Malcolm Turnbull announces new front bench

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has unveiled a new ministerial line-up.

For the second time since ousting Tony Abbott to become Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull has unveiled a new cabinet line-up. With this new-look front bench due largely to the resignation of Mal Brough, Warren Truss and Andrew Robb, Mr Turnbull has taken the opportunity to promote more women to the Cabinet and the executive.

National MP Darren Chester has been offered the Infrastructure and Transport portfolio previously held by Nationals Leader Warren Truss. Barnaby Joyce, who will also become Deputy Prime Minister, and will keep his portfolio of Water and Agriculture, will replace Mr Truss as Nationals Leader. Assistant Health Minister Fiona Nash, who has been elected as Deputy Leader of the Nationals, will move to the Cabinet as Regional Development Minister and Minister for Regional Communications. She will also retain her position as Minister for Rural Health

Boosting the Number of women in the Cabinet to six, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells will become Minister for International Development, with Craig Laundy taking on her old role as Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Meanwhile, a recommendation from the outgoing Trade and Investment Minister Andrew Robb, who will continue as Special Envoy for Trade, will see Steve Ciobo take on the role.

Finance Minister Matthias Cormann will add Special Minister of State to his role following the resignation of Mal Brough. Although denying any wrongdoing in he Peter Slipper Affair, Mr Brough asked the Prime Minster to fill his role, which he had temporarily stepped down from several weeks ago.

Following his resignation, after being found to have abused his ministerial position on a personal business trip to China, Stuart Robert’s portfolio will be split. Alan Trudge will take the role of Minister for Human Services and Dan Tehan will become Minister for Defence Material and Minister for Veterans Affairs.

On announcing the new Cabinet and executive, which will be sworn in on Thursday, Malcolm Turnbull said it will be "a dynamic team which combines youth, new talent, experience, continuity, and a real sense of innovation and enterprise".

"It's a team that's focused on Australia's future, focused on the policies that will encourage innovation and enterprise," he said.

After failing to feature in the National Party’s ministerial line-up, Luke Hartsuyker will be replaced by Senator Scott Ryan, as Minister for Vocational Education and Skills. And the appointment of Queenslander Matt Canavan as Minister for Northern Australia completes the major changes.

Read more at ABC.net.au

Opinion: Poll drop to end early election chat

With a federal election rumoured to be in the pipeline for August or September, Malcolm Turnbull will be hoping his ‘young, dynamic and talented’ ministry gives him a popularity boost, after the latest Fairfax-Ipsos Poll shows a downturn in our passion for the Prime Minister.

The initial euphoria, felt by voters after the removal of Tony Abbott as Prime Minster, has given way to scepticism and fear of GST hikes if the latest poll is to be believed. The latest ministerial scandals have seen Mr Turnbull’s Coalition Government slip to a level of popularity lower than that of Mr Abbott’s before the 2013 Federal Election.

Although the Government is still ahead in the two-party preferred vote, a drop of four points sees it now sit at 52-48 and is likely to end all talk of an early election, with just 22 per cent of those polled backing such a move by the Prime Minister.

However, while the Coalition has slipped four percentage points in both its first preference and two-party preferred support, Labor has seen a jump in popularity by three and four points respectively.

Malcolm Turnbull’s personal approval rating, the number of people pleased by his performance minus those displeased, has also dipped 15 points since November, currently sitting at 38. Mr Turnbull can take heart that he is still a more popular choice as Prime Minster than Bill Shorten, but even this support has slipped by five percentage points to 64, with Mr Shorten languishing on 19.

The Greens could be the big winners in Mr Shorten’s apparent unpopularity, with support for the party rising to 15 per cent.

The poll of 1403 respondents was taken over 11–13 February, before the Cabinet reshuffle and after the resignation of Human Services Minister Stuart Robert.

