Nearly half of federal members of Parliament say they own at least one investment property, making them the most prolific real estate investors out of any profession in Australia.
While more and more Australians are hoping to cash in on the country’s once-booming housing market, property investors remain a minority of the population with 2.22 million taxpayers — about 20% of the total — owning 3.25 million rental properties between them.
Earlier this year, the Australian Financial Review reported new Australian Tax Office data showing the professions most likely to be property investors in the 2019-2020 financial year. Topping the list was surgeon (43%), followed by anesthetist (40.5%) and internal medicine specialist (40.2%).
One profession not listed, however, would have topped them all. Analysis from an updated version of Crikey’s Landlord List has revealed that 44% of the 47th Parliament have disclosed owning one or more investment properties.
Seventy-four out of the 151 members of the House of Representatives are property investors, compared with just 27 out of 76 senators.
Leading the list of MPs with the most declared investment properties are the Labor Party’s Michelle Ananda-Rajah, the Liberal Party’s Dan Tehan and the Liberal National Party’s Karen Andrews, who each declared six.
The likelihood of being a property investor varies from party to party. Labor MPs are the most likely to own an investment property (with 50% disclosing at least one), followed by the Coalition (46%), independents (36%), Greens (19%) and then the minor parties (17%).
These federal MPs would have access to Australia’s generous tax concessions for property investors, including negative gearing. Australia’s property investors claim $50 billion in tax deductions each year, more than the $48 billion paid in rent each year.
Crikey has created a list of members of the 47th Parliament, how many properties they own and their purposes.
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 October 14 2022. Data contains some author interpretation due to inconsistent data entry by MPs.
Spot any errors or story tips? Email cwilson@crikey.com.au
I would regard MP as an occupation, not a profession. A profession usually requires some form of qualification/training/education. The entry requirements for MP (other than winning an election) are nil.
You beat me to it. The Australian Council of Professions defines a ‘Profession‘ as:
There is obviously very little about our politicians that is professional in the above sense.
BUT for the purposes of this “expose” that’s just semantics – and detracts attention from the point of the article.
Yes, so the author of the piece should have chosen his words more carefully; not an unreasonable suggestion for a professional journalist. Then his message would not be obscured by this misrepresentation.
And while we’re on a roll, assuming that names identifying people’s photographs are provided left to right, the two female MPs have been transposed. Editor to fix please; my MP would not want to be confused with Karen Andrews.
How could ANYONE possibly find the message obscured through misuse of the word “professional” in this article? As I said, in this instance that is simply fussy semantics.
Well, you do, or you would not be banging on aboiut it being obscured.
But you go to far saying it’s just semantics. Words need to have meanings if they are to be any use, and those who make their living through words should have a particular care for them.
I agree – pedantics should not distract from the message.
Did you mean the noun “pedantry”?
Your pointless neologism of ‘pedantics‘ was an otiose attempt to create an unnecessary noun from the adjective ‘pedantic’.
The SpellCheck red wiggly line should have been a hint.
Less than ‘nil’ one might suggest.
The only thing a politician has to be good at is being better than some other wannabe at smarming, toadying, obeying the party line and generally be willing to throw their granny under any bus as directed, assuming that they had parents rather than having been bred in some filthy vat in an underground laboratory by aliens.
The mice bred ‘em.
The power of the landlord class to keep rents high is obstructing a market response that would make rents cheap. Supply of housing should rise to meet demand, but the commercial housing industry cannot compete with the special favours accorded to private landlords.
At the very least, second house owners should be barred from voting on any laws that affect the price of housing. So why aren’t investment properties on the Parliamentary Register of Interests?
Damn good idea, Roger.
Roger, I have just accessed the register (most recent one I could find was from the previous parliament) and it seems that investment properties are listed, eg Albanese is listed with two.
Well, it is a relief to hear that politicians’ investment properties are on the Register of Interest. However has there been any time these landlords have been excluded from voting on matters affecting the value of their properties? If they could not vote against a repeal of negative gearing, there might be a chance to do so.
My hunch/vague recollection is that such prohibitions relate to specific conflicts of interest unique to an individual, not ones which relate to a class of people. MPs pay tax, but are allowed to vote on tax rates. All of them stood to benefit from the currently controversial future tax cuts.
I may have this wrong and would happily defer to an expert.
Information at the end of the article:-MethodologyInformation in this list is gleaned from the register of members’ interests (which includes spouses)
I would be more than a little surprised to find 44% of our elected federal representatives being excluded from taking part in a vote on legislation, no matter how obvious the conflict of interest. Far more likely they see their participation in the investment housing market as proof of their relevant expertise and all the more reason why they should vote on such bills.
