WEBVTT - Labor vs the Coalition: Which housing plan is worse? 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:04.320 So, Mike, I want to start with Peter Dutton's son, Harry. 0:00:04.720 --> 0:00:07.360 I mean, we're saving luck mad but it doesn't look 0:00:07.440 --> 0:00:10.440 like we'll get there in the near future, but we'd 0:00:10.520 --> 0:00:11.559 love that to change. 0:00:11.880 --> 0:00:14.240 What did you think when you saw that press conference 0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:18.119 where we had the opposition leader's son talking about his struggles. 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:20.680 Well, I thought it was an effort to kind of 0:00:20.760 --> 0:00:24.040 humanize Dutton. I guess. I mean Harry's twenty, right, he's 0:00:24.040 --> 0:00:27.800 a second year apprentice, and so his inability to save 0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:30.000 enough to get into a house. It's a common story 0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:32.919 and millions of other would be homeowners might relate to it, 0:00:33.000 --> 0:00:36.280 except in one regard, which is, of course, that Harry 0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:39.000 Dutton's father is a very wealthy man due to his 0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:40.520 buying and selling of real estate. 0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:44.320 Mike Secam is a reporter for the Saturday Paper. He's 0:00:44.320 --> 0:00:47.080 been watching closely as Peter Dutton has made the dream 0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:50.840 of home ownership for young Australians central to his campaign. 0:00:51.360 --> 0:00:54.280 But it seemed to me that he failed to anticipate 0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:57.480 the obvious question when he trotted Harry up, you're doing 0:00:57.520 --> 0:00:58.520 pretty well yourself. 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:01.520 Why won't you support him a bit and give him 0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:03.480 a bit of help with getting his house. 0:01:03.560 --> 0:01:05.640 I haven't finished the excellent points I was making. The 0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:07.479 next point is to why people should vote liberally. 0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:10.399 We so, having failed to answer quite a period of 0:01:10.400 --> 0:01:13.760 time elapse better part of a day, and eventually, belatedly 0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:17.039 on Tuesday, Dutton came out and conceded that he and 0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:20.080 his wife would at some stage give Harry and Harry's 0:01:20.120 --> 0:01:22.199 two siblings helped to buy a home. 0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:24.959 And I think our households are no different to many 0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:27.600 households where you want our kids to work hard to 0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:31.400 save and will help them with a deposit at some stage. 0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:35.040 Which is lucky for them because frankly, under the housing 0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:38.039 policies that their father advocates, the cost of buying a 0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.640 home is only going to increase. On that all the 0:01:41.720 --> 0:01:43.840 expert opinion is just overwhelming. 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.120 But it's not just the Coalitions housing policy set to 0:01:48.200 --> 0:01:52.440 drive up prices. Experts agree that Labour's will too, and 0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:55.360 with the majority of Australians either owning their own home 0:01:55.520 --> 0:01:58.360 or paying one off, it seems that maybe the point 0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:04.960 schwarts Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am today. 0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.480 National correspondent for the Saturday paper, Mike Sekham on what 0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:11.480 the major parties are offering on housing and what it 0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:20.040 means for the housing crisis. It's Wednesday, April twenty three, 0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:26.720 so Mike, to begin with, can you just lay out 0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:29.640 for me what Peter Dunne has said about housing in 0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.720 this election campaign and what we know about his plans. 0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:35.400 Dutton was very clear about this in his Budget reply 0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:39.160 speech last month. He promised, and I'm quoting him, I 0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:41.760 don't want young Australians locked out of the property market 0:02:42.120 --> 0:02:44.280 or having to rely on the bank of Mum and dad. 0:02:44.880 --> 0:02:47.000 I don't want young Australians locked out of the property 0:02:47.040 --> 0:02:49.520 market or having to rely on the bank of mum 0:02:49.560 --> 0:02:53.240 and dad. I want to see fewers Australians homeless and 0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:54.800 more Australians in homes. 