Does Labor have a chance to be ambitious about housing?

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Aaron Patterson has been found guilty of murder.

Now that the trial is over, Mushroom Case Daily is analysing the trial's most damning evidence and tackling the questions we weren't allowed to answer until now.

Plus, coming soon, a new series where we take you through every step of this case: how the poisoned beef Wellington was prepared, the day of the lunch, and the cover-up after.

Find Mushroom Case Daily on the ABC Listen app.

The spotlight is once again on the government's ambitious signature housing target.

You remember it, 1.2 million homes in five years.

So will any of the surprise Treasury ideas be adopted?

And senior government minister, the Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, says we need to believe anti-Semitism envoy Gillian Siegel after it was revealed her husband's trust donated money to a right-wing political lobby group accused of racism.

She says she's independent of him and didn't know, but will this impact the adoption of any of the recommendations that she's made?

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvellis.

And I'm Tom Crowley.

And Tom, the accidental release to the ABC, into your hot hands too, of Treasury headings and some detail flagging that the government's policy of 1.2 million homes in five years will not be met.

Very clear, actually.

Not be met.

It's made also some interesting suggestions of the things that might be needed to be done in the housing space.

Things on the table potentially.

Is Jim Chalmers as relaxed as he was yesterday?

I think it's maybe a question for those who know Jim Chalmers well to debate how relaxed he is.

I think there's two sides to it, PK.

This is information that neither he nor Treasury wanted to be in the public domain.

We reported it yesterday.

It was sent to my colleague Daniel Ziffer.

in response to an FOI request, as he said, accidentally in an email.

Whoops.

Now it's out in the public domain.

I think it is inconvenient in that sense.

And the treasurer, particularly on the housing target, because it was so ambiguous, unambiguous, rather, the language, the target will not be met.

And because that's not really his area, first and foremost, it's a little bit more for Housing Minister Claire O'Neill.

That might have been the one where I thought he was maybe slightly less relaxed yesterday.

But the other side of it is that we have this ambitious treasurer who likes talking about these issues, who's kind of of been wanting to talk about tax reform anyway, begin that conversation, talk about global volatility.

So those parts of the revelations from yesterday, that Treasury said higher taxes and lower spending will be needed to fix the budget, and that they're modeling for a rainy day in some sort of Donald Trump-style US dollar crisis.

I don't think he minds being in that terrain talking about that stuff because these are the fights that he wants to pick and win over this term.

So I think in that sense, it's a bit of a mixed bag.

And in a lot of ways, he looked quite comfortable responding to it yesterday, even if he hadn't intended to be talking about it.

Yeah, he definitely was comfortable.

In terms of relaxed, it's column A, column B.

I think he's relaxed talking about the broad ideas.

And actually, the timing of the release, which was accidental,

is not bad for him.

And I'll explain.

It comes after he's opened the door on big changes, on reform.

Remember, this was not always thus.

It's important to make this point.

Right after the election, there was the, even though they'd won the thumping victory and all of that stuff had happened, they still were like, nope, steady as she goes, don't expect much.

And then there was the opening of the door and then the Prime Minister sort of backing him in with the opening of the door on tax reform, on productivity.

So it actually makes some of the things in these headlines.

a little easier because he doesn't have to sort of shut things down.

He's put on the table, for instance, that he doesn't want to play the rule in, rule out game already.

And so as all the questions were framed about what was in these headings, it made that part of it a bit easier.

What was interesting yesterday, which is worth mentioning, I think, is that on the question of the 1.2 million homes, he absolutely backed in in many ways the Treasury analysis that on the current trajectory, it will not be met.

On the current policies, it will not be met.

So he actually didn't.

He didn't sort of suggest the Treasury was wrong.

There was no kind of we're at odds with each other.

What he put on the table is that they need to change things.

So, Tom, what are the options?

As a person who's done policy work here in the past before you became a journalist, what are the options for accelerating it?

Because that's actually what has to happen if they ever get close to it.

I mean, even if they don't get to 1.2 million, it's about how close you get then to not looking ridiculous and like you've completely failed, isn't it?