Will the Cabinet reshuffle and the clear out of rogue ministers help Mr Turnbull draw a line under the turbulent last six weeks and move forward to the federal election? Or is there still a fear of what may be unveiled at the budget in May? Does Bill Shorten’s apparent unpopularity make it impossible for Labor to mount a credible challenge the Coalition Government at any upcoming election? And if so, do you see a move to replace Mr Shorten as leader? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    15th Feb 2016
    10:11am
    Isn't this where PlanB should come in & state that they are all utterly hopeless & untrustworthy followers of Murdock? The Survey was done by the SMH, but it would appear that the Turnbull honeymoon may be over.
    roy
    15th Feb 2016
    10:12am
    Vote independent.
    Scrivener
    15th Feb 2016
    11:16am
    People seem to forget that the are implementing the 100 item IPA agenda, item by item. Most of us don't want to be owned by the ten richest families in the world. Most of us don't want to be 'out in the street' Americans. Most of us don't want to spend our resources on wars and weapons and armies.
    wally
    15th Feb 2016
    11:35am
    Hi mick. Vote indie and get Lionhelm, Clive Palmer and Nick Xenophon? Would you say that one out of 3 ain't bad? Vote major parties and you might wind up with Dumb and Dumber, but at least you'd know what you are most likely to get. I won't say for better or worse. The best you can hope for is that one bunch of ratbags will balance the other bunch of ratbags and they might compromise and produce something good by accident.
    Sundays
    15th Feb 2016
    2:08pm
    Independent like who mick? Ricky Muir in the Senate. I have to agree with Wally because sadly there are few Nick Xenophons. As for the Greens, it is their siding with the Liberals which has shafted pensioners fron 1jan 2017
    marls
    15th Feb 2016
    5:11pm
    mick
    agree there is no future in the two major parties they are both out to feather their own nests and in increase the own age of entitlements
    marls
    15th Feb 2016
    5:13pm
    sunday
    check out liberty alliance, rise up aust party, pauline hanson etc
    any independent that will put aust values, and culture, laws and people first
    roy
    15th Feb 2016
    5:53pm
    Vote independent.
    Batara
    15th Feb 2016
    10:12am
    Will the Cabinet reshuffle and the clear out of rogue ministers help Mr Turnbull draw a line under the turbulent last six weeks and move forward to the federal election?

    No, because Dutton has not been sacked. Job half done.
    Happy cyclist
    15th Feb 2016
    10:29am
    Totally with you Batara on that call and also would add that Ciobo is absolutely no better than Dutton.

    15th Feb 2016
    10:38am
    Turnbull has had his worst week in power but Shorten is still nowhere near him shows how unpopular he is.
    He has not helped himself by his negative gearing policy only on new houses he has effectively cut prices of everyone house in half as no one will want them but the lefties are to stupid to pick this up.
    Happy cyclist
    15th Feb 2016
    11:09am
    More insults to the poor "lefties" however I for one would be thrilled if house prices are cut in half, my own included, because then many more people who are trapped in the rent cycle could buy in. And for me it doesn't matter if my house is worth 50,000 or 2 million, its still money tied up that I will never see again as I will always need somewhere to live. As far as buying property for investment, no-one should make money on the back of pricing others out of the housing market. I am sure lots of people would rather see a fair and equitable housing market--in the long run it would make for a much healthier society.
    Scrivener
    15th Feb 2016
    11:24am
    If you sell your house into a market where the price of the one you want to trade into is the same price - whatever the price, what the hell does it matter what the value of your house is?
    Negative gearing forces prices up. Why, because a house becomes an investment item rather than a place to live in.Why do some people have five houses? The labor policy on negative gearing is aimed at investing in a first home build. Seems pretty smart to me. Start building new homes rather than buying up existing ones and pushing up rents. That way many more people would be able to live in a house of their own and invest their pride in it - it is supposed to be the 'Australian dream' after all.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2016
    12:40pm
    Australia can be roughly divided into three groups when it comes to housing, ? own their home, ? are paying off their home and ? are renters. Where do the renters get to live if investors do not enter the housing market? There is government housing but these are for low income earners.

    It has never been proven that negative gearing forces house prices up but it has been proven that reducing negative gearing will create a shortage of rental properties which increases rents. If the claim is that renters cannot enter the housing market as purchasers then the worst thing to happen is to reduce their available income after paying rent.

    If politicians want us to support the abolition of negative gearing then let them be fair dinkum and sell all of their investment properties. Both sides of the Parliament have property in their investment portfolios.