0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:58.760 There are two aspects to the Coalition's policy, and when 0:02:58.800 --> 0:03:02.720 I spoke to the veteran independent economist Saul Eslick, he 0:03:02.880 --> 0:03:05.400 described it as a contender for the title of worst 0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:07.840 public policy of the twenty first century. So that's how 0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:10.200 bad he thought it was. The first part is called 0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:12.800 the Super Home Biers Scheme, and this has been Coalition 0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:15.560 policy for a while and it would allow first home 0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:19.320 buyers access to up to forty percent of their superannuation 0:03:19.480 --> 0:03:22.840 balance up to a maximum of fifty thousand dollars to 0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:26.520 put towards a deposit. Leaving aside the impact that would 0:03:26.560 --> 0:03:29.160 have by allowing young people to raid their super and 0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:31.440 what the impact that would have on their retirement, the 0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:35.360 measure would inevitably pump up prices, says Eslack, and if 0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:37.840 I might quite him at some length, sixty years of 0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:41.200 history shows, without any shadow of it out that anything 0:03:41.200 --> 0:03:43.600 else that allows people to spend more on housing than 0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:46.560 they otherwise would whether that's first home an a grants, 0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:50.880 stamp duty concessions, mortgage guarantee schemes, shared equity schemes, lower 0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:54.720 interest rates, easier credit conditions, or tax breaks for property investors. 0:03:55.400 --> 0:03:57.840 Anything that allows people to spend more than they otherwise 0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:01.560 would results in more expensive housing. So it just means 0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:05.200 more money chasing less housing. Essentially, you know, you have 0:04:05.280 --> 0:04:08.400 two sides to the housing equation. One is supply, one 0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:11.000 is demand. All of these sorts of things pump up 0:04:11.040 --> 0:04:12.520 demand and do nothing for supply. 0:04:15.200 --> 0:04:18.480 Okay, And for it to work at all, Mike, young 0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:22.640 people would presumably have to actually have the super to 0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:26.920 be able to draw down. So how realistic is that? 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:30.080 Well, You make a very good point, and I found 0:04:30.160 --> 0:04:32.520 tax Office starter. It's a few years old. In twenty 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:36.320 twenty two, the median superannuation balance for a woman aged 0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.039 thirty to thirty four, you know, peak home buying sort 0:04:39.040 --> 0:04:42.840 of age group, was just thirty four thousand dollars, and 0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:44.640 for men of the same age it was just a 0:04:44.720 --> 0:04:47.480 shade under forty thousand dollars. Now, bearing in mind that 0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:50.840 the Coalition policy would only allow them to withdraw forty 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.440 percent of that nest egg, that would you give a 0:04:53.440 --> 0:04:56.880 woman thirteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty dollars eighty cents 0:04:57.440 --> 0:05:00.600 and fifteen nine hundred and eighty dollars forty for. 0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:03.160 Men, Well, that's not going to get you very far. 0:05:03.960 --> 0:05:06.640 Not in not in today's housing market. You're quite right, 0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:09.320 And of course that was across all people. When you 0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.360 look at the data for people who are in rental accommodation, 0:05:12.480 --> 0:05:14.640 a quarter of them had balances of less than six 0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:17.440 thousand dollars, which means, you know, they would only be 0:05:17.440 --> 0:05:20.360 able to pull two four hundred dollars out of their suitpit, 0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:26.440 you know, which is essentially nothing in today's market. Perhaps 0:05:26.520 --> 0:05:29.839 the only real redeeming feature to it I suppose is 0:05:29.880 --> 0:05:32.359 that it wouldn't cost taxpayers a lot. This would just 0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:36.080 allow people access to their own superannuation money. So that's 0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:38.640 a big aspect of this plan, and it's quite different 0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:42.520 from the second aspect of the Coalition's plan, which the 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:46.080 Opposition as estimated would cost taxpayers one point twenty five 0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:49.000 billion over the first four years of its operation. And 0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:51.800 I've seen a number of commentators say it will probably 0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:52.760 cost a lot more than. 0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.520 That, right okay, And this is the scheme like where 0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:59.159 you can claim tax deductions from up to six hundred 0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:02.080 and fifty thousand dollars dollars of your mortgage. So tell 0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:05.520 me more about exactly how that would work and what 0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:08.600 economists are saying about its impact. 0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:10.240 Right okay, Well, this is the one that came pretty 0:06:10.320 --> 0:06:14.000 much out of a clear blue sky at Dutton's policy launch. 