Yeah, absolutely.

And there are heaps of options.

So, I think

the big one is the recognition the federal government does not have all of the levers in its hand to fix the housing crisis because a lot of the policy is decided at state, territory, and local level.

And so really, Labor's entire framing has been, well, what can we do to encourage the states or, if you like, pressure the states to build more houses?

And that's what Labor's already been setting out to do.

I think one of the options that Treasury presented for Labor to consider is, well, how can you go a little further than that?

We've seen Andrew Bragg on the coalition side of things say, well, you need to use a stick and threaten to withhold GST payments from the states if they don't build more homes.

There's no sign that that's the direction that Labor's going to head in.

But could you, for example, say, well, you've got this $3 billion bucket of money, these grants for states and territories that you've already set up as part of this 1.2 million homes target.

Could you, as Allegra Spender, for example, has said, use these a little bit more effectively to actually only pay the money if micro outcomes are achieved.

By micro outcomes, I mean not just do you build X number of homes in five years, but have you changed your planning laws?

Have you, you know, made approvals numbers in particular target local council areas better, whatever?

Have you taken some of the interim steps along the journey that we believe are going to get towards more supply?

That's the kind of thing that the government's already flagged it might consider that was part of one of the options that Treasury presented.

There were some other things around using the migration system and the skills system.

How do you get more construction workers?

The productivity piece as well.

Productivity in the construction sector hasn't grown in a very long time and in fact it's shrinking.

So how can you get smarter in the way that we build?

There's lots of talk about prefabricated homes, whether that can be better, but also Matt Bose from the Grattan Institute, who I spoke yesterday, pointed out that building townhouses can often be, I guess, a more cost-effective way for developers to build.

We're getting a lot of high density in the middle of cities and a lot of urban fringe, not not a lot of that missing middle, and that that can actually be a productivity booster as well.

So a few different things that the government can look at if it wants to

meet the level of its ambition.

But if I can just go back as well, because in what you were saying there at the beginning, PK, as well, about this advice and Jim Chalmers and whether he was relaxed or not.

I've been thinking a lot, obviously was involved in this story and there's been a lot of debate going on over the last day or so about how it plays for the government.

And I was thinking a little bit, and I just thought I'd share it about back when I happened to be a graduate at the Treasury a few years ago.

And we had a speech in what it was a working day sort of at Treasury and we had a speech from none other than the ABC's David Spears

who came in and said to the room, oh, you know, I think it's really great when Treasury throws its weight around in public debate because when Treasury says something, it speaks with authority.

And when Treasury puts facts out into the public debate, we as the media and the public in general can lean on those facts and have an informed frame for the debate that we have about these important issues.

The example he cited at the time was Treasury's migration review, which I think was published by the New York Times and which found that Treasury saw economic benefits of migration.

And that simple fact that there are economic benefits of migration has really become a stylized mainstream fact in the debate that people out because it came out.

But guess what?

Treasury didn't want that to come out at the time either.

And I think it's kind of interesting.

I think the public service, it's totally understandable when their main objective is serving their ministers, their own concern about privacy.

And I think that's entirely legitimate for the public service to kind of safeguard its ability to speak in confidence to ministers.

But when it's broad level, good advice that goes really to the same sorts of things that economists and experts say all the time, I think having these, as I say, stylised facts out in the debate now on housing, not just so much that the target won't be met, we got you, you know, you won't meet your target, but some of the other things that Treasury is saying about the housing crisis, about the structural problems in the budget, these are things that I think we'll be able to refer to and pull off the shelf to actually kind of bring that frame to, I mean, how many times do we say, oh, wish we could have a sensible conversation about tax reform?

Well, now we actually have a little bit more ballast that, yes, could be really unfortunate for Jim Chalmers and the government if they fall short of meeting these kind of lofty goals that Chalmers himself is setting and that Treasury is probably put in firmer terms in these headings.

But on the other hand, you know, I think it does give a useful framework and some facts for us to draw on in this debate.