    I don't fully agree that buying and selling on the same market means that you pay the same as you get. I am in a free standing four bedroom house on a ¼acre block and when I can no longer maintain it, I would be looking for a two bedroom unit in a retirement village. I will have money in my pocket after the transaction.
    Swinging voter
    15th Feb 2016
    1:11pm
    Negative gearing is an incentive to invest in a rental property which does have a "social" plus - it provides housing for those who for whatever reason need to rent either short or long term.
    Abolition of negative gearing will probably turn investors towards the stock market. Over time, and for young to middle aged, the stock market has provided better returns than real estate without constant physical input. I think people who rent out properties deserve incentives. You rarely hear of property owners who don't have tenant problems. A $1,000-$2,000 bond doesn't replace $3,000 damaged carpet, ruined vinyl floor covering, re-painting, broken heat pumps, damaged tapware, cupboard doors, bench tops, the list goes on. My bet is that if negative gearing is limited to new homes in outer urban areas, there will be the same costly owner investment risks and a huge shortfall in inner-city rental housing that taxpayer-funded accommodation can't make up for.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    6:56am
    Good or bad, Turnbull is now talking about removing negative gearing concessions, which says he's a ''copy-cat''' politician with no policies of his own. He's behaving in an opposite manner to the manner that made him popular. He used to be his own man. Conceding to demands for party compliance has made him ugly and inept.

    That said, Shorten's unpopularity is likely to ensure Labor loses the unlosable. They really need to wake up and find a new leader.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:43am
    An interesting article on negative gearing.
    http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/homeandproperty/comment-relax-we-have-nothing-to-fear-from-negative-gearing-reform/ar-BBpvA6A?ocid=spartanntp

    Worth reading.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2016
    10:01am
    Rainey, for someone who always votes for LNP you sure are down on the government:)
    You do realise that there are Labor Premiers involved in Turnbull's Tax Reform Workshops?
    I will let you work out the rest for yourself and perhaps you will understand why Australian's are not as stupid as Shorten thinks.
    MITZY
    15th Feb 2016
    10:41am
    Turnbull is gradually getting rid of all the old wood he can't control. He likes to be king pin in everything he does. His new appointments are much younger and less experienced but probably easier to manipulate. Turnbull is a first grade actor (its in his genes). Shorten over acts to the point of nausea. I hope my electorate puts forth an Independent of some substance for this next election, as I hate the thought of voting for either of these two parties. We have a Greens candidate who has been there "forever" and really needs pensioning off with the likes of Ruddock/B.Bishop etc. I can't see my fingers ticking the box for the Liberal candidate (Hendy) he was one of the chief instigators plotting with others in his Queanbeyan office for the downfall of Abbott. I can't stand any politician from the major parties who do this - after all its us in our various electorates who vote for our local member and that determines which major party keeps getting in term after term after term. I'm beginning to feel completely devoid of enthusiasm for elections now, this feeling has been growing more and more over the past ten years or so.
    wally
    15th Feb 2016
    11:38am
    Well said. I think your post speak for a lot of the thinking voters.
    MITZY
    15th Feb 2016
    2:41pm
    Thanks Wally:

    I was just looking at headlines on the SMH website and note Malcolm Turnbull has just lost another older/experienced Minister - Ian MacFarlane. Only last night on the news Turnbull said he thought there wouldn't be any more going between then and the election date whenever that will be. MacFarlane says since Turnbull dumped him to the back bench he feels he needs to be working elsewhere for the betterment of Australia with the experience he has gained over 18 years in Parliament.
    At the rate of defections Turnbull will be left standing alone very soon!
    wally
    16th Feb 2016
    12:08pm
    This is a bit of a change from the usual thumpings you and I have given each other in the not so distant past!
    Scrivener
    15th Feb 2016
    11:11am
    The problem is not Malcolm Turnbull, it is the super-brick through every window, Scott Morrison - oh, and the fact that he is leader of the wrong Party.
    Gee Whiz
    15th Feb 2016
    12:33pm
    Turnbull was all mouth after he stabbed Abbott in the back. He was going to preform wonders.

    But he has always been huff and puff and of no substance.

    He is now about to crucify the average taxpayer and pensioners on the alter of his rich friends who pay no tax in this country despites earning billions of the backs its citizens.