0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:17.760 A Coalition government will allow you to deduct interest payments 0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:19.919 on the first six hundred and fifty thousand dollars of 0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:24.120 a mortgage against your taxable income. We will allow these 0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:27.400 deductions for five years, provided you continue to live in 0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:30.680 that home for that period. This policy will be available 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:33.400 to individuals with the taxable income of one hundred and 0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:36.760 seventy five thousand dollars or less, enjoyed applicants earning a 0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:40.839 combined income of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or less. 0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:43.760 Probably the most salient factor here is that this would 0:06:43.800 --> 0:06:47.360 also disproportionately benefit people who are doing better. Going back 0:06:47.400 --> 0:06:50.440 to Solsli, the way he sees this is one aspect 0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:53.640 of the Coalition's policy. Super for housing allows people to 0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:56.560 put down bigger deposits, which in turn allows them to 0:06:56.560 --> 0:07:00.159 borrow more and pumps up the price of houses. The 0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:03.320 interest deductibility on mortgages allows people to borrow a lot 0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:07.000 more because it's the equivalent of reduction in interest rates 0:07:07.000 --> 0:07:10.640 of roughly one third. So what's likely to happen is 0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:12.680 that the beneficiaries of this scheme will just bid up 0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:18.520 prices and make housing more expensive for everyone else. It's 0:07:18.520 --> 0:07:21.600 hard to recall another policy that has been so comprehensively 0:07:21.720 --> 0:07:25.640 bagged as the first home by a mortgage deductibility scheme. 0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.320 There were hit pieces all over the place about this, 0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:31.560 you know. One professor of economics called it frankly terrible 0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:36.400 tax policy. Another said that it was incredibly administratively burdensome, 0:07:36.400 --> 0:07:38.320 and if you wanted to just give people first home 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:40.840 bio grants. Then just give them first home bio grants. 0:07:41.200 --> 0:07:44.640 Brendan Coates from the Gratin Institute said he was frankly 0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:47.520 mystified about what compelled the Coalition to put this forward 0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:51.480 when no quoting him, no serious housing policy expert had 0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:53.840 called for it. He called it nuts. 0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:59.960 Coming up after the break is Labour's plan nuts as well, 0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:11.280 so Mike. On the same weekend that the Coalition announced 0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:16.760 this doublem housing policy, Labor also announced their own. So 0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:19.720 tell me what is on offer from them. 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:22.960 What Anthony Albanez you promised at the campaign launch was 0:08:22.960 --> 0:08:26.440 that if Labor were re elected, the government would allow 0:08:26.560 --> 0:08:29.560 all first home buyers, regardless of their income, to buy 0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:31.360 a home on just five percent deposit. 0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.760 Our five percent deposit plan will be opening to every 0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:38.560 Australian looking to buy their first home. It will be 0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.640 available for homes valued all the way up to the 0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:45.080 average price in every city and region, and you won't 0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:48.920 have to pay a single dollar in mortgage insurance. Our 0:08:48.920 --> 0:08:49.920 government will cover it. 0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:53.440 But the view is that just guaranteeing a lower deposit 0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:57.480 would encourage what one called imprudent borrowing. The fact that 0:08:57.520 --> 0:08:59.400 they know that the government will be covering them and 0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:02.920 they left, but five percent buyers will probably once again 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:06.160 bid up the prices of housing. When comparing the respective 0:09:06.160 --> 0:09:10.360 policies from the major party, Saulslake told me, quote, while 0:09:10.360 --> 0:09:13.520 I don't like either of them, Labour's policy is less. 0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:17.640 Worse, right, well, less worse is hardly an endorsement Mike 0:09:19.160 --> 0:09:21.959 in the debate, though, last week Anthony Abernezi He was 0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:25.440 arguing that Labor does have a policy to deal with supply. 0:09:25.720 --> 0:09:28.720 So it's not just about helping people get into the market, 0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:31.719 but it's also about broadening what is actually available. So 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:35.439 tell me a bit about that plan to boost housing stock. 