So I think we will be referring to these things for some time to come.

Yeah, we will.

It's an interesting

tension, I'll call it, between

wanting some of these things.

And I agree with David because I'm a journalist.

And of course,

that identity actually matters.

also in that in how I view this.

So my instinct, our instinct as you're listening to this, our instinct, it's in our fundamental training, is more information out there, more, more, more, more transparency.

So I want all of that.

But equally, the tension is Treasury are the experts that provide advice privately.

And then the government, that's the sort of separation of the way that this works, go, make a choice, because of course, these are actually values judgments as well.

So they're not, you know, this is the only way.

That's why we have political debates.

And then politicians execute ideas.

So in terms of back to is he relaxed,

he's relaxed about being the advocate for whatever ideas he might end up landing on because he's a very assertive and very confident politician, one of the best performers hands down, right?

He's across his brief, he's across the briefs that come to him, the different options.

What he's not relaxed about is the truth, is that a mistake gets made.

Someone I'm sure has like seriously gone home and had a cry because it's always crap when you make a mistake.

And then, you know we get access to this and then it gets he gets hounded with the questions so he as any treasurer would would prefer to define the parameters of how you're asked and how you manage this but now we're having this discussion again we like that as we should because we want to have big ideas and discussions about what are the right options and what do the wonks what do the experts what are they landing on as the best options but then it's in the politicians hands to then argue for the ones they land on And they get options.

That's the point, right?

You know that because you've been on the other side.

You get options.

You don't get one.

It's not like this is the only plan.

We're not like sort of, this isn't Russia.

We get options.

These are different options.

Exactly.

And that's where I think, you know, you need, I mean, a good democracy and a good civic society, right?

Everyone plays their role in a way.

And that's the reason, you know, we're called the fourth estate next to, you know, the actual institutions of government as the media is

you need journalists to interpret this kind of information properly when it when it comes to their attention you need the public service to be able to kind of synthesize and present what the evidence says without fear about you know I think as you said to Jacob on the pod yesterday the treasury officials don't have to be elected they don't have to think about you know whether these ideas are popular or saleable and you need the politicians maybe the most important bit really the the judgment and and that the art of the possible that politics is you know what what can you take on that the experts want, that the media can explain and that the general public can understand, that you can build consensus for change.

And I think we have a bunch of Labor frontbenchers really who have watched their party for a long time, you know, with big dreams of replicating the Labor giants of the past, but they watched the only Labour government of the 21st century up until now really kind of descend into a ball of flames of personality and division and tear itself apart, have waited so long for their chance to get back into power, then you have a term that's swallowed up by inflation and the cost of living.

Now they have this window of opportunity.

There might be a more cautious prime minister, but I think a lot of the ministers and chalmers is one of them say, well, yeah, this is our moment.

And as much as there are people in the public saying, I wonder whether Labor will take big risks with their power, I think there are people in the cabinet who say, yeah, you know, this is our chance to do something.

But that doesn't mean we're going to do everything the public service says, everything the media or some sections of public opinion might want us to do.

And that challenge of which fights you pick is the really hard one that's going to be fascinating to watch that play out in real time.

Yeah, that's right.

And it's easy for public servants because they can just give options without any assessment of the political ramifications or how voters might see it or who misses out and who loses and whether they have a powerful lobby group that then spends a gazillion dollars campaigning against a government.

That's not their problem, right?

That's because it doesn't have to be their problem.

They're independent and we want it to be that way.

But that's why they can also say all sorts of things because the ramification isn't important for them.

Look, just before we get on to our next topic, which I think is really important that we do, but the opposition has gone in hard.

I'm not surprised about that at all.

James Patterson sort of saying, yeah, the government can't deliver its promises, you know.

I don't know, Tom, this has vibes to me of opposition doing opposition.

Yeah, it does, right?

And the points of the.

Excitement that maybe they might fail.

Sorry, but like.

Oh, no, no, totally.

And this is where, you know, the nature of this advice, and there was a coalition version that we can't see, unfortunately.

