Government nabs Coalition policy on foreigners buying houses, Dutton eyes action on insurance companies

With the unembarrassed audacity parties show as an election nears, the government has stolen the opposition’s policy to ban foreign investors buying established homes.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O'Neil have announced foreigners won’t be able to purchase established homes from April 1 for at least two years, with a review to determine whether the ban should be extended.

When the opposition announced its policy last year, Labor was dismissive, pointing out the numbers were minuscule. But the idea is popular with the public and the government is anxious to neutralise it.

The turnabout comes immediately ahead of the Reserve Bank’s’s two-day meeting starting Monday, with expectations high that on Tuesday the bank may finally start moving rates down.

A rate cut would increase speculation Anthony Albanese will opt for an April rather than a May election. That would mean cancelling the March 25 budget.

With the election fast approaching and polls suggesting a high prospect of a minority government, attention has turned to how crossbenchers would react in the event of a hung parliament.

Much conjecture is around the “teals” who occupy former Liberal seats but are more progressive than the current Liberal party.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on Sunday: “It would be unusual that if we were able to achieve 72 [a majority is 76] and we were a number of seats ahead of the Labor Party, that there wouldn’t be a guarantee of supply and confidence from the crossbench.

"But some of them will only ever support the Labor Party. I think if they’re into transparency and honesty, they should be transparent and honest with the public before the election about if you vote for Kate Chaney, are you going to get Anthony Albanese or will she support a Coalition government in a minority situation?”

Chaney, one of the teals, holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, which the Liberals believe is a chance for them.

In their statement about foreign investors, Chalmers and O'Neil said the government would also “crack down” on foreign land banking.

The ministers admitted these latest initiatives were small but said they were an important part of the government’s broad housing policy,

“Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study,” they said.

Under the new arrangements, “foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign-owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.”

On landbanking, the ministers said foreign investors are presently subject to developmental conditions requiring they put vacant land to use within a reasonable time.

“The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.”

The Australian Taxation Office and Treasury will be funded for an audit program and to improve compliance.

While Labor sought to shore up its credentials on housing, Dutton was venturing further down the interventionist road, hinting a Coalition government might use divestiture against recalcitrant insurance companies.

The Coalition has already courted controversy with its threat supermarkets could face divestiture.

Dutton is now looking more widely, after being concerned about how people in areas recently devastated by fires or floods often haven’t insurance because they can’t afford the increasingly high premiums.

Asked on Sky whether the Coalition would reduce the cost of insurance, Dutton said, “We need to make sure that we’re not being ripped off by insurance companies.

"As we’ve done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment if consumers are being ripped off, similarly, in the insurance market, we will intervene to make sure that consumers get a fair go because at the moment people are paying too much for their insurance and what’s resulting is that people aren’t taking out insurance. […] People just simply can’t afford to insure the car or their home at the moment.”

In a wideranging interview, Dutton cast doubt on whether the opposition would support any extension of government relief on power bills.

“If it’s going to be inflationary and it’s going to keep interest rates higher for longer and it’s going to keep grocery prices higher for longer and it’s going to keep electricity prices higher for longer, then no.”

(The relief the government has already provided put downward pressure on inflation.)

The opposition leader criticised the government for not putting enough effort into its handling of the Trump administration.

“Every minister should have been cycling through Washington. I’m not aware that other ministers have been to Washington since Penny Wong was there for the inauguration,” he said.

“If they have, that’s great. But the prime minister probably should have been on a plane to the US, as we’ve seen with other world leaders and there should have been greater engagement with the president earlier on.”

Dutton apparently forgot the visit made by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who was the first defence minister to meet new defence secretary Pete Hegseth.

Reminded of the Marles visit, he immediately criticised him. “Richard Marles is a nice guy, but he’s batting fairly significantly down the list in terms of the government’s key hitters.”

Dutton said Trump had to be seen in a different light to other presidents.

“Donald Trump is different to any of his predecessors, certainly in the modern age. If you look at his background, he’s a businessman, he does deals, he brings parties together, he swaps contracts. That’s been his background, and it’s not a background, probably, that’s been shared by too many of his predecessors. So, I don’t think you’re taking everything he says literally.”

Dutton left his options open when asked whether he would replace Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the United States.

“We have to have an ambassador who is in our country’s best interests. Kevin, obviously, is an accomplished person as prime minister of our country and if he’s the best person for the job, then he should stay in the job.

"If it turns out that he’s had no access to the White House and no real influence in relation to this [tariff] issue or whatever the next issue might be, then you would have to reassess his position. But at the moment, we’re being told that he’s effective in his advocacy in the administration. I suppose time will tell.

"My instinct would be to leave him in the job. But […] if there are insurmountable problems that he has, or that the administration has with him, then that would make it very difficult.”