Liberals Promise to Property Investors: Tim Wilson - Liberals Treasurer

[MUSIC] Tim Wilson, mate, shadow, treasurer, liberal party. May absolute pleasure having you on the Scouting Australia podcast, mate. >> Well, thank you. I'm glad you're clarifying, it's not about the Scouts, though. >> It's not. No, it's definitely not. >> Okay. >> No, no, no, no. I mean, it depends. If you call the Australian property Scouts Scouts, then maybe. >> Okay, well, I'll just keep down my three fingers to look. >> That's it, mate. Well, we obviously got their scouting properties across all across Australia. And that's where the name comes from. And, mate, it's a very, I think, prudent conversation that we're having today, because so many of our listeners and client-based, and obviously, people who follow the podcast as well, so entrenched in what happens in property. And obviously, everything changed overnight on May the 12th. >> Yeah. >> It was obviously a couple of weeks before it, that it started getting really getting thrown in the air of all these things might play out and might happen. And then the night of, obviously, everything changed. >> Yeah, give it a budget night. >> Change forever. >> That's it, mate. And then you fast forward another month beyond that, and then they flipped SMSF on its head as well, something that most everyday strains that were trying to get themselves ahead, really utilises as an investment vehicle to get themselves ahead, and seemingly overnight got flipped as well. >> Well, it's true, but SMSF's are also a really important way that people finance, property, development, not just to make money, but it's obviously a part of it. No one's pretending otherwise. It's so essential to the housing stock of the country. >> 100%. >> And I don't think the government quite understands the consequences of what they've done there, where they've basically taken a bullet straight to housing development, particularly for the mum and dad's wanting to build stuff. And increasingly, it's being revealed for larger property developers too. >> Yeah, for sure. And I think, one of the other things which I've heard nothing about really since the back end of this, right, and all really playing out, is there's this supposed $2 a week modeling was made off of the best, supposedly, rental increase, which is fast, absolutely fast. >> I think we can call BS on that one, yeah? >> For sure. I think you and I both publicly have as well. But one of the other big things that I haven't even heard anyone even discuss, is the modeling of how the SMSF shape up will be, of the people who were relying on that to build part of their self-funded retirement plan, to actually not be a burden on the government and the economy, let's say, in 10, 20, 30 years and beyond. And how that actually looks from a modeling perspective of how much extra that might cost the government now, of not actually having self-funded retirees without as a strategy. >> Well, I get the point, and normally I'm sympathetic, but I think we need to be realistic. Most of the people who have SMSFs are already above 50, 500,000, I should say, so the chances that they're still going to be dependent on the government is actually quite slight. It is going to have a much bigger impact in terms of the properties developed, the price they go on, and then, more importantly, the price that Australians are going to pay, and that is going to impact the capacity for people to get an earlier cheaper, and we'll have a much bigger and longer tile, but that will be very hard to model. >> One thing I'll throw in, mate, just to challenge you a little bit on that front, is obviously we work with, there would be hundreds of clients a year that we have bought properties through the SMSFs that might have had between 150 to 250,000 and so on, and they're people ranging from 30s, 40s, and 50s, and we've had literally clients in their 50s, especially self-funded people, self-employed people who hadn't really built anything, trying to make something from themselves, starting with a small nest egg, and there's people like that man that really was a crucial part of their investment vehicle as well. >> It was absolutely part of their strategy. I don't disagree with that, but they tend to be more sophisticated, and I'm not defending the change, I think I'm a disaster, but whether or not they're going to have a long-term impact, because if they're not able to invest in through their SMSF into housing, they're not absent the capacity, and then some investments return, better returns than housing. The real question is, what are we doing for the housing market to increase supply, and it does nothing to increase supply and has the complete reverse effect? >> Yeah, yeah. Man, to throw everything in on, I guess, budget night, right, and everything that changed on budget night, I remember it well. >> So I sit and have late that night watching it, and- >> I think you're throwing things to the television. >> I understand. I know how you stand really within this, but the fall out of this thing, and the supposed modeling behind it. Something that actually I find very interesting within yourself is you stand for corruption, right, and you've been known to- >> Against corruption. >> Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. >> Against corruption, and you've been found to literally uphold against people, right, and against the financial services sector in particular, right? That's a lot of your past sort of comes from that side. And, man, I'm intrigued around, is there anything to be done of this supposed modeling that was put out there, and how this can be brought forward? Because may anyone else in the private sector- >> Yeah. >> There'd be blood on the streets for one, and they'd have someone to answer to with