But, you know, these points.

I know Treasury people are.

The High Court.

The High Court, in fact, I think

has found that

the losing brief doesn't have to be released under FOI.

So

that's the lame reason for that one.

But, you know, seriously,

these points aren't points about, hey, you know, labor, the housing crisis or the budget crisis were created under you and these are the things you need to do.

You know, these are points whoever is occupying government, and by the way, it was a coalition for about a decade leading up to all of this.

These are the structural problems that present both parties that, frankly, you know, Treasury and the Public Service and experts have been talking about for years.

Ken Henry is going to be at the National Press Club tomorrow and his review 15 years ago identified a lot of the same problems that we're still talking about today.

And in that tradition of history, this is no surprise.

And so, at the point where the coalition has its act together and is eyeing back towards the election and actually thinking about again being an alternative government, which, you know, fine off the back of a big loss, they're not doing that at the moment.

These same questions they will need to have serious answers to as well.

And I think it was pretty well litigated that the public didn't think that they had serious answers to any of these questions at the last election and that their own policy platform was really thin.

They acknowledge they've got their policy work to do.

So, yeah, easy to run a little victory lap about tax and housing today when they have this little bit of news.

But I think these are the challenges that they will need to seriously address as well if they're to rebuild themselves as a credible alternative government.

Yeah, that's right.

I mean, whoever's in charge, you've got to build more houses and get it done and find the solutions to enabling the business.

Probably got to do something about the budget, too.

Yeah, it's

going to be there for whoever gets elected anywhere.

All right.

Interesting story that we have to talk about.

The Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, in fact, has even spoken about it.

Backstory here.

You'll recall Gillian Siegel is the special envoy appointed to combat anti-Semitism in Australia.

Just last week, we talked about it on the pod.

She released her recommendations on how to deal with anti-Jewish hate in Australia.

Some ideas, very controversial.

So that's the backstory.

Then a story emerges that her husband, John Roth,

used

his family trust

to donate cumulatively $50,000 to the right-wing political lobby group Advance.

There is a view that Advance has taken a pretty controversial position on issues around race, particularly Indigenous Australians.

And so he has done that.

That's not contested.

Tony Burke now has talked about it because people are questioning Gillian Siegel's role.

Tony Burke said

no reason to do anything other than believe her,

that she had nothing to do with it, that her husband's a separate person.

Of course he is.

That can be fact-checked.

But that she's not responsible for what he does.

They don't share the same politics.

Tom, it's a bit confusing,

but it is actually getting a lot of traction, isn't it?

It is getting a lot of traction.

And I think that reflects how contentious

anything to do with this whole issue is.

And how, you know, I think my reflection would be that on the social cohesion front over the last two years or so, you know, the ability to disagree well on this stuff in general, I think, is at a low baseline level.

And so then when stories like this come up, you know, they do become a big deal.

I think there is a higher level of scrutiny that

rightly comes to anyone who holds sort of public office, whether they be politicians or sort of statutory office holders or envoys.

The debate about how that extends to spouse and family, you know, I think is kind of maybe a separate one.

But I think, as you say,

the set of recommendations that were made last week were varied and contentious in some respect, right?

And I guess it comes down to the distinction that will now present itself as a challenge to the Labor cabinet, who were pretty ambivalent about exactly what they thought about all of these recommendations.

The distinction between cracking down on hate speech, where Labor has led the Parliament to pass new laws to take a tougher approach to hate speech on the basis of religion or race, and we'll see how those play out.

But there was a clear, broad view across the political spectrum.

The Coalition didn't used to think this, but they came on board as well, that tougher policing of hate speech was justified.

But the distinction between that and then getting into the realm of conceiving of this envoy as having a role in working with with media or cultural institutions or universities or society at large, including with funding threats, about where there is a perception of biased narratives or a broader category of objectionable speech, that gets into much, much murkier waters.

And when you're in that territory, then, you know,

the emergence of a group like Advance into a conversation like that speaks to again, you know, that that Advance is a group that there are others across the political spectrum who who will take that to be objectionable views.

