What would a Dutton Liberal leadership mean for the Liberals and the country?

[peetoo]

Brad Battin quote in the herald sun

==
A Battin-led government, he explains, would also review property taxes to attract greater investment and give more Victorians a chance at nabbing their first investment property, particularly in the outer suburbs.
“When people get an increase to their tax they pass it on to the renter … the people who can least afford it,” he said.
However, scrapping land tax entirely is currently a policy that is out of the question.
“You can’t come out and say you are going to axe a tax that, at the moment, is currently holding up the budget,” he said.

 

[QuietB]

Brad Battin quote in the herald sun

==
A Battin-led government, he explains, would also review property taxes to attract greater investment and give more Victorians a chance at nabbing their first investment property, particularly in the outer suburbs.
“When people get an increase to their tax they pass it on to the renter … the people who can least afford it,” he said.
However, scrapping land tax entirely is currently a policy that is out of the question.
“You can’t come out and say you are going to axe a tax that, at the moment, is currently holding up the budget,” he said.

Good old fashioned trickle down economics - how refreshing

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

100% mike. but the cookers love bullshit, and the diarrhea factory lives off it. and so many of the rest don’t pay sufficient attention to know what a shifty prick he is.

Mike Carlton (@mikecarlton01.bsky.social)

“Peter Dutton has been a worthy Opposition Leader…” Bollocks. He’s a devious, cynical, reactionary bully, a policy black hole, a disgrace to the office. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-s-had-a-great-year-but-2025-will-test-his-one-great-weakness-20241216-p5kyu4.html

bsky.app

That was my reaction to that SMH piece too.

I am so effing sick of the media treating a dishonest, conniving PoS BS artist as a credible politician… simply because he’s leader of the opposition.

Their articles should be on the theme that the system is close to broken if Peter Dutton can be leader of the main opposition party and hence for all intents and purposes a contender for prime minister of the country.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

So he is responsible for inflation or not? It was 7% and now it’s 2.8%.
So he is responsible for the unemployment rate or not?

Put the goose on Ignore. He/she does not argue in good faith, so why should you?

The sooner everyone ignores their vacuous barracking, the better for the standard of discussion.

 

[Gralin]

That was my reaction to that SMH piece too.

I am so effing sick of the media treating a dishonest, conniving PoS BS artist as a credible politician… simply because he’s leader of the opposition.

Their articles should be on the theme that the system is close to broken if Peter Dutton can be leader of the main opposition party and hence for all intents and purposes a contender for prime minister of the country.

The meritocracy crowd sure are quiet about guys like Dutton or Trump rising to the top

 

[Rotayjay]

'would also review property taxes to attract greater investment and give more Victorians a chance at nabbing their first investment property'

One of the most breathtakingly out-of-touch things I've read in recent times. People are living in their cars and all the Liberals can talk about is poor downtrodden 'mums and dads' who have missed out on an investment property? How about the mums and dads that can't house their kids? Christ.

 

[Grin]

He'll reverse this if he gets in

Workers who steal from their boss can be charged with theft. Now dishonest employers risk jail, fines

Landmark wage theft laws that come into effect on January 1 will make intentional underpayment of workers a crime across the nation.

www.theage.com.au

Bosses who deliberately underpay workers could be jailed for up to 10 years and fined up to $1.65 million in the new year, while companies risk fines of more than $8 million.

Landmark wage theft laws that come into effect on January 1 will make intentional underpayment of workers a crime across the nation.

 

[Festerz]

Every New Year's Day, a new tranche of Federal Cabinet papers are released from 20 years ago - this time from 2004.

In June 2004, the Howard cabinet considered its response to a Productivity Commission's report on first home ownership.

That report made a series of findings, including that negative gearing rules and capital gains tax concessions combined to make investing in residential property more attractive, adding to demand and therefore prices in the process.

It recommended a review of those tax settings as soon as practicable:

"Other aspects of the personal taxation regime — including negative gearing rules, 'capital works' deductions, the 1999 change to capital gains tax, and high marginal income tax rates — have combined to magnify the attractiveness of investing in residential property during the recent upswing in house prices, thereby adding to price pressures."

However the Howard Coalition Government rejected the recommendation of a review of negative gearing and capital gains tax policies for residential housing and did nothing.

What Howard did do was duck shove the problem of a looming housing affordability crisis to the States, urging them to do something about stamp duty and release more public land.

And here we are in 2025 - and still nothing.

We pored over the newly unsealed 2004 cabinet files. Here's what stood out

Hundreds of previously secret cabinet records have been made public in the National Archives' annual release.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Gavin Excell]

Every New Year's Day, a new tranche of Federal Cabinet papers are released from 20 years ago - this time from 2004.

