JENI O’DOWD: Time for radical Greens to rebrand themselves as the Reds

The Greens should rebrand themselves as the Reds and the Teals as the Pinks. Why? Their policies are starting to look like something out of a Marxist manifesto.

From pushing for wealth redistribution through taxes on inheritance to land taxes that risk penalising everyday Australians, they’re treading closer to socialism than they might like to admit.

This is why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s flirtation with ending negative gearing should concern all Australians.

While he has ruled out any immediate changes — for now — the Greens were quick to take credit, putting out a triumphant statement headlined: “Greens pressure works as Labor considers changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax.”

The Greens’ statement claimed: “Labor is cracking under pressure from the Greens . . . these unfair tax handouts are driving the rental and housing crisis.”

Really? When the Prime Minister finally ruled out changes for now, he admitted that ending negative gearing wouldn’t help solve Australia’s housing crisis.

“The issue of negative gearing is one of supply,” he told ABC TV. “The research from organisations like the Property Council shows that it would reduce supply and, therefore, not contribute to solving the issue.”

Did the Greens push Labor into toying with this idea? They certainly think so. This raises a critical question: what other controversial Greens policies might Labor entertain if we face a hung parliament in 2025?

The stakes couldn’t be higher for homeowners and the economy, from the Greens’ radical push to phase out coal and gas to their support for rental price caps and massive public housing schemes.

As we edge closer to a hung parliament, Labor may find itself dancing with the devil — well, devils, if you count the teals and independents, who were also on board with the push to end negative gearing. And who knows what that would mean for Australia?

Let’s focus on one of the Greens most absurd proposals: the dynastic wealth tax (read: inheritance tax).

This plan, first revealed by The Daily Mail Australia, would impose a tax on large inheritances, including family homes and financial gifts like parental assistance for home deposits.

In their economic justice policy, the Greens say they want to reduce intergenerational wealth disparity by redistributing wealth and using the revenue to fund public services like housing and healthcare.

At the time, a Greens spokesperson said the dynastic tax and other policies were the party’s ideas at the 2022 election and “did not necessarily” reflect its current beliefs.

Then why, on its website, is the tax listed under policy principles and aims, which states: “As an expression of the Greens’ values, these principles and aims don’t just underpin our costed election platform, they lie at the heart of the work done by the Greens in Parliament, and in community.”

We don’t need new taxes or quick-fix solutions driven by specific ideologies that, in the end, simply punish hard-working Aussies.

How are our children supposed to enter the housing market if they can’t get help from their parents? That horse has well and truly bolted. And if there’s a tax on being gifted the family home in a will, isn’t that a death tax?

Owning a home doesn’t make you rich. It just means most of us have scrimped and saved for decades to pay off a loan, hoping to give our children a fighting chance — especially since they’ll likely still be living at home at 30 because, let’s face it, who can afford to move out?

Helping your kids with a home deposit doesn’t make you wealthy. So, what planet are Adam Bandt and his merry people (I don’t dare write men) living on?

Labor has not officially supported an inheritance tax. There have been rumours and claims, particularly during election periods, that they might introduce such a tax, but these have always been denied. But who knows if a version of the Greens policy could be introduced in the unpredictability of a hung parliament?

The Greens also support replacing stamp duty with a land tax, which they frame as part of their effort to tackle housing affordability and wealth inequality.

Significantly, they have not said whether this would apply to owner-occupied primary homes.

In most States, owner-occupied primary residences are exempt from land tax. The Greens claim this tax would target speculators and wealthy investors, but as we’ve seen before, ordinary Australians often bear the brunt of new policies.

Remember when former NSW premier Bob Carr introduced the so-called millionaires tax in 1997? This was a land tax targeting properties worth more than $1 million — at the time, the average house price in Sydney was just $233,250.

The tax was hugely unpopular because of its unintended consequences, particularly for many elderly homeowners in affluent areas like Sydney’s eastern suburbs and the North Shore where land values had increased the most.

The new tax didn’t consider the number of retired people who had paid off their homes and were living on minimum savings. Many simply could not afford this tax and were forced to sell their homes — many of whom had lived their entire lives in the same place. What a way to treat the elderly.

It’s clear Australia’s housing crisis won’t be solved by taxing inheritances or slapping together quick fixes.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: to solve the housing crisis, we need sustained, co-ordinated efforts from the Commonwealth, State, and local governments to increase supply, boost public housing, and incentivise more people to get on the tools and become builders.

We don’t need new taxes or quick-fix solutions driven by specific ideologies that, in the end, simply punish hard-working Aussies.