❓ Question regarding misinformation campaigns and undermining confidence in WA's housing sector related to foreign property buyers. The Treasurer's response deflects, criticises the Liberal Party's stance, and accuses members of using misleading data.
AnsweredQoN 584Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FOREIGN BUYERS SURCHARGE — FOREIGN
INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD
584. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Treasurer:
I refer to the government's efforts to ensure foreign
property buyers pay their fair share.
(1) Can the
Treasurer advise the house whether he is aware of any ongoing and damaging
misinformation campaigns that are focused on putting foreign property
speculators ahead of families?
(2) Can the
Treasurer advise the house whether he is aware of any attempts to talk down and
undermine confidence in WA's housing sector?
INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD
584. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Treasurer:
I refer to the government's efforts to ensure foreign
property buyers pay their fair share.
(1) Can the
Treasurer advise the house whether he is aware of any ongoing and damaging
misinformation campaigns that are focused on putting foreign property
speculators ahead of families?
(2) Can the
Treasurer advise the house whether he is aware of any attempts to talk down and
undermine confidence in WA's housing sector?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Girrawheen for that very good
question.
(1)–(2)
We are starting to see a pattern emerging, with the Liberal Party now opposing
the taxi sector finally getting, after years and years, a fair deregulation of
that industry. The Liberal Party opposes it. That is an extraordinary position
for it to take. I think I have ventilated quite well in this place my surprise
with the Liberal and National Parties prioritising foreign investors in
residential property over WA families. But I want to keep ventilating this surprising
position that has been taken by the opposition, in particular the member for
Bateman. I honestly think that he does not support the position taken, which
was probably demanded of him by the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised
and entertained by the efforts the member for Bateman goes to on Twitter late
at night to try to justify the position he is taking. Last night, in
particular, was one of the best performances I have seen from the member for
Bateman. For a minute there, I did think that he might have nodded off and that
the noggin was on the keyboard, because there just seemed to be a collection of
random words there for a while as opposed to coherent sentences. In light of
the whole fake data I am getting, I half expected it to finish off with ''covfefe''.
That would have been a perfect way for the Liberal Party to finish, considering
the way it has gone about trying to justify its opposition to a very good
policy. Covfefe is probably as much sense as we are going get out of the
Liberal Party.
Last night there was
another great performance by the member for Bateman. Finally, it appears he has
looked at some Foreign Investment Review Board data. He had a look at the
annual report that I had recommended he do, and he dug up that same
www.domain.com.au article. The only suggestion I have for the member for
Bateman and the member for Scarborough is that they read all the article, not
just the bits they like. This is the bit of the FIRB annual report that the
member for Bateman quoted —
The number of
approvals for residential purchases fell by 67 per cent last financial year,
according to the Foreign Investment Review Board Annual Report 2016–17,
released on Tuesday.
I want to explain,
because he obviously did not read the report that explains what actually
happens. Generally, any foreign investor can make multiple applications—10,
20, 30; however many they like—and a subset of that ends up as actual
purchases. FIRB, unsurprisingly, got sick of that, so it put a fee on each
application. According to the position of the Liberal Party, that should have
wiped out foreign investment in Australia. Surprisingly, it did not. The FIRB
annual report went on to make the point—the member for Bateman should
have read further—that the drop in approvals was due to buyers, and I quote,
''only applying for properties they intend to purchase'',
unsurprisingly, rather than a drop in actual investment.
The key is that there
was no drop in investment; yes, there was a drop in applications because the
FIRB process changed. While the member for Bateman is saying that 12 per cent
of sales are now going to foreign nationals—1.26 per cent, #covfefe—the
member for Scarborough is saying that one in four properties in Melbourne and
New South Wales are owned by foreigners. I am glad to see that the member for
Scarborough has updated that. Unfortunately, she then referenced an article
that referred to the foreign surcharges in both those states.
Mrs L.M. Harvey :
Are you trolling me, Treasurer?
Mr B.S. WYATT :
I am actually going to start keeping a keen eye on you guys, because I have to
say it is some of the best covfefe I have seen. This is what it said —
The NSW and Victorian
state governments have pulled off one of the rarest victories imaginable—a
successful manipulation of the property matter for the better.
The surcharge, and I
quote —
� encouraged first-home
buyers back onto the scene without causing a sudden collapse in prices.
It is a good article
to have as a reference, member for Scarborough. At every single point we get
this blocking, wrecking attitude from the Liberal Party and its Nationals WA
colleagues, whether it be about a fair return for taxidrivers or whether it be
about protecting WA families from the full efforts of budget repair. I like it
because, ultimately, they keep digging away, trying to find an economic
argument—I get it, member for Bateman, #covfefe—that justifies
it. They are descending; they have found their eighth layer of hell, I suspect—that
opposition world of trying to find a justification for the position it takes.
I want to conclude
because I like this one in particular at the end of the member for Scarborough's
Facebook contribution to justify why the opposition is protecting foreign
nationals buying residential property over WA families. Why are they doing it?
This is what the member for Scarborough said, and I quote —
We're not
just being spoilers.
That is true.