And you get into that grayer space of the policing of speech that I think Labor will need to tread very carefully on.

Look, I think the story, though, is problematic optically, even if she distances herself from it in so much as she's, you know, not her husband.

Again, that's true.

Interesting language, though, I thought, that Tony Burke used.

He really leaned into feminism, didn't he?

That's what he did, sort of saying

she's a woman.

You know, this isn't the olden days where women had the same views as their husbands.

Not that they ever did, sorry, but that, you know, we would make that assumption that she can be her own independent

entity and should not be held to account for what her husband...

did.

That's what he said.

But what I thought was really interesting though, and I, you know, this is me

reading very deeply into this, but that's what I do.

That's what people come here for, right?

That's what that's on the label.

Politics now!

This is what I think happened.

He could have run dead on this, but he clearly does think Advance is a problematic group because he has actually confirmed that in his statement.

That's what he's done.

So he's backed the critique about Advance, but he's then said, well, I've got to believe her.

And so I think that really gives him a very nuanced position here, where he's sent the signal out there to those concerned that he does think advance is problematic.

He hasn't run so dead that it's not relevant at all.

He has sent a message, Tom, that he thinks advance is worth critiquing.

And if you do donate money to them, it's problematic.

Now, there is a bit of history here.

This group has funded very anti-labor campaigns on the ground too, right?

And if you look at some of the things they've said, basically, you know, they campaign against woke, net zero,

campaigns against left-leaning politicians who they say are mostly on the same side as Hamas.

So that's the politics here, but he still backed her in in terms of her independence.

But it does make all of this more difficult in terms of landing consensus.

I think the government won't back in some of these controversial proposals and they are laying down the foundations for not going down the controversial proposal route.

That's my take on what's happening here.

Of course they will back in the more the more obvious low-hanging fruit stuff.

Yeah.

You know, I'm not saying I know this for sure, but I certainly think they're interested in

making sure the policing is up to scratch, that all of the definitions around

how hard we deal with this sort of stuff, that's all there.

But when it comes to the stuff you mentioned, you know, universities, arts organisations, I just don't think Labor has,

I don't think they'll go there.

I really don't.

I don't think they will bring in legislation that's contentious around this.

Now, the coalition will push them to.

But all of this cloud and all of these people who are raising concerns around freedom of speech and the definition of anti-Semitism and whether it's overreach and asking questions about about criticism of Israel.

I think all of that will make it hard to land a consensus position.

That's how I'm seeing it.

I think that's going to be a really big problem and I don't think that Labor is going to

do that.

I think it will be fiercely opposed by some on the left.

What do you reckon?

I tend to agree with that assessment and I think it is pretty consistent with the way that Labor has handled thorny elements of this, what I'll call the social cohesion issue, all the way from the beginning, really, which is

recognising the vastly different views on this sort of thing in the community, seeing their role as sort of standing somewhere in the middle and being able to find the narrow path through to say a little bit of something to both sides of a really thorny debate.

That middle path has seen them criticised on both flanks, really, and that will continue.

But I think they look at the election result where they took a bit of shine off them in

electorates, again,

where both of those constituencies were pretty angry, but they survived.

And

the broad mass of the Australian public, that the two-party contest swung heavily in their way, I think they feel emboldened and reinforced in that strategy of, you know, sort of tread softly down a middle path.

Yeah.

And that middle path, often it means everyone's cranky with you.

That's the job of being a government, I suppose.

Everyone, you know, no one thinks you're doing enough.

Everyone's disappointed.

Welcome to, yeah, being a government.

It's not always flash, is it?

Tom,

thanks for explaining lots of stuff to us today.

Fun one, PK.

Thanks for having me.

And that's it for Politics Now.

Tomorrow, David Spears is back.

He's been on a little break.

I was filling in for him on Insiders because of his little break, but now his little break is over.

So he's hanging out with me tomorrow and will bring you the newest, latest on politics.

Now, Fran and I will answer your questions as well.

All of that will be happening.

See you, Tom.

See ya.