one investment property will no longer be able to use net rental losses to offset against their wage income. Why has Labor deliberately set out to hurt middle income investors while allowing property moguls to continue to use tax rules to carry on investing? | |
| 28. Under Labor, someone with a $1 million share portfolio could use net rental losses from their property investment to reduce the tax payable on their dividend income. But mum and dad investors will no longer be able to deduct net rental losses from their wage income. Why has Labor deliberately set out to hurt middle income investors while allowing wealthy investors to continue to use tax rules to carry on investing? | |
| 2.28am GMT | 2.28am GMT |
| 02:28 | 02:28 |
| I’ve doubled checked. A spokesman for Di Natale says the Greens will not support the Muir motion to bring on the ABCC bill. This is Senate voting reform week, not ABCC week. | I’ve doubled checked. A spokesman for Di Natale says the Greens will not support the Muir motion to bring on the ABCC bill. This is Senate voting reform week, not ABCC week. |
| I’ve sought clarification from Labor on their intentions. As yet, no clarity. | I’ve sought clarification from Labor on their intentions. As yet, no clarity. |
| 2.23am GMT | 2.23am GMT |
| 02:23 | 02:23 |
| Di Natale’s position on the ABCC bill requires a further clarification which I’ll seek when there’s a moment. Saying you won’t do anything to bring on the ABCC bill doesn’t entirely rule out supporting Muir. | Di Natale’s position on the ABCC bill requires a further clarification which I’ll seek when there’s a moment. Saying you won’t do anything to bring on the ABCC bill doesn’t entirely rule out supporting Muir. |
| 2.20am GMT | 2.20am GMT |
| 02:20 | 02:20 |
| Di Natale is asked about a preference deal with the Liberals in Victoria. He says the Greens will not preference the Liberals ahead of Labor in any seat. He says the decision is not up to him, but he believes it is inconceivable that the Greens would preference the Liberals ahead of Labor. | Di Natale is asked about a preference deal with the Liberals in Victoria. He says the Greens will not preference the Liberals ahead of Labor in any seat. He says the decision is not up to him, but he believes it is inconceivable that the Greens would preference the Liberals ahead of Labor. |
| He says the Liberal party may well choose to preference the Greens ahead of Labor in some seats, if the party believes that strategy is in its interests. He notes this used to happen regularly. Liberals being opposed to Greens preference deals is a recent phenomemon. (He’s quite right about this.) | He says the Liberal party may well choose to preference the Greens ahead of Labor in some seats, if the party believes that strategy is in its interests. He notes this used to happen regularly. Liberals being opposed to Greens preference deals is a recent phenomemon. (He’s quite right about this.) |