    Turnbull is a failure as a Prime Minister. He's only there to line his own pockets then get out.
    Swinging voter
    15th Feb 2016
    1:17pm
    I don't think Turnbull is only there to line his own pockets then get out. He's a very wealthy man in his own right. I believe he's there because he has inflated ego and thought that because he was a good businessman, he qualified to be Prime Minister, rule the country, and then go on and rule the world. He looks flustered and out of his depth. He has no competition and will be returned to government but once only because the one thing he is not good at is politics so it will all end in tears for him and his stuck-up wife. He had a plan to be PM but no plan on how to be a strong and capable PM.
    Strummer
    15th Feb 2016
    1:44pm
    Rather a successful business than a failed Abbott.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2016
    8:37pm
    Swinging voter, what you say has a lot of truth to it in regards to the type of person Turnabout is. He is of much the similar ilk as Trump- a lot of money and talk, but not a clue about running a country. Turnstile has a head as big as his ego (possible?) but not too much in it, except for fattening up his wealthy mates who contribute to the LNP. The furthest thing from his mind is the middle income taxpayer who makes up the majority of the population. He is a grinning egotist and a very dangerous chameleon of a person who should not be trusted in ANY manner and is taking this once wonderful country for a very bad ride.
    buby
    16th Feb 2016
    8:57am
    As they all have been doing GEEWhiz, not much has changed.
    changing from OLD wood, to new, only means they might get meaner now, Who know i don't trust any POLitician, they are as cunning as hell.
    Do they know what they are doing. SEEMS NOT.
    Just stick it to the elderly, cause they are the most easiest of targets.
    Again NO employment. OH shit all gone OFF shore. how did that happen!!!!
    LIke they don't know???
    Supernan
    15th Feb 2016
    1:59pm
    Some of the comments are very funny, without meaning to be ! Yes Neg gearing does raise house prices because property is more in demand. I dont care what value my house is either because what we sell at we'll have to buy at. Yes it increases number of rentals but usually investers buy high real estate for hig end rates. Cut neg gearing & prices will fall, yes ! And more people now renting can afford to buy because houses are cheaper ! !
    Very disappointed with Turnbull. Thought for once someone would actually do what he said he believed in ! But pwere has gone to his head & he want to keep it at all costs. I like Bill Shortens style. He doesn't shout or grandstand,he's polite & mild mannered. I like that but not what people want ! People WANT shouting & grandstanding & playing to their worst fears. So dont think Bill has a chance !
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2016
    2:57pm
    Yes Supernan, I noticed how "polite & well mannered" Bill Shorten was to the nice little pie shop lady who ran out of pies. He won't have a chance if he stays on 19%. :(
    His major problem has been his reluctance to vote for good policy. People may see this as negative steering.
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2016
    2:45pm
    I doubt very much if the Unions will sack Bill Shorten. They are simply without a replacement. There is nobody in the ranks who could poll better than 19% in a Fairfax or ABC poll at this time.
    Kaz
    15th Feb 2016
    3:13pm
    Mr Shorten is a very smart man - put your differences aside and listen. I believe he does have good policy and glad he doesn't agree with a rise in the GST - that is not tax reform. Bring in the 'everyone pays 1%' tax rule.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    3:09pm
    Are you serious Frank? When the Rudd plan to elect a new leader was put into practice, it took weeks and the result was 60% of unionists wanted Albanese and 70% of Parliamentarians wanted Shorten. By percentage only Shorten got the nod. By numbers of voters, Albanese won by the length of the straight. The unions would have Albanese in a heartbeat except he is too smart to want the job now. Why would he when the job will be his after the election is lost by Shorten.
    Phil1943
    15th Feb 2016
    4:28pm
    By comparison with most Libs I know I'm a 'lefty'. But after two disastrous experiences I'll never trust the ALP again. So Malcolm was a real hope for building a better future for Australia.
    What a failure! He's just another ideologue with a big bank balance and a desire to hold on to his position regardless of what he may truly believe.
    Oh, he'll lead the Libs to victory at the next election, and Bill Shorten will probably fall on his sword (or succumb to knife wounds in the back) afterwards. But we won't have the government we need to provide Australians with the leadership we lack and the benefits we pay for.
    Submarines? Jet fighters? All BS. Try focusing on education and health, not just for cuts but for genuine development. And don't get me started on this phoney quest for 'tax reform' that looks more like furthering the interests of business at the expense of services we need and should be receiving.
    Yes, I'm angry and there's not much we can do - those of us at advanced ages - but support a minor party (okay, Greens are one) and look for them to in turn support the development of better policies from governments at all levels. We can't influence the major parties at all and they seem bent on reducing what benefits for oldies are left.
    The present gaggle of MPs and especially the LNP ministers just aren't up to the task.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:01am
    I supported Greens for a very short time, until I saw what hypocritical incompetents they are. They are far more dangerous than Labor.
    mareela
    15th Feb 2016
    4:57pm
    Robbo something you should read:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/hockey-negative-gearing/6431100
    Surely if either side of politics makes a suggestion that could help get the country out of financial trouble should be considered before dismissing out of hand. Just saying........
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2016
    5:26pm
    stop the negative gearing and just see the rents rising and the house prices won't go down, tighten negative gearing, with other words, stop the rorts and it will save billions.
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2016
    5:42pm
    Drop personal income taxes and watch investors change to a positive gearing strategy.
    The prices are only holding up in the big cities because of cashed up overseas buyers taking advantage of the slide in AUS$. Elsewhere property values have crashed also fuelled by sell offs from miners who no longer have a need for res property due to layoffs.
    While Labor are playing politics and grabbing at introducing a new tax or two, the government I believe is working on some real reform with a mix of changes designed to stimulate economic activity. I will be very disappointed if this is not the case. If this government after having many months of discussion around tax reform then decide to mirror Labor's approach when they adopted 3 new taxes from the 140 recommendations of the Henry review. It will be a big let down for the electorate.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:06am
    Ha ha! Turnbull is now talking mimicking Labor's negative gearing policy, Frank, but no doubt with some tweaking. The LNP don't know which way to turn because the electorate is onto their elitist policies and drive to restore a feudal society structure.