In June 2004, the Howard cabinet considered its response to a Productivity Commission's report on first home ownership.

That report made a series of findings, including that negative gearing rules and capital gains tax concessions combined to make investing in residential property more attractive, adding to demand and therefore prices in the process.

It recommended a review of those tax settings as soon as practicable:



However the Howard Coalition Government rejected the recommendation of a review of negative gearing and capital gains tax policies for residential housing and did nothing.

What Howard did do was duck shove the problem of a looming housing affordability crisis to the States, urging them to do something about stamp duty and release more public land.

And here we are in 2025 - and still nothing.

We pored over the newly unsealed 2004 cabinet files. Here's what stood out

Hundreds of previously secret cabinet records have been made public in the National Archives' annual release.

www.abc.net.au

Henry Review (commissioned under Rudd) made similar observations to the above about market being distorted by favourable taxation policies on investment but any changes were immediately rejected by the then ALP government

Nothing will change

 

[Gavin Excell]

One of the most breathtakingly out-of-touch things I've read in recent times. People are living in their cars and all the Liberals can talk about is poor downtrodden 'mums and dads' who have missed out on an investment property? How about the mums and dads that can't house their kids? Christ.

My fave whine of 2024 was the lawyer on $300k who complained bitterly in the Murdoch rags about how her plans had been thrown out of whack by not receiving the full stage 3 tax cut

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Henry Review (commissioned under Rudd) made similar observations to the above about market being distorted by favourable taxation policies on investment but any changes were immediately rejected by the then ALP government

Nothing will change

Oh it will. When both parties are facing extinction.

 

[Festerz]

Henry Review (commissioned under Rudd) made similar observations to the above about market being distorted by favourable taxation policies on investment but any changes were immediately rejected by the then ALP government

That's not entirely accurate.

Bill Shorten's detailed policy platform for both the 2016 and 2019 Federal elections proposed to adopt a number of the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review, including reducing tax concessions for investment in existing residential properties - albeit in moderated form to contain the expected scare campaign and likely political backlash from homeowners who were benefiting from a substantial increase in personal wealth from the rising house prices.

Shorten's policy platform he took to the 2019 election included plans to restrict future negative gearing to new homes only and to cut the CGT concession from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

But unsurprisingly those plans were mercilessly attacked by false scare campaigns from the LNP and main stream media - including the Murdoch press which by then was a major player in the Australian real estate business.

It's now well recognised that scare campaign played a major role in Scott Morrison winning the 'unwinnable' 2019 election and created the timid 'small target' 2022 campaign and government of Albanese that has done absolutely nothing about the housing affordability crisis.

That timidity will likely cost Albanese a second term as a majority government.

Nothing will change

I wouldn't be too sure. There is growing anger at the long term damage being done to current and future generations by the current housing affordability crisis. And in April 2024 Senators Lambie and Pocock commissioned further work on Policy Reform Options for Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax.

A minority Labor Government, with support from independents in both Houses could likely see the need to finally tackle the housing crisis head on.

 

[Gavin Excell]

That's not entirely accurate.

Bill Shorten's detailed policy platform for both the 2016 and 2019 Federal elections proposed to adopt a number of the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review, including reducing tax concessions for investment in existing residential properties - albeit in moderated form to contain the expected scare campaign and likely political backlash from homeowners who were benefiting from a substantial increase in personal wealth from the rising house prices.

Shorten's policy platform he took to the 2019 election included plans to restrict future negative gearing to new homes only and to cut the CGT concession from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

But unsurprisingly those plans were mercilessly attacked by false scare campaigns from the LNP and main stream media - including the Murdoch press which by then was a major player in the Australian real estate business.

It's now well recognised that scare campaign played a major role in Scott Morrison winning the 'unwinnable' 2019 election and created the timid 'small target' 2022 campaign and government of Albanese that has done absolutely nothing about the housing affordability crisis.

That timidity will likely cost Albanese a second term as a majority government.



I wouldn't be too sure. There is growing anger at the long term damage being done to a generation by the current housing affordability crisis. And in April 2024 Senators Lambie and Pocock commissioned further work on Policy Reform Options for Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax.

A minority Labor Government, with support from independents in both Houses could likely see the need to finally tackle the housing crisis head on.

Think it will only be palatable when the majority don't own a home. Not sure that's the case right now

 

[Rotayjay]

That's not entirely accurate.

Bill Shorten's detailed policy platform for both the 2016 and 2019 Federal elections proposed to adopt a number of the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review, including reducing tax concessions for investment in existing residential properties - albeit in moderated form to contain the expected scare campaign and likely political backlash from homeowners who were benefiting from a substantial increase in personal wealth from the rising house prices.

