Should politicians be banned from owning multiple properties?

Imagine a football match where the two teams were the Liberal Party and the Labor Party – but instead of just playing, they were also the umpires. Out of bounds? Play on. Holding the ball? Play on. The punters would be outraged.

That’s precisely what is happening in our housing market.

We need a broader conversation about not only disincentivising our MP’s owning multiple properties, but limiting them.Credit: Monqiue Westermann

The politicians who write the rules are also kicking the goals. A staggering 70 per cent of federal MPs own two or more properties, and roughly 40 per cent own three or more. Some declaring as many as seven.

Meanwhile, the spectators – ordinary Australians, particularly younger generations – are stuck watching from the sidelines, struggling to afford a meat pie let alone their own home.

Australian housing is among the most expensive in the world, while rental affordability is worse than during the global financial crisis, with only a third of advertised rentals within reach of the average household.

“Australians are outraged that politicians, who have overseen government policy that treats housing as an investment vehicle, benefit from the current dysfunctional system, while refusing to change it,” says independent Senator David Pocock.

When the housing market feels rigged, might be it’s time to blow the whistle.

We don’t allow politicians to buy stocks because of their ability to influence the share price, yet they can buy an unlimited amount of housing stock in a market where they control both supply and demand – and in which they write the rules on taxation.

Pocock, who knows a thing or two about football (albeit the slower kind) as a former rugby player turned independent senator for the ACT, is not only Australia’s most shredded politician but fast becoming one of our most popular as a champion of the Aussie fair go.

Along with fellow independent Senator Jacqui Lambie, Pocock has had a range of housing taxation reforms costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which estimates they could save $16 billion over a decade – money that could be put towards social housing.

“The sensible path, given the situation we’re in and the politics of it, is to grandfather existing arrangements and, going forward, limit capital gains discounts to new builds and negative gearing to one property,” says Pocock.

Let’s go further.

Maybe that’s just my inner Victorian instinct to ban things kicking in — but when the housing market feels rigged, might be it’s time to blow the whistle.

Sure, one — perhaps two — investment properties could be justified. After all, property investors deserve to have their interests represented in parliament. Roughly 15 per cent of taxpayers own a single investment property. But it’s difficult to argue our leaders should own any more without also advocating for a return to medieval feudalism.

We need a broader conversation about not only disincentivising our MP’s owning multiple properties – as Pocock advocates – but limiting them, when the average voter can’t afford one. The fish rots from the head.

The “invested” interests are just as bad at the state level, where zoning policies control housing supply — yet some NSW MPs own as many as 12 properties.

Credit where credit is due: at least the Greens’ housing spokesman Max Chandler-Mather knows firsthand the struggles of being a renter.

American social reformer Upton Sinclair once said, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it.”

Any candidate running for re-election while owning multiple investment properties should either sell them, or pledge to rent them to tenants at rates affordable to someone receiving rental assistance in the name of solidarity.

Imagine living in the prime minster’s Copacabana Beach house for $211 a fortnight instead of the $3000 a fortnight he is receiving for it now.

The contrast between the owner and rental class in Australia was poignantly encapsulated on an episode of ABC’s QandA this month, in which true Aussie battler Morgan Cox, struggling to keep a roof over his family’s head while working two jobs, was gaslit by a panel of current and former politicians, all of whom own at least one home.

I’m no socialist – my career is as capitalist as it gets – but even I wonder where we draw the line on how many investment properties one person needs before it infringes on the rights of a first home buyer, continually being outbid by negatively geared investors.

If politicians were serious about fixing the housing crisis, they’d lead by example – not protect their invested interests in the status quo.

But maybe that’s the point: the housing crisis isn’t a failure of the system. For those in power, it’s working exactly as intended. As the saying goes, “don’t hate the players, hate the game” – or perhaps more precisely, “those that write the rules of the game”.

• Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.

Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.