0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:39.880 Actually, both parties have plans that they say will increase supply, 0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:44.240 but let's start with Labours because it's the bigger. Labour's 0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:47.400 latest promise was to invest ten billion dollars in the 0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:50.600 form of grants and zero interest loans in partnership with 0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:55.640 state developers and the housing industry, and it claims that 0:09:55.720 --> 0:09:59.080 by supplying these funds that will see up to one 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:02.000 hundred thousand new homes built, and those homes would be 0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:05.360 reserved solely for first home buyers. Labor, of course has 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:07.360 a whole suite of other housing policies. 0:10:07.360 --> 0:10:07.560 You know. 0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:09.360 There's the Help to Buy a scheme under which the 0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:11.559 government would take an equity stake of forty percent in 0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:14.520 first home purchases. It has a Build to Rent scheme 0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:18.400 which offers tax incentives to developers to provide affordable units. 0:10:18.600 --> 0:10:21.960 And it's ten billion dollar Housing Australian Future Fund, which 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:26.000 aims to build some thirty thousand social and affordable homes. 0:10:26.920 --> 0:10:30.200 On the Coalition side, the big new promise was a 0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:33.200 five billion dollar investment to go to local government to 0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:36.320 help with the supply of infrastructure like water and surge 0:10:36.440 --> 0:10:40.000 and roads and so on for new housing developments, which 0:10:40.040 --> 0:10:43.040 it claims would help accelerate was the word they used, 0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:47.160 the development of five hundred thousand homes. So the point 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:50.200 here is that both parties do have supply side measures 0:10:50.200 --> 0:10:52.720 as well as things that pump up demand. But what's 0:10:52.800 --> 0:10:55.319 really worth noting here is that neither of the major 0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:58.760 parties is talking about reforming aspects of the tax system 0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:03.400 that have long been identified as contributing to the housing crisis, 0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:07.600 such as negative gearing and the overly generous discount on 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:12.040 capital gains tax for housing investors and stamp duties. 0:11:14.880 --> 0:11:17.360 Yeah, I mean, as far as the major parties are concerned, 0:11:17.400 --> 0:11:21.640 that conversation seems to be definitively over for the time being. 0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:23.800 But what about the cross betch what do they have 0:11:24.160 --> 0:11:24.960 to say about that? 0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:28.760 Well, this I think is really interesting. As the act 0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:32.360 Independent Senator David Percock told the ABC a week or 0:11:32.360 --> 0:11:35.320 so back, what the community, he said, was crying out 0:11:35.360 --> 0:11:37.520 for was a long term vision. 0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:39.880 We want to plan for this. We want to tackle 0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:42.200 the things that have been in the too hard basket 0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:44.600 for too long. When it comes to our tax system. 0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:48.640 He itemized them. He said, capital gains tax discounts, negative gearing, 0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:51.720 stamp duty. They were all things that quote, we should 0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:52.839 be dealing with, he said. 0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:54.280 And one of the ones that actually makes a lot 0:11:54.320 --> 0:11:56.080 of sense, I think, given the politics and given the 0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:58.520 need to start to turn the ship around, is to 0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:03.800 grandfather existing arrangements to then cap going forward negative gearing 0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:06.480 to one investment property seventy percent. People only have one 0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:09.680 investment property. That seems pretty fair. And then to reduce 0:12:09.679 --> 0:12:12.520 the capital gains tax discount to twenty five percent for 0:12:12.640 --> 0:12:13.880 new bills for new supply. 0:12:14.600 --> 0:12:17.439 Likewise, the Greens would limit negative gearing to one property 0:12:17.440 --> 0:12:21.640 and grandfather the capital gains tax. Tasmania's Jackie Lamby would 0:12:21.640 --> 0:12:23.800 be a little more generous to landlords. She would allow 0:12:23.840 --> 0:12:28.240 maybe two or three negatively geared properties. And Allegraspender, who 0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:30.640 took the Blue ribbon seat of Wentworth from the Liberals 0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:33.600 at the last election, has actually produced possibly the most 0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:35.840 comprehensive analysis of what needs to change. 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:38.120 We need to put tax reform on the table. Just 0:12:38.160 --> 0:12:40.840 look at stamp duty New South Wales. Trufetory says that 0:12:40.840 --> 0:12:43.480 we could increase home ownership by six point six percent 0:12:43.679 --> 0:12:46.400 in New South Wales if we replace stamp duty with 0:12:46.520 --> 0:12:46.960 land tax. 0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:50.160 Stamp duty is charged by the state and the general 0:12:50.160 --> 0:12:52.760 criticism of stamp duty is that it imposes a big 0:12:52.800 --> 0:12:56.480 transaction cost and that slows down the turnover of housing. 