this, but how do they answer to the Australian people? They won't show this. How can it be done? >> Well, there are multiple ways we can probe it. It's sort of the Senate process, Senate estimates. Sometimes you get leaks out of the treasury, but the ultimate way you hold a government to account is that an election. This government was elected or re-elected with a very large majority, and it's gone to their head, and they think they can do whatever they want. The next election, everyone's got a choice about how they vote. Obviously, I have a very strong view about how people should vote, but you don't want to give government big mandates like they've been given, because they then go on and abuse it. But I think the government, when they're announced, when on budget night, they've consistently wound back different parts, excluding the point you make about SMSFs, on a lot of the small business measures, where they were just whacking massive taxes on small business. Today, they're backed out on their parts of their trusts, trust tax agenda. Public sentiment matters, and it's about you contacting your MP and saying, "This is not on." The other thing also is the data is just revealing that their entire modelling is a sham. You know that lie, which there's statistics, damn lies, and statistics. Well, now there's statistics, damn lies, and modelling, because the modelling is based on body numbers to justify why the government can come and give a giant tax grab, and the question is, "What is reality going to show?" And it's already showing something very different. Rents are going up faster. Ray White has gone out there and said, "You know, up to 30%, we're seeing the price of first homes go up, while the cost of more established homes coming down. So you end up in this worst of all worlds where young people are losing big time out of this budget." It's interesting to make as NAV came out, same claims and forecasting as we're out of the 30%. The claims by the government, the young Australians are going to be helped in this environment. We're already seeing a play out with three and a half months, but we're almost four months post-budget, right? We have only had a little bit of this to actually come through and put pressure on the market. We're four months in. What happens in 12 months, six, 12 months, and beyond that as well, right? Mate, the smashed confidence. And the problem with confidence is once you smash it, it's very hard to rebuild because you need the investment settings in an economic environment where people are confident to invest again. And, you know, we've got lots of other indicators, which are not hitting in the right direction. Inflation continues to outstrip wage growth, so people have less money in their hip pocket. That's hitting small businesses. Record, low small business confidence, record small business in solvencies. Every metric is going in the wrong direction that we want for this economy. And to turn that around is its own challenge, but then enough to get people to want to invest in it again is massive. You're seeing this in Victoria where we had massive new taxes hit on property for years and years and years. Now, everyone turns around and says, you can't build in Melbourne. You can't build in Victoria. You can't make a buck there. And it's taken two, three years to happen. And it's not going to be to a change of government, hopefully in November, that will get back to a stable position. Then you've got to rebuild confidence enough and people want to invest for the long term. And that can take time too. I used to be interested in the watch player. And when you're talking about the election in November, you're talking about obviously the state. And I think it'll be very interesting to watch player, because we're already seeing rents picking up down here, even in Melbourne, which has been a long time coming. But I think the going back to the point you were saying before as well about it kind of and I guess the way to put it is all really funneling down into the bottom end of the market run. So suppose that these younger strains, the lower end earners, supposedly who they're trying to help is who is actually going to get smashed to hardest by this rents, don't typically rise from middle and the top end of the market. They rise from the bottom first. And it's more and more people being funneled down into it and investors are being disincentivised and buying existing residential properties that less people buying, less rental properties available. We're going to see rising rents at the same time as even buyers across all segments are being funneled down. I think a lot of people don't actually understand that concept, but removing negative gearing removes a lot of servicing power and additional buying capacity. So people who might have been buying investments at one and a half million, I pushed down into half a million, 700, 800,000. So there's still pressure there at the bottom end of the markets. So the supposed help that's coming in from the government, it's not there. It's making the matters worse. Now, I mean, it's quite simple. Negative gearing is not applying taxes when somebody loses money. That's what happens. I mean, everyone seems to have this concept about what negative gearing actually is. It's saying we're not going to apply a tax when you lose money. And so now we're going to apply taxes when people are going to lose money. You know, shock horror, those people who bought those properties and we have negative gearing in shares. We just don't talk about them where people borrow money for shares. What are they going to do? They're going to pass on those costs. They're going to pass on the costs to people who rent from them. And so that's why one we're seeing rents got because of those sorts of