    Yes, drop personal income tax and give more to the cashed up privileged at the expense of health, education, and support for the underprivileged. Frank is doing okay, so to hell with anyone who isn't!

    Well, Turnbull is showing his cowardice and incompetence now, so you can start to feel let down! Personally, I'm pleased he's not totally focused on slashing income tax for the well off. (Can't slash it for the real ''lifters'' of this nation because it's not high enough for them to gain any benefit from cuts!)
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2016
    10:04am
    Rainey, for someone who always votes for LNP you sure are down on the government:)
    You do realise that there are Labor Premiers involved in Turnbull's Tax Reform Workshops?
    I will let you work out the rest for yourself and perhaps you will understand why Australian's are not as stupid as Shorten thinks.
    Happy Jack
    15th Feb 2016
    5:40pm
    Negative gearing is a rort- get rid of it, it's a blight on our society. Housing should be affordable for all Australians not just be a means of creating wealth. Just watch the jerks who want it retained proclaim abolishing negative gearing on old housing will stuff things up- just selfish on their behalf.
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2016
    5:57pm
    Happy, I take it you are in favour of negative gearing but just not on old housing? Every other income producing asset is ok though?
    Maybe it's a good option. Would not surprise me if that was a leaked LNP proposal.
    *Loloften*
    15th Feb 2016
    10:35pm
    The honeymoon's not over - Turnbull had no choice with a few retirees & perhaps a couple of others who didn't like him but that's normal with any in-coming PM, not everyone on the bench likes him/her. I'm a swinging voter & still like him altho' will change quickly if not happy with policies.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:11am
    ''Turnbull had no choice with a few retirees & perhaps a couple of others who didn't like him''
    What utter garbage. His policies don't even make sense. I've ripped the math behind their stupid pension taper rate change apart and they can't even do basic arithmetic!
    Rae
    16th Feb 2016
    7:30am
    The pension changes will totally stuff up Superannuation I expect going forward. Unless there are penalties imposed on receiving an aged pension. The average worker just can't save enough in this deflationary cycle to warrant putting extra into super. The total save will never amount to a retirement equal to the aged pension, concessions and security. Wages and savings are now in negative growth and I can't see how that will reset without some destructive market forces. Saving only works well with compounding and there simply isn't any growth there to allow compounding to work.
    The other problem is the disconnect between real price rises on essential goods and services and the CPI.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:52am
    Absolutely right, Rae. The pension changes are thoroughly illogical and ill-thought out and based on wrong math. They send a strong message to younger Australians that saving is counterproductive and they are better off to spend their money and have a good time, because savers will be poorer in retirement than spenders.