Shorten's policy platform he took to the 2019 election included plans to restrict future negative gearing to new homes only and to cut the CGT concession from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

But unsurprisingly those plans were mercilessly attacked by false scare campaigns from the LNP and main stream media - including the Murdoch press which by then was a major player in the Australian real estate business.

It's now well recognised that scare campaign played a major role in Scott Morrison winning the 'unwinnable' 2019 election and created the timid 'small target' 2022 campaign and government of Albanese that has done absolutely nothing about the housing affordability crisis.

That timidity will likely cost Albanese a second term as a majority government.



I wouldn't be too sure. There is growing anger at the long term damage being done to a generation by the current housing affordability crisis. And in April 2024 Senators Lambie and Pocock commissioned further work on Policy Reform Options for Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax:

https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-04/Policy%20Reform%20Options%20for%20Negative%20Gearing%20and%20Capital%20Gains%20Tax_1.pdf

A minority Labor Government, with support from independents in both Houses could likely see the need to finally tackle the housing crisis head on.

18 May 2019 was one of the worst days in recent decades in Australia. It was the election that killed bold policy platforms for what I think will be a long time. And I should say that house prices would be at least 10% lower today - if not a lot more - had Labor won.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That's not entirely accurate.

Bill Shorten's detailed policy platform for both the 2016 and 2019 Federal elections proposed to adopt a number of the recommendations of the Henry Tax Review, including reducing tax concessions for investment in existing residential properties - albeit in moderated form to contain the expected scare campaign and likely political backlash from homeowners who were benefiting from a substantial increase in personal wealth from the rising house prices.

Shorten's policy platform he took to the 2019 election included plans to restrict future negative gearing to new homes only and to cut the CGT concession from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

But unsurprisingly those plans were mercilessly attacked by false scare campaigns from the LNP and main stream media - including the Murdoch press which by then was a major player in the Australian real estate business.

It's now well recognised that scare campaign played a major role in Scott Morrison winning the 'unwinnable' 2019 election and created the timid 'small target' 2022 campaign and government of Albanese that has done absolutely nothing about the housing affordability crisis.

And still smug ScoMo will tell himself that god won that election for him.

 

[Festerz]

18 May 2019 was one of the worst days in recent decades in Australia. It was the election that killed bold policy platforms for what I think will be a long time. And I should say that house prices would be at least 10% lower today - if not a lot more - had Labor won.

And in many ways the proposals weren't bold at all - the changes to negative gearing and capital gains taxes were not going to be retrospective and so the impact on existing home owners would be zero. But that is not the way it was painted in the press.

And don't get me started on the BS front page scare campaign over proposed changes resource royalties and to franking credits to fund increased funding to public education, welfare and a future NDIS:

 

[Festerz]

And still smug ScoMo will tell himself that god won that election for him.

He was right. God has many faces after all:

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

He was right. God has many faces after all:

View attachment 2196067

Sheesh mate it's the first day of the new year! I'm trying to stay positive!

 

[Rotayjay]

Think it will only be palatable when the majority don't own a home. Not sure that's the case right now

In 2021, 67% of Australian households were home owners, down from 70% in 2006.

Home ownership and housing tenure

Secure and affordable housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of Australians. Home ownership continues to be a widely held aspiration in Australia, as it affords owners with security of housing...

www.aihw.gov.au

That may not seem like a large drop, but home ownership rates among young adults (of the 'starting to have kids' age) are plunging more rapidly:

The home ownership rate of 30–34-year-olds was 64% in 1971, decreasing 14 percentage points to 50% in 2021 ... For Australians aged 25–29, the decrease was similar – 50% in 1971, compared with 36% in 2021.

Will we ever get to the majority of households being rented? Possibly.

The heads of those two thirds of households who own a home have to die eventually, and due to the declining birth rate, there will be fewer kids to share in a bigger inheritance. Gone are the days where mum and dad's house gets sold and the proceeds are split among five or more siblings (for the most part).

In addition, a lot of detached family homes (the big kahoonas that are worth over a million) are being sold to pay for aged care because we live longer and rightfully expect aged care to be of quality. And many elders downsize, selling the family home and moving into smaller accommodation.

Depending on who you ask, today is the day that Generation Beta starts being born. So will Generations Z, Alpha and Beta (born after 1995) largely only be able to buy a house when their parents die? The fact that the Bank of Mum and Dad is involved in more and more home loans indicates that aspiring home owners are not waiting until their parents die - they're getting the help now. Your parents' wealth is now a big predictor of home ownership, something I believe is against everything that was supposed to make Australia egalitarian.

In my view, the critical threshold of unaffordability is reached when the majority of dual-income couples (in that 'let's have kids' phase) cannot get a mortgage on their combined income. That threshold has been crossed in Sydney, Melbourne and now Adelaide, to my knowledge. That is effectively young families being told, 'no house for you unless you're above average.' If you think the average is middle class, that is the death of middle class home ownership (for new entrants, that is).