Although that has been a big part of what the opposition has been doing for the
past 18 months, now it is spreading disinformation, deceit, fake data, #covfefe
to try and justify the position it takes. Ultimately, I say to both members
that at every point I have gotten up, I have referenced the data and I have
asked them to go back and look at the position they have taken and the fact
that they have got it wrong. That happens in opposition. Members opposite need
to go back and reconsider their position. It is a good policy. If it is
defeated in the upper house, I am quite excited by the opportunity to talk
about it every single day until the next election. If members opposite are
going to take this approach of #covfefe, then I dare say that political debate
in Western Australia will continue to decline.
question.
(1)–(2)
We are starting to see a pattern emerging, with the Liberal Party now opposing
the taxi sector finally getting, after years and years, a fair deregulation of
that industry. The Liberal Party opposes it. That is an extraordinary position
for it to take. I think I have ventilated quite well in this place my surprise
with the Liberal and National Parties prioritising foreign investors in
residential property over WA families. But I want to keep ventilating this surprising
position that has been taken by the opposition, in particular the member for
Bateman. I honestly think that he does not support the position taken, which
was probably demanded of him by the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised
and entertained by the efforts the member for Bateman goes to on Twitter late
at night to try to justify the position he is taking. Last night, in
particular, was one of the best performances I have seen from the member for
Bateman. For a minute there, I did think that he might have nodded off and that
the noggin was on the keyboard, because there just seemed to be a collection of
random words there for a while as opposed to coherent sentences. In light of
the whole fake data I am getting, I half expected it to finish off with ''covfefe''.
That would have been a perfect way for the Liberal Party to finish, considering
the way it has gone about trying to justify its opposition to a very good
policy. Covfefe is probably as much sense as we are going get out of the
Liberal Party.
Last night there was
another great performance by the member for Bateman. Finally, it appears he has
looked at some Foreign Investment Review Board data. He had a look at the
annual report that I had recommended he do, and he dug up that same
www.domain.com.au article. The only suggestion I have for the member for
Bateman and the member for Scarborough is that they read all the article, not
just the bits they like. This is the bit of the FIRB annual report that the
member for Bateman quoted —
The number of
approvals for residential purchases fell by 67 per cent last financial year,
according to the Foreign Investment Review Board Annual Report 2016–17,
released on Tuesday.
I want to explain,
because he obviously did not read the report that explains what actually
happens. Generally, any foreign investor can make multiple applications—10,
20, 30; however many they like—and a subset of that ends up as actual
purchases. FIRB, unsurprisingly, got sick of that, so it put a fee on each
application. According to the position of the Liberal Party, that should have
wiped out foreign investment in Australia. Surprisingly, it did not. The FIRB
annual report went on to make the point—the member for Bateman should
have read further—that the drop in approvals was due to buyers, and I quote,
''only applying for properties they intend to purchase'',
unsurprisingly, rather than a drop in actual investment.
The key is that there
was no drop in investment; yes, there was a drop in applications because the
FIRB process changed. While the member for Bateman is saying that 12 per cent
of sales are now going to foreign nationals—1.26 per cent, #covfefe—the
member for Scarborough is saying that one in four properties in Melbourne and
New South Wales are owned by foreigners. I am glad to see that the member for
Scarborough has updated that. Unfortunately, she then referenced an article
that referred to the foreign surcharges in both those states.
Mrs L.M. Harvey :
Are you trolling me, Treasurer?
Mr B.S. WYATT :
I am actually going to start keeping a keen eye on you guys, because I have to
say it is some of the best covfefe I have seen. This is what it said —
The NSW and Victorian
state governments have pulled off one of the rarest victories imaginable—a
successful manipulation of the property matter for the better.
The surcharge, and I
quote —
� encouraged first-home
buyers back onto the scene without causing a sudden collapse in prices.
It is a good article
to have as a reference, member for Scarborough. At every single point we get
this blocking, wrecking attitude from the Liberal Party and its Nationals WA
colleagues, whether it be about a fair return for taxidrivers or whether it be
about protecting WA families from the full efforts of budget repair. I like it
because, ultimately, they keep digging away, trying to find an economic
argument—I get it, member for Bateman, #covfefe—that justifies
it. They are descending; they have found their eighth layer of hell, I suspect—that
opposition world of trying to find a justification for the position it takes.
I want to conclude
because I like this one in particular at the end of the member for Scarborough's
Facebook contribution to justify why the opposition is protecting foreign
nationals buying residential property over WA families. Why are they doing it?
This is what the member for Scarborough said, and I quote —
We're not
just being spoilers.
That is true.
Although that has been a big part of what the opposition has been doing for the
past 18 months, now it is spreading disinformation, deceit, fake data, #covfefe
to try and justify the position it takes. Ultimately, I say to both members
that at every point I have gotten up, I have referenced the data and I have
asked them to go back and look at the position they have taken and the fact
that they have got it wrong. That happens in opposition. Members opposite need
to go back and reconsider their position. It is a good policy. If it is
defeated in the upper house, I am quite excited by the opportunity to talk
about it every single day until the next election. If members opposite are
going to take this approach of #covfefe, then I dare say that political debate
in Western Australia will continue to decline.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.