Interview with Tom Connell on Afternoon Agenda

Tom Connell

The Coalition says Labor has dropped the ball on regulating cryptocurrencies despite the collapse of a crypto exchange that left 30,000 Australians out of pocket recently. Joining me now is the Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership, Andrew Bragg, who's taken an interest in this. You've put out a Private Member’s Bill. They don't normally get government support. Have you spoken to the Minister responsible, Stephen Jones? He's a pretty approachable sort of bloke, isn't he?

Senator Bragg

Well, the Government promised to regulate crypto in this Parliament, Tom, and they have failed to do that. That means that Australia is getting fewer ideas, higher prices as a result, and ultimately, fewer jobs here in this country. I think the idea of regulating crypto is a no-brainer, and it has basically taken the government the whole of this Parliament to do nothing.

Tom Connell

Okay. What I was interested in as well when you said other opportunities, this is around the blockchain, we go beyond cryptos. You spoke about the fact there is tokenization of housing. In other words, people can buy a 10th, 100th, whatever it might be of a house. Do we want to go down that path? We're already talking about the struggles for first home owners. Do we want to create another thriving market on people not actually owning the home they live in?

Senator Bragg

Well, it's certainly not being presented as a solution to the housing crisis, but there are opportunities for younger people who may be longer on crypto, to use it for getting exposure to different things, like property. But it's all unregulated at the moment, despite Labor's promises. So, I think it would be much better if Labor could get on and regulate crypto, and then people might be able to avail themselves of more opportunities. We've got to try and think as creatively as we can here.

Tom Connell

But you think that would be a good thing overall in terms of your housing portfolio? I get what you're saying, regulate it, it does need regulation, given what happened, for example, with that exchange that collapsed. But should we actually look at this tokenization of housing as a bad thing? Isn't that just more people competing against first home buyers, owner occupiers? Isn't that what we want?

Senator Bragg

Well, it could lead to someone actually buying a house. And the idea would be that if people want to get some exposure to an asset class, then they should be able to do that using a modern means. And at the moment, everything is totally unregulated. So, these things can be done now, but they're not being done under the Corporations Act. So, my view would be that it's better to regulate it and do it properly.

Tom Connell

Alright. Now, the main Bill that's been sitting there in Parliament has been Help to Buy, which the Coalition is not supporting. I wanted to put this similarity to you and see if you'd point out anything that you don't think is right about this. ‘Help to Buy’, that's the government putting up part of the stake for first home buyers. Once a person eventually sells that house, they keep their bit, and they pay the Government the amount back. Your superannuation plan would allow people access to their super to do the same thing, to reduce how much they need in terms of the deposit, pay back their own super when they sell the house. There's some pretty strong similarities there, aren't there?

Senator Bragg

Well, this is the people's money versus the government's money. So, the people's money is in superannuation and the taxpayer provides the government's money. So that is the fundamental difference. And the reason we don't think ‘Help to Buy’ is a good idea is because it's a government-owned house. The government owns 40% of the house, as opposed to using your own money, where you own 100% of the house, albeit with a mortgage.

Tom Connell

But the effect at the end is the same. You sell the house, you either put the money back into your own super or back to the government. The effect afterwards is exactly the same, isn't it?

Senator Bragg

But the point is that it's your money. You're not involving the taxpayer in any form there. It's your money. If you want to bring forward home ownership, then that's a reasonable idea. Now, at the moment, 32% of lump sums coming out of super are being used to pay down mortgages. So that's showing that people are wanting to use their own money to buy a house faster or own that house faster, I should say.

 Tom Connell

Why not do both? What if someone out there doesn't have the super? They still want to get in. They've got a well-paying job. Maybe they travelled for many years. They didn't save up that super. So, they couldn't access your scheme. Why not both?

Senator Bragg

We don't think government ownership of private houses is appropriate. That's why we don't think ‘Help to Buy’ is the right idea. And if this was the government's number one priority, then it would have sought to legislate this a long time ago. It has taken the government over 870 days to try and bring this ‘Help to Buy’ legislation to a vote. So, it obviously wasn't a priority for the government in any event.

Tom Connell

Andrew Bragg, got to leave it there, thank you.

Senator Bragg

Thanks, Tom.

[Ends]

‍

‍