    The current negative growth might work in favour of many retirees who were hurt by the stupid taper rate change, but it will mean shocks for those who were a little over the old asset limit. As their income and assets fall, they will discover just how idiotic and unfair the change was.

    The taper rate should ALWAYS be linked to current rates of return. You cannot effectively ''fine'' people for saving and investing, and then ask them to save and invest, and that's what this new taper rate does.

    I'm so sick of this idiot argument ''millionaires shouldn't get pensions''. It's the brainless claim of a fool who can't do math, doesn't understand saving and inflation, has no idea what life is like in the real world, and basically can't see past his overly long and deformed nose.

    Isn't it odd that the same people who scream for income tax cuts to encourage saving and investment peddle the ridiculous claim that people who save and invest should be ground into hardship in old age if they didn't manage to make wealthy status? Clear evidence of elitism and selfishness, me thinks!

    At the same time, Rae, I think we should expect adverse changes to the aged pension - huge reductions and more and more restrictions on what it can be spent on. This government is determined to strip retirees of dignity, hope, confidence, and any expectation of a decent standard of living for all but the rich.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2016
    10:24am
    Rae and Rainey, it's that kind of logic which got us into this mess in the first place.
    We are in the middle of a GFC and all you can think of is raising wages and welfare.
    Banks are in real trouble. Why do you suppose the RBA insisted on raising equity ratios. Our biggest corporate tax payer has been using debt for shareholder dividends. China's weakening of demand is continuing. Let's not forget that it was China who kept Australian's in jobs during 2008/09. In my region we are seeing $1m houses selling for half price. If your IQ is above 50 you will soon begin to wonder why we are giving welfare to millionaires.
    *Loloften*
    15th Feb 2016
    10:44pm
    ALP re -ve gearing new plan doesn't matter unless u wanted to sell up & move o'seas if they're elected. Otherwise, if down-sizing, all balances out. Confirm that swinging voter - never been stupid enough to follow either major parties willy nilly, policies only.
    Not Senile Yet!
    16th Feb 2016
    1:01am
    Sorry but neither of the parties or their party puppets are honest!
    Let's get real here people.....they promise to represent the people who vote for them.....but are bound to do what their party policy demands!!!! That is dead wrong!!!
    Once an MP is elected......he/she should be free to vote how they please without repercussions from their party (Like non selection next election).
    Put simply they have sold your vote to the Part Machine before you have even given it to them!!!
    STOP electing Party Puppets.....they are just that puppets....made to do what the Invisible Party Caucus tells them to do!! Malcolm is no exception.....just another very smart manipulator in a suit who revels in the power!
    For my money ...we should all take their Donkey "How to Vote Cards" and Reverse the order
    on them...so the Party Puppets get removed!
    Yes....it will cause a lot of Independants to get up.....but heh.....they seem to be the only ones willing to NOT attack the Pensioners or Low Income Earners!
    Just maybe if enough get ousted.....both Parties might have to re-evaluate their incredibly crass lack of foresight for the Countries future......a future that should not involve copying out of date crass American.....make everything privately owned and unregulated.....failed policies!!!
    I for one see nothing honourable about a sitting member who has sold my vote to a Party machine without my permission.....I want an MP who can stand up and state his electorates view....not his parties!!!
    No More Puppets in Parliament!!!!
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2016
    7:09am
    Totally agree, Not Senile Yet (no, you definitely are NOT!)