changes. The second thing we're going to see is you can't make a buck at a building you housing people won't. So there's of course, as population rises, there's more demand on existing stock. Gosh, amazing supply. demand prices rise. And of course, now we're basically saying if you want to rent and you want it to be affordable, the only place you can really do it is in newer suburbs, which are further away from capital C's, further away from well-paid jobs and it's going to be this big divide between housing stock and what people can afford to do. So get used to travelling for an hour just because you want to be able to rent an affordable price. This is nuts stuff and it's not fair and it's not equitable in society. There's two things that really worry me. Yeah. Sprookers, property sprookers, so people who sell at big seminars and they sell a thousand bloody properties all in an estate and they sell a five to ten thousand property estates, right? Sure. And that's been an issue for a long period of time and I think the changes in this budget incentivising only new housing stock and giving these guys the ability to build fat margins into deals, sell them over price to the investor clients and then potentially sell off entire suburbs that are purely rental property suburbs. The way I look at it now and the scary thing I think it is is people get like they'll be overpaying for properties because they pay the sprooker margin on the way into deals. And then if they're buying an entire estate that could be two, five, ten thousand, there can be entire suburbs. I think this is the way that this will go. That is all rental stock. Is that not almost the same as public housing in the 60s, 70s and 80s which was literally just entire estates that were social housing? And if it's all rental stock and I don't mean to group renters average Australian renters into that, but if you have an entire estate or suburb that is purely renters, that is going to be an issue. Well, there's always a connection between home ownership and a sense of purpose, place and pride. For sure. You know, what a shock. People own something they care for it and they care for the community around it. Whereas people who, and of course they're more likely to be there for the long term, that is always consistent with rental properties. People are more likely to be transient. They obviously don't have a high degree of ownership. They expect the owner of the property to take certain points of action. Do I think it's like public housing estates? No, not quite. But I think there is a, there's an important point there, which is what is the degree of responsibility we're giving and what are we creating in the housing markets? Housing is about bricks and mortar or these days concrete and steel, but and glass, but it's more than that. It's a sense of purpose, place and pride as well as shelter that's really important. You break that down. You're breaking society down into a transient population. People who don't necessarily have that purpose, place and pride, and that has a broader effect on those people around them. We don't want that as a country. We want people to have an investment in where we are. That's one of the reasons why I believe in home ownership so much. Yeah, they're economic benefits and they're good, but it's actually the social investment that people have, not just for themselves, but in the families and the community that surrounds them. And then they should also become incubators for people to be able to go on and provide mutual support. I agree with you, mate, for sure. And I think it's like a, it means to be in the old age or thing, right? The greatest train dream being able to buy your own home, own your own home. Whatever that looks like in this day and age as well. So I think it's an interesting thing. And yeah, it is a genuine worry of mine because I've seen, I've seen so many people burnt by the former of the conversation there in terms of the sprucus side. And then it is a concern when I think about it from that end as well of an entire housing estate being rents as too. Well, I have the same view about a lot of build to rent housing because you get these towers owned by big corporates or super funds. And you have exactly the same problems emerge. And even worse than that, you end up where a corporates to sending your rental rate. And of course, you're buying it on the expectation of long term certainty and predictability. And you've just handed over to a corporation to decide what rental rates are going to be in the future. I don't think that's a good idea. And I don't think it's actually what you want from a country because it breaks that relationship between a place and a person and the economic investment and the social relationship they have too. For sure. And effectively, you're giving it, you're giving that ownership to something that is driven by purely as businesses right in there to make money for their clients, which they need to do. Of course that. So it's going to be driven by business decisions, almost like no emotion in that side as well. Well, I mean, we all make decisions based on a financial decisions based on what's in our best interest. But when you buy a property to live in, you're buying a property because you've done a, you don't just want economic benefits, you want certainty, you want predictability, and you want to invest in a place. And when you only, if we create a society, people are perpetually rent, we're not getting that commitment. I agree with you, mate. You touched on the fact of the institutional funds. Now, a lot of the institutional funds actually have more incentives available to them at this point in time than what has now been pulled off the table of the everything moment that investor. How's that go? Well, it's