MARK RILEY: One sure way for the Liberals to unseat Labor at the next Federal election

Former Liberal Party adviser Tony Barry recently raised one sure-fire way of unseating Labor at the next election.

With tongue placed firmly in cheek he said the Liberals would be a shoo-in if only the minimum voting age was raised to 65.

His audience at an open-air podcast session with former Insiders host Barrie Cassidy roared with laughter.

But for Opposition Leader Sussan Ley this is far from funny.

The over-65s was the only age cohort among whom the Liberals outpolled Labor.

Barry, now a principal of political research and strategy firm Redbridge, pointed to two stark statistics that strike at the heart of the Liberal Party’s problems.

Of the 30 Federal electorates with the highest proportion of gen Z voters, the Liberals hold just three.

And of the 30 electorates with the most millennials, again the Liberals hold just three.

That is an enormous problem. An existential one.

The Liberals’ voter base is literally dying out and its primary vote among younger Australians is in the low 20s.

Much of the interest from Ley’s impressive address to the National Press Club on Wednesday has centred on her plans to make the Liberal Party more relevant to women voters.

This is admirable. And necessary. But reconnecting with younger voters is just as important, if not more so.

Barry says his research shows there is only one issue that is certain to engage those young voters and that is housing.

The research shows that under-34s aren’t really taken by either side’s current offerings.

Both promised additional demand-side incentives during the campaign to help first-home buyers into the market. Labor also promised to build 100,000 homes exclusively for first-time buyers to lift supply.

But the most common complaints raised by young voters in focus groups are about negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.

For anyone struggling to buy their first home, there is no fairness in a system that allows investors to buy 10, 15 or 20 houses and gear their losses against their tax.

Changing negative gearing is risky.

But, surely, if there were ever a time for the Liberals to take a big risk it is now.

Why not throw the negatively geared house at it?

It wouldn’t have to abolish negative gearing. Just limit it.

It could start by returning to the options Scott Morrison floated as treasurer in 2016.

Morrison suggested targeting the “excesses” in the system by restricting the number of properties investors could negatively gear.

His proposal came in response to Bill Shorten’s plan to restrict future negative gearing to new homes and halve the capital gains discount on the sale of those investment properties from 50 to 25 per cent.

The Coalition shelved Morrison’s musings in the 2016 Budget. Malcolm Turnbull decided to go to the subsequent election with a full-frontal attack on Shorten’s plans as an assault on aspiration and wealth.

Turnbull’s tactic worked. Just.

But Morrison’s proposal remains a reasonable basis for the Liberals to have another look at ways of reining in the excesses in the housing market.

It could look at limiting the number of homes an individual investor could negatively gear to five, while quarantining existing investments.

It could also progressively pull back the capital gains tax concessions from 50 per cent to 40 and then 30 over time.

That would help level the playing field for first-time buyers and attract the attention of young voters.

There is also a chance that a measured proposal to limit rather than abolish negative gearing might find enough support from the Greens and crossbenchers to build a majority in the Senate.

It obviously wouldn’t pass the House of Representatives without Labor’s backing but there would be many members of the Government’s caucus who would privately support such a reform.

There is also a clear downside for the Liberals.

It would meet staunch resistance from many in the party’s ageing base who would see any restrictions to negative gearing as the thin edge of the wedge.

But it is their children and grandchildren who would benefit most.

And it might just encourage them — and others aged under 65 — to think about voting Liberal.

Mark Riley is the Seven Network’s political editor