In general the Register of Interests does not exist to exclude participation, and still less to prevent voting. It is merely used to inform, so when someone in parliament speaks on a subject those listening can, if they know what is on the register, take that into account when deciding what value to put on that speaker’s contribution. Let’s not forget these are all honourable members and it would be churlish, at the very least, to doubt their good faith. Heaven forfend they would ever be motivated by self-interest!
Correction: in the latest update, Albanese is listed with two residential properties, one investment property.
They are. That’s how this article came about.
The great driver of property prices is population growth.
Strangely an area of furious agreement amongst politicians despite, if you believe the surveys, lukewarm feelings from the nation as a whole.
Neither party showed a skerrick of interest in discussing the issue during the last election campaign suggesting that they knew damn well how a resumption of mass immigration would fly with their constituents-despite having every intention to do so once the election was over.
Unless they can explain how growing our population like a science experiment is in the broad interests of the whole community-and they never do- it’s conflict of interest territory.
There is no argument that growing the population through immigration is beneficial or in the broad interests of the whole community. Well, none that can be proven and so your “science experiment” comment is quite valid. The point of immigration – in all its guises, including work visas and foreign students – is that it stimulates the economy and produces an ongoing illusion of commerce and economic activity without actually requiring much effort or planning on the part of government. It really is all smoke and mirrors. That is one of the reasons why there is little necessity for our politicians to actually know much or have any particular skillset (apart from having the gift of the gab – that is a crucial skill for politicians).
Love to know what the 4 downvoters (countering my upvote) ‘think’ is wrong with your plain statement of facts.
Not necessarily, though it is a bedrock factor. A significant driver of house prices is demand by investors along with their access to capital to fulfil their demand. In the last instance that demand might change in alignment, with rental demand but the speculative mentality, which the market keeps fulfilling, along with a relative lack of other reliable domestic investment opportunities with similar returns, means it would take a long time before turning off the immigration tap would impact house prices.
Australia is trapped in a vicious circle of a slowly widening ratio of homeowners to renters and accompanying inequality. The current settings keep generating relatively wealthy and organised interests in continuing this circle, resting on the passivity of many who have made it into a mortgage. Those being frozen out are disorganised and inarticulate and many are easily distracted (it’s all those damn boomers etc.) making them easy pickings.
Almost as if the negative gearing rip-off has to be continued because so many of the
grating..sorry, great & good need yooog immigration to fill their rack-rented properties.No it’s not, depends on which definition of population and/or ‘immigration’, maybe in some postcodes, but dwarfed by other factors including interest rates, finance access, property design, single member households etc. while in the background a bubble of baby boomers and GenX is in transition to retirement and downsizing.
Our UNPD derived ABS data does not explain but simply weaponises dog whistling by focus upon annual NOM temporary churn over ‘snapshot’ e.g. students, but falsely described as ‘immigrants’ for better headlines, and blamed for environmental ‘hygiene’ issues created by fossil fuels (lobby).
See here for ‘basic maths’ comparing developed nations https://data.oecd.org/chart/6QuQ
That OECD demographic data explains well, we have had generations of below replacement fertility, then feeds into the working age which passed the demographic sweet spot pre Covid, with increasing numbers of seniors; what’s the solution for population growth in the latter cohort and how to support budgets for services, pensions etc.?
I’ve said this before. Property ownership is secondary to its use. If they are renting fairly and not exploitatively then I have no major problem with this. If our pollies are letting their housing out for an Air B&B, or letting them go vacant, they should be
shotheld accountable for their actions at a time when hundreds of thousands are struggling to find somewhere to live.“Property ownership is secondary to its use” ? Not quite sure what you’re meaning here. The “use” of property is to provide accommodation for the population. That is its primary use. It should really be its sole purpose. What we need to do is remove the profit motive in housing. That is hardly going to eventuate while 50% of our politicians own housing for just that purpose.
Okay, to clear it up. I’m less concerned about the number of properties that someone owns than what they do with them. Any investment property should be rented out at a fair and ethical price; that is its ‘use’ to its owner. You appear to agree with that, as I agree with your last sentence. But using a property for an Air B&B set up (while legal) is not ethical, not when families are having to camp out or live in vans. Neither is using a house purely to grow cannabis or cook meth. Or having it remain untenanted until its sale price can be maximized. I acknowledge that some people, especially certain politicians that I won’t mention, are hardly likely to collect properties with the charitable idea of housing the struggling poor and vulnerable; no, it’s ‘use’ at that point is to gouge the maximum amount of money out of their tenants that they can.
And similarly how many MPs send their children to private schools and not public, and how does this skew education policies!