    We need to somehow break the two-party preferred system and convince the powers-that-be that MPs should vote on issues according to the wishes of their electorate, NOT the policies of the party. We need to teach these mongrels what the word REPRESENT means.
    Happy Jack
    16th Feb 2016
    5:14am
    Frank! Abolish negative gearing on old housing now followed by new housing at a later date. It's a bloody disgrace that house prices in Sydney and Melbourne are rising 25% a year when we have an inflation rate of 2-3% per anum. Negative gearing and purchases by absentee overseas landlords are the root of the problem. As far as other investment are concerned I believe share losses can be offset but only against profit on other shares and other investments can not be geared.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2016
    10:48am
    Happy, negative gearing in itself does not effect property prices.
    What pushes up property prices is more buyers and less stock.
    Supply and demand.
    There are a lot of overseas buyers taking advantage of the drop in the AUS$. Cashed up buyers see it as a safe bet and get an asset at a 30% price reduction. That is one of the main reasons demand is strong in capital cities. Demand is weak elsewhere, particularly in mining towns, where miners are selling off empty miners cottages. At a profit I might add.
    Overseas buyers are not as confident to buy outside capital cities. I don't understand how a non resident can buy a house in Australia?
    Reeper
    16th Feb 2016
    12:20pm
    Idiot...if you are so knowledgeable why aren't you in politics or does your stupidity prevent it?
    Happy Jack
    16th Feb 2016
    12:37pm
    You've hit the nail fair square bang on the head Frank--: TOO MANY BUYERS and the reason is because people who already own a house OR TWO OR THREE OR MORE are in the market for wealth creation through negative gearing. get them out of the market and prices will not keep rising at exorbinate rates and instead of having to rent the younger one's will be able to afford to build. it's not rocket science.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2016
    4:26pm
    I would doubt that most investors have tax advantages that high up on their benefits list when it comes to choosing an investment? There are other reasons for rising prices in the res property market. Aggressive immigration for one.
    I have always believed the government should not manipulate the investment markets of wealth creators. These are the highly taxed workers who are trying to plan ahead. By far the big group of property investors have taxable incomes of $37k-$80k. They can probably only afford their investment because interest rates are so low and they have varied their PAYG via a NAT2032 application. If rates pick up they could have some stress. It is that group which will be hit the hardest.
    While, ATO data shows 50,600 non-residents declared rental income in 2011-12, of which almost all (49,520) earned $80,000 or less in Australia, we don’t really know how many non resident investors exist, or how much they have invested?
    I have friends who have household income of less than $40k with a neg geared property. There are nearly 250,000 negative income earners with taxable incomes of $20k or less. These investors obviously don’t get a tax advantage and I suspect stopping negative gearing tax benefits of rental properties would have next to no effect on their household income. So how will they be driven out of the market?
    Happy Jack
    17th Feb 2016
    10:23am
    Frank, you sound as if you are running MOANING MORRIE'S line that most people negative gearing are low income earners. This is one big lie he is expousing. He knows as well as the average Ozzie that he is referring to their taxable income - you know the one which is derived after all the tax breaks, lurks and perks including the sacred negative gearing has minimsed or avoided paying their fair share of tax. Now these friends of yours who are telling you their income is only $40k must be pulling your leg - to prove it, give your bank manager a call, tell him you're on $40k gross income a year and I'll put my house on it that he doesn't even want to know you. And while you're at it give MOANING MORRI'E a call and ask him how many negative geared properties he and or his family own. The big disappointment in all this is the aspirations of all the young Australians who will never own their own home. And all because of greedy people taking the easy way out. Let them invest, but not at the expense of all these young families.
    Adrianus
    17th Feb 2016
    11:51am
    Nope Happy, just trying to analyse the facts.
    In my previous post I mentioned there could be many investors who have varied their PAYG tax. Anyway as those numbers come from the ATO it is a given that they would be taxable income figures and not gross income. However if you are talking to a friend who tells you their income for whatever reason then they would normally be gross figures.

    You are suggesting that a negatively geared investor who has a taxable income of $20k is not doing it tough?