quite simple. The Labor Party governs for their friends. That's the trade union movement and the industry super funds or union funds really. And what a shock when they design the rules, mom and dad's got shafted, but the industry super funds and union funds were protected. And so that's why you get this complete separation between decision making is because they want corporate housing. They want big super funds investing in property so that they can own people from cradle to grave through their privatised system of welfare. I mean, I think the whole thing is a mafia operation at times where you have people who get elected to government who take 10% or 12% of your wage is get shoved into a fund that the unions control. They then take out a marketing expenses and garnish marketing expenses that fund the unions to campaign to get governments elected who increase the amount of money they take out of your salary in a vicious cycle. We've got to get real. These people are governing for themselves. They are not governing for you. Can I ask, why do so many, specifically, young Australians, but do you think Australians across the board believe so much that they're actually being helped by labor and by these policies? Well, because they've spent a lot of money convincing people of your own money, by the way. But, you know, young Australians want to get ahead. There's no argument about that. They've had fed into them for years and years and years a sense of resentment that the reason that people own property and they don't is because there was some sort of imbalance against them in favor earlier generations. I'm going to break it to young Australians. Baby Boomers didn't get compulsory super until 1992. You go back to 1992 and if you had said, are you going to save for your house deposit or are you going to save for superannuation first? People would say, of course, I'm going to save for a house deposit because I'll use my house in my working life and retirement. Superfunds even allow you to cash out your superannuation to buy your first home. It was considered so important. Now we've reversed that process and said, you've got to save your pension first. Then we'll worry about your home ownership. It's nuts stuff. We need a structural alignment where younger Australians can get ahead so they can invest and save for their future. But I think, frankly, they misunderstand what previous generations did because they didn't get home ownership because there were some sort of rig rules and favor of them. They got it because they prioritised it and the law is actively discouraging and undermining kneecapping, young Australians, to save for their first home deposit. Man, interesting piece around this as well is the government trying to talk about generational equality. They're talking about this intergenerational inequality and I think it's a very interesting thing that so many people have bought into it when they don't realise that the line in the sand was drawn on May 12th of the people who came before and got to the policy benefits and now they don't realise that they're in the next generation. The younger generation that hasn't invested yet hasn't gone through those cycles yet, hasn't gone through potentially the greatest working years in terms of income their lives. They now don't have those benefits. This line in the sand is good for them but they don't realise they've just been ruled out of the people who came before who had the benefits. It's drawing a line now of genuine inequality. The hubs and the have not. It's even worse than that. I mean, you're right. They've drawn a line in the sand that screws young Australians, not just because they're incurring more costs. We talked about like rents, rising rents and the price of a first home but now locked out of a lot of pathways to a crew wealth so that they can actually get ahead. So who's protected from it? It depends on who your parents are. If you've got parents who are born here who were asset well off, you will continue to enjoy those gains while new Australians and young Australians will be locked out unless they've got rich parents. This is the exact opposite of what intergenerational equality is. Intergenerational equality or equity is when young Australians can get ahead and the rules are not rigged against them where they have the pathway to work hard and for that hard work to pay off, where they're in control of their lives and there's a basic sense of respect for their effort. Instead, what this does and what the budget did was say, we're going to protect the boomers and we're going to shaft the young people and we're going to tell them that they're going to get a better deal because of it. It is absolutely disgraceful. Man, I'm with you 100% and you and I have both been very vocal around this, especially that component there, that intergenerational inequality man. And I think it's an interesting component because again, I don't think it's come out enough in the wash yet. People haven't felt it enough yet, but I think this is where it comes 12 to 24 months post budget night and the change is going to be in the rental things. People think it's going to be able to buy a property cheap or buy a property easier. Well, if your rent's got by three, let's say $400 a week, which is 100% feasible and possible if they go through and this continues to play out. That's $20,000 a year. Let's say $300 to $400 a week. That was going to be my point. Oh, 15 to 20 grand, sorry mate. 15 to 20 grand, right? That's rental money, which is post to acts. If you've been 20 grand a year, which is $30,000 a year, you need to make extra just to pay the rent, let alone save the deposit. I think this is this huge divide that people are aren't realizing here that it's going to come off, that component is very much going to play out. And then if at the same time prices are rising, it's, and investors will get back into the market. 