Housing is one of the biggest issues facing Australians right now, and politicians say they’re listening. Home ownership has been in decline for decades, and has fallen significantly for groups such as younger households and those on lower incomes. Solutions offered by the parties have focused on figuring out ways to help people pour more money into the housing market rather than addressing what’s making housing more expensive.
It’s hard not to notice that Parliament looks very different from the electorate when it comes to home ownership. In 2021, two-thirds of households were inhabited by their owners. In the 47th Parliament, there are 510 properties owned by 227 federal members of Parliament (MPs). That’s an average of 2.25 properties per MP.
Multiple home ownership is overrepresented in federal Parliament; 144 MPs own more than one property. In fact, more MPs own three or more properties (84) than those who own one property or fewer (83). Many MPs own a second home in Canberra, investment properties and holiday homes.
Just 14 didn’t declare owning any property (that’s fewer than 16 MPs who own five or more properties).
Property ownership varies significantly by party. Independents own more properties than any other party, declaring 2.6 properties on average each. Then it’s MPs from the Coalition (2.4), Labor (2.3), the minor parties (2.1) and the Greens (1.3).
Crikey has created a list of members of the 47th Parliament and how many properties they own. Here’s MPs with five or more properties declared.
Crikey’s Landlord List as of September 7 2022
- Liberal Party MP Nola Marino: 7 properties (1 residential)
- Liberal Party MP Dan Tehan: 7 properties (2 residential, 1 “residential/investment”)
- Liberal National Party MP Karen Andrews: 7 properties (1 residential)
- Australian Labor Party MP Michelle Ananda-Rajah: 7 properties (all are listed as “residential/investment”)
- Liberal Party MP Gavin Pearce: 6 properties (2 residential)
- Liberal National Party MP Andrew Willcox: 6 properties (1 residential)
- Australian Labor Party MP Tony Burke: 6 properties (2 residential)
- Australian Labor Party MP Louise Miller-Frost: 6 properties (1 residential)
- Australian Labor Party MP Brendan O’Connor: 6 properties (1 residential)
- Liberal National Party MP Colin Boyce: 5 properties
- Liberal National Party MP Scott Buchholz: 5 properties (2 residential)
- Liberal National Party Senator Gerard Rennick: 5 properties (2 residential)
- Independent MP Sophie Scamps: 5 properties (1 residential)
- Independent MP Allegra Spender: 5 properties (1 residential, 2 “residential/investment”)
- Australian Labor Party MP Tony Zappia: 5 properties (1 residential)
- Australian Labor Party Senator Deborah O’Neill: 5 properties (2 residential)
Methodology
Information in this list is gleaned from the register of members’ interests (which includes spouses) and is updated as new declarations come in. This list is based on the register as of September 5 2022. Data contains some author interpretation due to inconsistent data entry by MPs.
Spot any errors or story tips? Email cwilson@crikey.com.au
Interesting information, but it might have been better to put it all out at once, so we can compare, rather than in dribs and drabs.
I agree
Hi Woopwoop — more information to come. Check back when more disclosures come in!
MPs own investment properties, what does this really mean? Do they own a place in Canberra where they work and another in the city they represent. What do they do with these properties? Vacant for landbanking, used for Airbnb to support tourism or perhaps leased to overseas students? How much income from rent and how healthy (mould) are they?
How many MPs are part owners of mining companies, media and communication companies, armaments, pharmaceuticals, retail freehold with high rent and so on?
The point is not to split hairs.
An MP who owns 6 properties and lets them out at peppercorn rent to homeless families is in the same economic position as a parasitic landlord profiting from cramming gig-workers into his 6 poorly-maintained share houses.
Hi, Cam.
What does the qualification ‘residential’ mean ? Does it mean that the other properties owned are actually commercial properties, therefore out of the scope of the subject of residential properties ? And should they not be included, as they are just another way or investing, not affecting the ownership or rental markets ?
Don’t expect the ridiculous practice of negative gearing to disappear anytime soon.
Not. A. Hope.