    You have seen many posts by Rainey complaining about non performing real estate assets. Investors are stuck with these assets, not by choice. I'm sure if you ask Rainey she would support that assertion.
    If we assume that 75% of negatively geared investors have only one property. (Yes that's right, not all rorters are like Nick Zenophon with 12 properties.) Then we can safely calculate the value of a NAT2032 application or better still the value of the tax deduction.
    With an average investment price of say $600k with average deductions running at a loss of say $20k that would have our $20k income investor on a grossed up income of around $40k.
    My fact checker says Morrison is correct, most of these investors are not high flyers.
    Happy Jack
    17th Feb 2016
    4:56pm
    Honestly, Frank- I find it very, very, difficult to believe that someone on a gross salary of $40k would ever be in a financial position where they could rake up enough for a deposit on a second residence. Given that most couples are raising a family the situation would be even more ludicrous unless of course the negative gearing is so lucrative that it would appear that we, the ordinary tax payer, is subsidising the purchase of the residence to the hilt. I'll say it again, housing should be affordable for all Australians not just for the greedy few to create wealth.
    Adrianus
    17th Feb 2016
    5:23pm
    Happy, we are in the middle of a GFC. Residential property values around Australia have dropped dramatically, as much as 30% or more from 2009 values. Add to that some vacancy factors and you start to understand that people didn't start out with an income of $40k and bought an investment property. Incomes have dropped, people are hurting. My calculation was wrong. I mistakenly included a new building allowance of $8750, therefor subtract that from the deduction and a typical $40,000 income would drop to $28,000 taxable. There are a lot of people on welfare Happy. Yes many on income of $76,000.
    Happy Jack
    18th Feb 2016
    3:28am
    Actually Frank, let's look at the real world situation and get in touch with reality - if, as in your scenario, it is financially feasible, for someone with a gross income of $40k and no assets to morgage, to obtain a housing loan and to meet the payments we would be in the wonderful situation where every young Australian family would be purchasing their own home. Hence, no housing problem, no need to rent, negative gearing would not exist. But we are not living in fairy land Frank, the cost of housing is rising so fast that unless you are cashed up it the dream of owning your own home is increasingly further out of reach. And why? Because goverments are, through negative gearing, subsidising those who are in the business of making money out of housing.
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2016
    7:38am
    Happy, you seem to have a closed mind?! I know at least one person in that scenario you describe. Bought his first investment property which was positively geared. Lost his $85k job and tenants at the same time. Had to lower the rent for new tenants. Found a job but it only pays $45k. Guess what? His property is now negatively geared. Oh to add to that property prices in his area have gone down.
    What is wrong with people having aspiration? What is wrong with someone trying to accumulate some wealth for their old age?
    Happy Jack
    18th Feb 2016
    9:40am
    Frank! I have no problem with people having aspirations - after all, that's what makes the world go around. In fact I've accumulated quite a bit myself over the years. But I'll tell you what! I've bloody well worked hard for most of it and made a bit on the share market but I draw the line at creating wealth out of housing investment using a government hand out- negative gearing! There's plenty of other ways to make a quid and to be productive along with it.
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2016
    9:45am
    Why do you suppose the Hawke/Keating government introduced negative gearing?
    Happy Jack
    18th Feb 2016
    10:08am
    Not really concerned as to who introduced it (and it wasn't Hawke/Keating, who only made changes to it ) but am focused on who is going to get rid of it.
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2016
    10:52am
    Let me phrase that another way? Why do you suppose it was introduced? What purpose does it serve? What was it's intended purpose?
    Happy Jack
    18th Feb 2016
    11:24am
    Frankly Frank, I really don't care what it's intended purpose was or indeed who introduced it. I'm interested in the here and now, not looking back into history. The present situation is that negative gearing has, because of the market forces it has created, pushed prices up far in excess of inflation (the last twelve months, in Sydney and Melbourne by 25% compared to inflation of 2.5% ) simply because the leeches living off the government subsidy see it as an easy way of making a quick quid. And while I'm here, let me ask you to read up on the most recent Grattan Institute research which shows that 80% of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the highest 20% of income earners. They found that a Doctor is 80 times more likely to negative gear than a lowly paid nurse. Give's the lie to the LIEberal government treasurer moaning Morrie, whose lips move faster than a fly on a horses arse when he says negative gearing is mainly used by low income earners rather than the well off. If he was at all concerned about low income earners he would get rid of this scourge of negative gearing and make housing more affordable for the average Australian battler not his rich LIEberal party funding mates..
    mareela
    18th Feb 2016
    3:31pm
    Couldn't agree more Happy Jack. The LIEberals never let the truth get in the way of a LIEberal story.
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2016
    3:38pm
    Keep trying to convince each other.
    mareela
    18th Feb 2016
    4:43pm
    Poor Frank blinded by propaganda. Try reading other sources other than right wing think tanks. Good luck.
    Old Dog
    19th Feb 2016
    3:48pm
    I am buggered if I know how a minister representing say,"health", can be "reshuffled" into "wealth" and suddenly become an expert on his/her new portfolio. An exaggeration, yes, but is this a game of trying not to get round pegs into square holes? Or is it simply trying to find the correct face to represent a bureaucracy that is going to go ahead with what they have been told to do, regardless?


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.