'Cause once rents rise by, let's say 20 to 30%, well, it's going to get back to an equilibrium point of what they're able to write off with negative gearing, except now they're going to get it ahead of time. They're going to get it in real time. This is down the track, and I think that's going to fuel another boom, it's going to come into the marketplace. So some of you, I think, are brainwashed by thinking this thing is going to be good for them. When it's just this massive divide that's being drawn out, and I believe it's like, these people that don't get an X 12 to 24 months to buy their first home, and I feel for the people who aren't in a position to do it yet. Like, what about teenage kids that are at uni right now? They don't have, if they don't get in in this window, where does it push to if this continues to play out? Well, property cycles go through different cycles over time, but there is nothing I've seen in this budget, which is going to increase the chance of young Australians to be able to buy their own home. What's that going to do? It's going to lead to people either being trapped based on their financial position of their parents or their grandparents, and they're going to have to work harder and longer just to get into a position of being able to buy their own home. And let's be very clear about this. The average age, which a young Australian bought their first home in 1992 was in their mid-20s. Now it's in their late '30s. What a shock, as it takes longer to buy your first home, the family formation, having kids basically, getting married and having kids, has also gone with it. Not perfectly correlated, but they're pretty closely correlated. So we're committing a sort of almost form of societal suicide in the process because of the actions of the decisions that the government around homes. We need people to be buying earlier, cheaper, and being able to build foundation for a family and a successful life. And the longer that's delayed, the more we're doing self-harm. 100%, mate. 100%. We've talked a lot about supply here. What's the Liberals plan to bring supply? If you guys were to get-- let's say, get back in the power. We're like, well, there's so many things being missed by a labour right now. If it were to get back in, how would you guys look at it from that perspective, bringing more supply to market? So what we've announced already, firstly, is we'll repeal the negative gearing changes in the capital gains tax changes. But one of the things we've committed to is spending billions on the underlying investment for infrastructure. So the pipes and the infrastructure need to build new housing. And we took that to last election. Labor attacked us over it. They've now basically adopted a vision on themselves. That said, actually, you guys were right in the end, which is extraordinary. The other thing we've said is we're going to simplify the building code, because at the moment, regulation is a massive cost for building a new home. And for a lot of people, that will sound like a very broad brush statement. But the building code is thousands of pages long. It goes through, and it sets almost like one size fits all principles for housing stock. So you're almost compelled to build the same equivalent housing stock for the same conditions in cans as you are in Hobart. That doesn't make any sense. We want to simplify it, make it much more straightforward, and obviously, governments to be able to interpret based on local conditions so that housing stock is built relevant for the location it's in. We just want to get past a lot of the regulation so that we can actually get houses built faster and cheaper. Because that is one of the big problems. The more regulation you add, the more delay it adds. That's more cost, and they can be extraordinary. But the other thing, frankly, we need to do to make housing cheaper is we've got to take the pressure off inflation. Because inflation drives interest rates. And apart from the fact that so many young Australians will take so long to save a house deposit, what we're now finding is huge number of Australians struggling to pay the interest on their purchase because the government is addicted to spending. They can't kick their inflation addiction. And so interest rates keep going up, and it's going to get harder and harder for people to keep their homes, let alone to be able to buy in the first place. In regards to the question you said as well, in terms of developers being able to bring stock to market and being able to brought more cheaply, right? Now, something that most people might not know is that around about 40% of a development or a product actually being brought to market in the back end a lot of the time, at circa 40% is the number. That is attributed to taxes and to contributions here, which contributions are counsel-dropped. But within that, is there any way of bringing that back down? Are you saying about talking about bringing a building code that's more relevant? But in terms of bringing that back down, because there's a lot of developers where that's just no longer feasible, especially when we talk about things like interest rates and things like that that just constantly are moving pieces, you've got markets going up and down sideways, build costs increasing of anything else. If 40% of a developed product is down to taxes, how do we bring that down? Because that's a pretty significant chunk right up a build. It is, and while there's a state tax, which I'm federal, they're state taxes. So I'm not avoiding it. I'm just being realistic about what we can do. So yes, we can definitely bring those down. And Victoria is kind of out there as