In a tense live debate on the program 7.30, Coalition politician Michael Sukkar and Labor politician Clare O’Neil exchanged sharp accusations regarding housing policies and the state of affordable housing in Australia. Our debate on aspects of affordable housing, especially important issues such as negative gearing and homelessness. Perhaps more than anything, it underscored the extreme contrasts between the two parties as they head into 2024.
In his departing address as Minister, Sukkar boasted that the Coalition had overseen the delivery of 13,000 affordable homes while in office. O’Neil was ready with a rebuttal, noting that only 350 of these were even affordable housing. The exchange developed into a shouting match when O’Neil challenged Sukkar to stop lying. She stated, “I really want to correct the record on this because Michael said in the Press Club this week that under the former government, they built 13,000 social and affordable homes.”
Contentious Claims Over Housing
Throughout the election campaign, O’Neil bravely shamed the Coalition for their lack of action on the growing homelessness epidemic. She especially zeroed in on the plight of marginalized communities, especially older women. She remarked, “All this comes back to an acute undersupply of social and affordable homes,” underscoring her concerns about the current housing landscape. O’Neil pointed to the government’s commitment to increasing supply with 55,000 social and affordable homes. They intend to achieve this aspirational target within the next five years.
Sukkar was not very clear about how many affordable homes his party would build if successful at the election. O’Neil voiced frustration over the vagueness in the Coalition’s plan. He noted that they did not attempt to consult on ways to phase out negative gearing and capital gains tax. This decidedly one-sided issue has emerged as a key talking point as political leaders at all levels prepare for elections this fall. Both sides are more than happy to dig in their heels.
Negative Gearing Under Scrutiny
The debate went further, flaring into the negative gearing debate that has become something of a punching bag for Australian politicians in recent months. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor attacked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese—calling him a liar. He challenged Albanese’s government to show how they had the modelling wrong on changes to negative gearing. This is completely at odds with what the prime minister last night denied his government had modelled on negative gearing changes. The Treasurer confirmed in September it had. This double standard has sparked concerns about a lack of transparency and accountability in both parties.
Taylor took the fight to Labor, demanding they release their modeling on negative gearing. He reiterated that this data is essential for building public discussion based on facts. He remarked, “If Labor has nothing to hide, it should release this modelling and allow Treasury to provide a full briefing to the opposition on the detail, timing, and nature of these requests.” This demand for transparency underscores a deepening concern amid the continuing housing crisis. Above all, it’s meant to showcase the bipartisan efforts on both sides of the aisle to address this urgent crisis.
Coalition’s Response and Future Implications
Even amid the blistering back-and-forth, Sukkar did not hedge on his stance. He said that if Labor were ever given the chance, they would quickly make moves that he deemed dangerous. He stated, “I think the minute the Labor government thinks they’ve got an opportunity to do it, or if they’re in government with the Greens, they will very happily do it.” As we discuss in this guest post, Coalition members are anxious about the prospect of regressive policy changes. These fears are somewhat compounded by the prospect of a Labor-Greens alliance.
The live debate has created an environment for more robust conversation about these important housing policies with election day fast approaching. Both sides highlight competing solutions to address the issue of homelessness and lack of affordable housing. Voters will be more inclined than ever to take a skeptical look at such assertions.