Does the home ownership rate need to reach 50% or lower for the Liberal or Labor attitude to the problem to change? Maybe not. But common sense says that while a substantial majority of voters have wealth tied up in their own home, the major parties will do jack shit about it.

 

[Gavin Excell]

18 May 2019 was one of the worst days in recent decades in Australia. It was the election that killed bold policy platforms for what I think will be a long time. And I should say that house prices would be at least 10% lower today - if not a lot more - had Labor won.

Perhaps the only way is to enact reform in office without announcing during an election campaign

While you could argue it's somewhat deceptive to the public, it can be a way of getting around Murdoch

 

[Festerz]

And let's remember the basic truth when it comes to Government tax policy - it's exponentially more difficult politically to remove an existing tax concession than it is to introduce one - regardless of how economically and socially unfair or unjust it is.

 

[Gough]

Perhaps the only way is to enact reform in office without announcing during an election campaign

While you could argue it's somewhat deceptive to the public, it can be a way of getting around Murdoch

Which is precisely how the Libs want to play it. If they announced what they'd really planned on doing in office they'd never get close to it.

 

[Gavin Excell]

In 2021, 67% of Australian households were home owners, down from 70% in 2006.

Home ownership and housing tenure

Secure and affordable housing is fundamental to the wellbeing of Australians. Home ownership continues to be a widely held aspiration in Australia, as it affords owners with security of housing...

www.aihw.gov.au

That may not seem like a large drop, but home ownership rates among young adults (of the 'starting to have kids' age) are plunging more rapidly:

The home ownership rate of 30–34-year-olds was 64% in 1971, decreasing 14 percentage points to 50% in 2021 ... For Australians aged 25–29, the decrease was similar – 50% in 1971, compared with 36% in 2021.

Will we ever get to the majority of households being rented? Possibly.

The heads of those two thirds of households who own a home have to die eventually, and due to the declining birth rate, there will be fewer kids to share in a bigger inheritance. Gone are the days where mum and dad's house gets sold and the proceeds are split among five or more siblings (for the most part).

In addition, a lot of detached family homes (the big kahoonas that are worth over a million) are being sold to pay for aged care because we live longer and rightfully expect aged care to be of quality. And many elders downsize, selling the family home and moving into smaller accommodation.

Depending on who you ask, today is the day that Generation Beta starts being born. So will Generations Z, Alpha and Beta (born after 1995) largely only be able to buy a house when their parents die? The fact that the Bank of Mum and Dad is involved in more and more home loans indicates that aspiring home owners are not waiting until their parents die - they're getting the help now. Your parents' wealth is now a big predictor of home ownership, something I believe is against everything that was supposed to make Australia egalitarian.

In my view, the critical threshold of unaffordability is reached when the majority of dual-income couples (in that 'let's have kids' phase) cannot get a mortgage on their combined income. That threshold has been crossed in Sydney, Melbourne and now Adelaide, to my knowledge. That is effectively young families being told, 'no house for you unless you're above average.' If you think the average is middle class, that is the death of middle class home ownership (for new entrants, that is).

Does the home ownership rate need to reach 50% or lower for the Liberal or Labor attitude to the problem to change? Maybe not. But common sense says that while a substantial majority of voters have wealth tied up in their own home, the major parties will do jack shit about it.

Interesting stats.
Just on your critical threshold, this can be misleading because in a fair few cases, couples can certainly get mortgages but not necessarily for the suburbs/areas that they prefer to live.

 

[Festerz]

Will we ever get to the majority of households being rented? Possibly.

Which gets to the other side of the housing affordability crisis - the spiralling cost of rentals fuelled by the need for those with large residential housing investment portfolios to get a set ROI on their investments when the value of that portfolio is rapidly increasing.

Question: Under what circumstances does it make sense for taxpayers to subsidise this property speculation bubble to the detriment of the public good?

Answer - when the majority of State and Federal MPs are owners of residential property portfolios themselves and have an active and ongoing personal interest in maintaining the ponzi scheme.

Nearly 70 per cent of federal politicians own two or more properties, and a third own at least three, making MPs some of the country’s most prolific investors and much more likely to be a landlord than the average voter. Former SA Liberal Opposition Leader David Speirs, since resigned and facing drug supply charges, had a 13 property portfolio when in State Parliament , most of which were listed for short term lease on Airbnb.

 

[peetoo]

18 May 2019 was one of the worst days in recent decades in Australia. It was the election that killed bold policy platforms for what I think will be a long time. And I should say that house prices would be at least 10% lower today - if not a lot more - had Labor won.

Can only speculate the appetite for new builds…..which is an issue now we think?….if NG was only available on new builds