a leader constantly increasing taxes on the cost of housing. But the other thing is that it's like the invisible taxes that apply in states around the country now. We have public projects run by CFMU and organised crime. And every time their wage rates go up and all of the conditions go up there, they're just passed on to private projects, including housing development. The Queensland government has done a Royal Commission or public inquiry looking at the economic impact of CFMU corruption on the price of new builds. And the rest of the money can be up to 30% in some cases in comparison to what the price could be. So in the corruption, cut the taxes and of course make sure that we downscale the regulation because then we can actually build houses earlier, faster, cheaper. Because every time you delay construction, all the holding costs of holding the land, financing and the land, et cetera, continues to go up. And the only person it pays for is the person who eventually buys the property. Yeah, for sure. It's the end consumer, right? Because if it doesn't stock up, they're not if they're not even going to do it. That's not even going to, they can't even do it. If they can't turn a profit, they're not even going to do it. Well, you've got this insane situation, Victoria, where you've got a vacant tenancy tax, which is if a property is basically left empty, you can't do it. So this is one of the reasons we don't have development in Victoria. You have developers building new apartment buildings that say got 50 apartments and making a number up. And of course, the time frame between when they finish or complete, and then they go on to try and sell. In the interim, they're vacant. So they pay a tax while they're trying desperately to offload the house and sell the apartment. So just keeps going on and on and all those taxes, just keep being added to the value and the sale cost. 100%. This is a curious one. And some of this does come down to more of a state position. So we're talking about say, stand duties and land taxes and things like that. But Australian property is known worldwide as being like a very expensive thing to be owned, developed, literally just even transacted on in Australia. Again, I get to say you look at it compared to St. New Zealand, where it's almost none of those stamp duties, CGTs, all these things are exact. Is there any chance for any of that stuff to one day be put on the cards to be trimmed back or nullified? What was the short answer that is yes. When the GST was introduced in 2001 by John Howard, the deal with the states was they will get GST revenue, but they were supposed to repeal stamp duty and get rid of it. The states instead took the GST and said now we're going to keep stamp duty anyway and screwed young Australians along the way. So yes, it's possible the states have the power to do it. They've chosen not to do it. So it can be done. We can absolutely scale these things back, but not with our honesty in government and with the sense of integrity. So nothing from a federal level can actually get pushed through to force the states. Anything from a state like this is outside, but that's like I'm curious on it. Well, the challenge always is there's six states and there's one federal government. And so you turn around to the states and say we're going to compel you to cut your stamp duty. We know in practice that they'll very quickly find ways to make it very painful to stop that pressure. So that was why the deal was the right deal at a time. It's disappointing the states have done what they've done. And we've got to keep the pressure on that. Obviously, if you're having a big conversation around tax reform, that completely restructures the whole tax system, these things can come back into the conversation, but that hasn't happened yet. May I go a little bit of a rapid fire, a couple of questions, first and foremost? One, two, one. They're things we've covered, but I want to, I want to make clarity for everyone. Chimmers are grouped together. And you've mentioned a couple of these anyway. Negative gearing. Yeah. You guys get back into power. What happens with negative gearing? We're going to overturn the changes and we're going to return it to enable young Australians or every Australian to be able to use it. In the same form that it was. So we're working through all the detail on that, but that's the spirit of it, yes. OK, sweet. Capital game tax exemptions. Same deal. We think that capital gains tax changes extremely damaging. There is a problem with the relationship between income tax and capital gains tax. The problem is income tax is too high. The response from the government is to say, let's increase capital gains tax towards income tax rates. So curiously, then around that, in terms of, say, we're getting back in, is there the chance of income tax rates coming back down on that front? We've already said, we've already introduced or proposed a tax back guarantee. At the moment, every time inflation goes up, it takes more of your wages silently without a single change in law around income tax. So we've put forward a tax back guarantee. If inflation pushes up the amount of tax you're paying, you'll get that back automatically rather than a being by the gift of politicians. OK, SMSF lending. Yep. Let's grab them. In fact, we're keen to introduce a bill to end that. We know in this parliament, we know. No, it won't be successful, but it's madness. - To effectively be able to bring that back to the equation. - Yeah, beautiful, mate, beautiful. Something I'm curious on as well. And I know I've heard you quite vocal on these two apprenticeship programs scrapped earlier in the year, like literally the future of the workforce being done away with this in terms of that position. - Well, we haven't