0:12:56.880 --> 0:12:59.320 So the idea is that it should be replaced with 0:12:59.360 --> 0:13:02.160 a land tax, which would remove the cost of buying 0:13:02.160 --> 0:13:04.559 a house, but replace it with a long term tax 0:13:04.600 --> 0:13:07.520 on actually living in that house. And so the theory 0:13:07.600 --> 0:13:09.600 is that if that were done, you know, more of 0:13:09.600 --> 0:13:12.240 those empty nesters who are living in big houses once 0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:14.920 their kids have flown, would be encouraged to sell up 0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.120 and buy something more suitable and there would be a 0:13:17.160 --> 0:13:20.040 round robin of effects and as a result, more people 0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:21.720 would be able to buy housing. 0:13:23.240 --> 0:13:25.840 And so, Mike, you have been paying very close attention 0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:28.720 to the housing debate in Australia for a long time now. 0:13:28.800 --> 0:13:31.600 You and I have had many conversations about it. What 0:13:31.840 --> 0:13:35.760 is your view now on why it is that neither 0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:39.199 major party really seems up to the task on this 0:13:40.160 --> 0:13:43.800 particular issue, an issue that really I think almost every 0:13:44.000 --> 0:13:46.240 voter has a stake in at this point. 0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:49.920 Well, that's absolutely right. And perhaps the first point here 0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:53.040 is that until a few decades ago, home prices increased 0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:55.480 at roughly the same rate as wages, right, and then 0:13:55.520 --> 0:13:58.400 they decoupled and house prices took off. Part of the 0:13:58.440 --> 0:14:01.200 reason for that was various governments, state and federal level, 0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:03.560 pursued policies that pumped up demand. You know. There were 0:14:03.640 --> 0:14:08.480 various generous first home owner grant schemes, both state and 0:14:08.520 --> 0:14:10.760 federal that put more money in the pockets of home 0:14:10.760 --> 0:14:13.120 buyers so they could bit against other home buyers. And 0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:15.280 there were also tax breaks you know that made housing 0:14:15.320 --> 0:14:18.400 attractive to investors. You know, it's notable. I think that 0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:22.080 the real escalation in home prices coincided with a decision 0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:24.640 by the Howard government way back in nineteen ninety nine 0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:28.640 to have the capital gains tax, and John Howard famously 0:14:28.720 --> 0:14:31.800 celebrated the fact that that led a rocket house prices 0:14:32.040 --> 0:14:34.280 and said that no one had ever complained to him 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:36.960 that the value of their home was going up. So 0:14:37.440 --> 0:14:41.720 while these dumb policies over decades have seen a large 0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:44.080 and growing number of people struggling to get into the 0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:47.040 housing market or locked out of the housing market, it's 0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:49.160 still the fact that an even larger group of people 0:14:49.440 --> 0:14:52.680 own or are paying off a house. And so you know, 0:14:52.720 --> 0:14:56.400 the parties have been pandering to that majority, and that majority, 0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.520 naturally enough, wants to see the value of their asset increase. 0:15:02.120 --> 0:15:04.440 Mike, thank you so much for your time. 0:15:05.000 --> 0:15:05.440 Thank you. 0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:19.560 Also in the news today, both the Prime Minister and 0:15:19.600 --> 0:15:22.800 opposition leader have taken time out of their election campaign 0:15:23.120 --> 0:15:26.800 to mark the Pope's passing at age eighty eight. Prime 0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:30.440 Minister Albanezi attended an early morning mass in Melbourne yesterday 0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:32.680 where he told the press the Pope will quote be 0:15:32.800 --> 0:15:35.400 recorded in history as one of the most significant of 0:15:35.440 --> 0:15:39.280 all the Holy Fathers. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton paid his respects 0:15:39.280 --> 0:15:41.880 at a mass held at Saint Mary's Cathedral in Sydney. 0:15:42.240 --> 0:15:45.360 It's estimated that around twenty percent of the Australian population 0:15:45.840 --> 0:15:49.560 just over five million people a Catholic, and more than 0:15:49.560 --> 0:15:52.600 one hundred leaders from universities and colleges across the United 0:15:52.640 --> 0:15:57.400 States have denounced the Trump administration's unprecedented government overreach and 0:15:57.520 --> 0:16:02.520 political interference within higher education. The statement published yesterday comes 0:16:02.560 --> 0:16:06.239 after a campaign by the Trump administration against many universities, 0:16:06.520 --> 0:16:10.240 including Harvard. Harvard University is the first school to sue 0:16:10.240 --> 0:16:13.440 the federal government after President Trump threatened to freeze two 0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:16.840 point three billion dollars in university funding over its handling 0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:21.240 of anti Semitism on campus. Harvard has previously rejected a 0:16:21.240 --> 0:16:24.880 list of demands by the Trump administration, labeling them overreach. 0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:28.240 I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. See tomorrow.