‘Everything should be on the table’: Independent MP open to negative gearing reform (25 Sep 2024)
Tom: Could we be in for another big twist ahead of the election? There has been a notable absence of Labor today ruling out changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. That's when it comes to property investment. Joining me now is independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney. Thank you for your time, but what have you made of this and how open do you think we should be for the changes in this area? Always a contentious one.
Kate Chaney: Well, I think when it comes to tax reform, everything should be on the table. And we need broader tax reform in this country, but unfortunately, we end up playing this game of rule in, rule out. And then we end up with paralysis. But especially when it comes to housing, people can see that their kids and grandkids are never going to be able to afford a home. They're sick of bandaid solutions. And we need to put everything back on the table. So I'm open to it.
Tom: You mentioned broader tax reform. Look, you're not alone there, but realistically, we're not about to see Labor propose, I don't know, 30, 40, 100 tax changes. This is the topic right now. Your constituents would have a higher rate than most around the country in terms of having an investment property. Does that affect your thinking at all?
Kate Chaney: A lot of my constituents are really keen to see better long-term thinking and fewer band-aid solutions and short-term political thinking. So there are various things we could do with negative gearing. We do need to protect people who have made decisions based on a particular set of rules. But there are things you can do. You could limit the number of properties. You could cap the loss. You could limit it to new properties. You could only offset the loss against income of that type.
Kate Chaney: Why don't we actually have the discussion? I have a housing forum and there's broad appetite for having another look at these because we need all solutions on the table when it comes to housing.
Tom: So you'd be looking at tinkering or changing not just a scrapping of both, and when you grandfather, would that be grandfathering everybody? Because you mentioned capping properties. I mean, if someone is lucky enough to have 10 properties under the current rules, do they get to keep them forever? Would it be a sort of full grandfathering, do you think?
Kate Chaney: Look, there are many options, but we're not even able to have this conversation at the moment because the major parties are too scared of it. And over the last 20 years, both parties have had policies that have driven prices up because it's politically popular. Let's open the door and talk about this. I mean, I think some sort of grandfathering is appropriate, but we need to have sensible limits. So it actually has an impact. What we can't see is the gap continue to grow between wages and house prices.
Kate Chaney: A generation just can't imagine ever being able to buy a house. We've got to be able to look beyond that, and I think constituents in Curtin are open to looking at what's in the best interest of the country to make it fair for their kids and grandkids.
Tom: Has the other big shift in Australia been that the previous generations that grew up wanting the quarter-acre block, younger Australians now probably don't because it means something that's very expensive and also possibly being a long way away from things. Does that shift to us thinking we need more medium-density, high-density areas, and that's such a huge handbrake on supply?
Kate Chaney: Look, I'm sure there are lots of young people who'd love to be able to afford to buy a quarter-acre block, but it's just not realistic at the moment. So people are changing their expectations. There's no doubt that medium density has a role to play because we can't keep just sprawling our cities further and further. But that has to be done well. We have to respect the local environment and not just stick a 20-story building in, but actually look at building communities that people want to live in.
Kate Chaney: So I'm really keen to see that discussion about medium density being done well rather than a NIMBY versus YIMBY approach. Look at what good communities look like that we want to live in and how we create more of them so that people can live near their families, near their friends, near their workplaces.
Tom: And medium, not high? I mean, it's noticeable you said medium there. Is high density a dirty word?
Kate Chaney: I think medium density makes for better communities. High density makes sense in some areas, in other areas, it doesn't. But these need to be open discussions. We need all levels of government to actually be working together, not against each other, so that we can increase supply and people can actually expect to own a house one day.
Tom: Look, we're not far away from an election and the polls are just locked together in terms of the two major parties, and the hung parliament possibility. Would it be an absolute no-go zone for you to support the coalition if they were sticking with a nuclear energy policy?
Kate Chaney: Look, I haven't seen any costing details or really any details about the nuclear idea that the coalition's put forward. I'll look at any details as they become available and assess them.
Tom: So you have a genuinely open mind until you see the full plan essentially?
Kate Chaney: Look, I haven't seen much science or economics that says it makes sense for Australia or will solve our decarbonisation problem. But I am always open and ready to look at things on the facts.
Tom: OK, fair enough. We can revisit that once you have them because I don't have them, unfortunately.
Kate Chaney: No one has them, that's a bit of a problem.
Tom: Maybe they're somewhere, but they're not released, that's for sure. Gambling reform—you've been pushing strongly for that as well. How high up the totem pole of issues is this for you? Would it be something you'd say, I won't give supply and confidence unless there are changes made there?
Kate Chaney: Well, the thing that makes me really mad on this is that this is a relatively simple problem. And when the two-party system gets in the way of reform on a simple issue, then I think we've got much less hope of actually addressing complex issues. So we know communities want to see a ban on gambling ads, but the TV stations don't like that and the gambling companies don't like that. And the political parties are in their thrall. So if we can't solve this, we can't solve the bigger issues. And that's why I think it's a really good example of why we need more voices in parliament.
Tom: OK, Chaney, appreciate your time.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Tom.