announced anything yet, but everybody in the Coalition is committed to providing pathways beyond universities for education skills and training. Apprenticeships are really important for the economy. We need it for labor supply, whether it's for building housing, building data centers, whatever it is. We're going to need more chippies, more sparkies, and they go to the apprenticeship program. The question is, how do we support apprentices and people who obviously sponsor them because we don't just want them to take it up. We want to follow them through and for them to go on and be successful, small business people. - Love it. Final one, with that, it almost is very similar. Post-Covid, migration numbers, flood of Australia. We saw rents rise by about 50% over 12 to 18 month window. Non-targeted migration. Migration is healthy for Australia, we're a small country, we need for the economy, but in terms of targeted migration, in terms of coming back in, like we needed skill labor to fill the void that have been left of people bringing retirement plans forward in COVID, specifically from the trade workforce. Is there a position on that that the Liberals are standing on with targeted migration on school labor? - Well, what we believe very strongly is that migration has to work for Australia's national interest. Shock all right, but that's the purpose of a migration program. Nothing more. So we're working through our numbers now about how that's going to be focused, but we believe that skilled migration is essential. It should be targeted based on what we need to be able to build out the future of the country. Think about generations past where you had migration who came to Australia and they came to our country, they committed to our country, and they contributed to our country before they took from our country. And we saw a big ways of that, particularly after the Second World War, and nobody has a problem. What we don't want our migration program to be is a pathway for people to take a land on our country. They're not interested in its long-term investment and they're not contributing to it. They're just taking from it. So we're working through the details specifics now because we want to see quite an overhaul and you'll be hearing more about that soon. - Okay, beautiful. I love it. Make my final question around this is. - You just had your final question. - That was rapid fire. That was a final question from the rapid fire. - Right, I have one last final question. Last one I promised. - Sure. - Albert's lied through his teeth. - Yeah. - He told 50 times. Remember, it was 50 times. - I remember very well. - We were not touching negative gearing and everything else that they all lied about. To then get into power with the majority vote to overturn it with an inability for anyone in Australia to actually be out overturned as an individual Australian, right? - Yep. - There's a lot of people calling for an election based off a vote of no confidence because of the lies deceitfully told. If they were in the private sector, they would be hung out to dry. - Yeah. - See you later. Probably never employed again for what they've done. - Excellent. - And going against literally their word categorically stated. - Yep. - What can be done, even if it can be done? I mean, a lot of people told me this vote of no confidence for a reelection. How does that even come to pass? - So a vote of no confidence means a vote goes to the House of Representatives and the government loses the confidence the House of Representatives. The government currently has nearly two-thirds of the votes and House of Representatives. So we can do it. It'll be performative. It'll go nowhere, it'll achieve nothing. I'm not being negative, I'm just being honest with you. - You're being realistic. - That's how these things work. So unless you get all these Labor members who wake up one day, you know what? I really want to be out of a job. Sooner than I otherwise would be. Your choice is at the next election who you're going to vote for, but it's more than that. It's who you're going to back and whether you're going to back them in hard because Labor is the political moment of the organized. And when I say organized, they're people who come together and they basically take over government to feed themselves and to get the best outcome for themselves. One of the biggest problems is that, you know, we're the party of the disorganized people who are getting on with their lives, running small businesses, building homes, having families, those sorts of things, whether it's being involved directly with politics or getting involved with our campaign, particularly for those small business people, we have a campaign standwithsmall.org because we have to mobilize the small businesses and business owners of this country to take back our nation. Mate, I love it. You're just passionate about it. Well, you've really more passionate about me. I feel like you're fine about this battle. No, you're pretty passionate, we're good. I love it, mate. I love it. My money is on the fact that Albo, Charlemers, Clare O'Neal will all be out of a job by the end of next year. I genuinely think it will. There was an '85 to '87. We saw it, all happened. The same thing played out. They repealed it, all got turned over. Mate, I think the same is out. Well, I think they're going to get asked before this thing even happens to try and save themselves in the election in two years' time. But, Tim, I want to say a massive thank you for joining me on the podcast. There's a lot of people who really wanted to hear exactly how this is going to play out, going the other route of obviously what's playing out right now. So, I just want to say thank you very much for your time. It's been a pleasure. Thank you for having me.