I personally don’t care what people with money and means do with their wealth, including investing in property. The main problem in Australia is that foolish govts back in the 60-70s sold off their stock in council housing very cheaply without replacing it. Blind Freddy could have seen the coming problems. There are now tens (hundreds?) of thousands of low income families who will never afford their own home, plus people saving for a home deposit, add to that that every village, town and city has a waiting list over ten years or longer for social housing. After four decades of inaction by either govts, the current labor govt is promising just 30,000 affordable homes including only 5000 social homes over the next 4 years. For the entire country. Pathetic.
The ponzi schemes of real estate speculation ramped up enormously by Howard and Costello is the main cause of the spiralling unaffordability of housing here.
Sure, the sale of government housing stock ( not council, that belongs in the UK ) should have been used to replace and increase public housing, but whether or no, the sale of those properties didn’t diminish in ability to house low-income people, it just changed the ownership details.
”
After four decades of inaction by either govts, the current labor govt is promising just 30,000 affordable homes including only 5000 social homes over the next 4 years. For the entire country. Pathetic.”
So you think that with the $1T debt left by the previous rabble, Labor should be able to do more ? Wait and see. It’s a damn sight more than the cons would ever do.
Best not to let your biases get in the way of your arguments, it only diminishes them,
Many years ago when I was a young wife & mother of 3 small children, I worked on the census. A large part of the nearby area I covered included modest 2/3 bedroom fibro & basic brick veneer Housing Commission homes on large blocks occupied by mostly low to average income families.
The Commission & State Government in its wisdom decided to allow the renters to purchase their homes at a preferential % rate. When these people had paid off the loans, they were sold by the owners at great profit, & every one of these former social housing properties is now occupied by very large privately owned “McMansions” whose owners/residents own multiple vehicles. This part of my suburb is high up with extensive views.
The total lack of consideration for future housing needs of the community is abysmal.
The area where my own nearby modest 1960’s project home is located, is seeing
houses like mine being demolished to make way for ugly cheap looking box-like duplexes built almost to each boundary with tiny single garages that won’t fit their multiple tank sized vehicles. Most of their cars, boats, trailers etc are now are clogging the streets allowing only a single file of traffic to pass.
Negative gearing tax arrangements should be abolished or at least limited. Stamp duty payable for those with only 1 home in which they live, & wanting to downsize is a massive deterrent to people like me. Retirement villages & their costs are also an undesirable option to many older people.
“I personally don’t care what people with money and means do with their wealth, including investing in property.” Bref, we’re not talking about ‘people’ here… we’re discussing the ownership of investment property by politicians who have the capacity to make (or not) policy that will affect property values for everyone. Have you missed that? Roger Clifton explains below….
What should be asked is what these investment properties are being used for. Is it a decent rental at fair payment? Is it an Air B&B, depriving someone of accommodation? Are some of them even being used at all, or are they gathering dust until the best possible bid comes in?
The census suggested that one million homes are vacant! If used for housing , these houses would significantly solve our housing problem
There have been several articles on the internet plus comments here regarding this stat. It is an utterly misleading number as it is just the number of people not in their home on the night of the census. There’s a host of reasons including away visiting, home build or reno not complete, holidays, etc
Even if that furphy accounted for 10-20% there would still remain double the number of homeless.
Probably 3 or 4 times the number of homeless families.
The question also begs – are they using negative gearing and Howard’s other bribe to the well-off, low capital gains tax ? Any pollie engaged in those practices should automatically be forced to declare and banned from any discussion, let alone associated legislation.
I should have read down to here before posting my comment, which asks the same questions.
MPs with significant interests recorded in the “register of members’ interests” should not be allowed a vote that could benefit that interest. The speaker (or clerk) should read out who was disqualified before any such vote is taken. The establishment of the First Home Owners Grant is clear evidence that the speaker was and is failing his job.
It is blindingly obvious that the government should be increasing the supply of housing, even if it means popping the real estate bubble. Should we be puzzled by their inaction?
I doubt that anyone with functioning synapses is puzzled. Greed is Good never gets old, for the greedy.