Would abolishing negative gearing push up rents? How does spending on defence and health stack up? And is Australia the sunniest place on Earth?

RMIT ABC Fact Check looks at some of the strongest claims of the third and final Federal Election leaders' debate.

Climate change

Mr Shorten is correct on the claim that Australia is the sunniest continent. ( File photo )

Shorten: "If we don't invest in renewables now, someone else will get the jobs, someone else will get the technology. We should be an energy superpower in Australia. We are the sunniest continent, the windiest continent."

In a discussion on energy, Mr Shorten claimed Australia has more sunshine than any other large land mass on earth.

"We should be an energy superpower in Australia. We're the sunniest and windiest continent," he said.

Mr Shorten is correct on the claim that we are the sunniest continent.

Africa is the only continent that comes close to Australia in terms of solar coverage.

There are two separate measures of solar coverage. On one measure, Australia has more solar coverage than Africa, but on the second measure the two continents are considered on a par for solar coverage (within the margins of error).

A fact check published in 2015 examined this topic. Experts consulted at the time said there was broad agreement — when all factors were considered — that Australia had more solar coverage.

Shorten: "The reality is that carbon pollution's gone up under this Government. When Mr Abbott was elected, there was about 512 mega tonnes of carbon pollution. Now it's 541 mega tonnes and it's going up to 563 mega tonnes of carbon pollution, so we are going up in pollution."

Carbon pollution is indeed on the rise in Australia, a fact that has now been acknowledged by both leaders after the Prime Minister admitted to the ABC's 7.30 program that emissions had "lifted".

But back in December, former Liberal MP Amanda Vanstone said emissions were "coming down", a statement deemed by Fact Check to be "misleading".

The latest data from the Department of the Environment and Energy shows that emissions rose 0.9 per cent in the year to September 2018, reaching 536 megatonnes.

And Mr Shorten's claim that emissions are going up to 563 megatonnes seems to have come from the Department's latest emissions projections, which suggest emissions will reach that level by 2030.

Morrison: "We will have achieved our 2030 emissions reduction target that we've set for ourselves in 2030."

We can't see into the future to know if Australia will achieve its 2030 emissions reduction target.

However, we are not on track to do so, according to the Government's own projections.

As part of its commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement, Australia has set an emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.

But according to the 2018 projections, released by the Department of the Environment and Energy, Australia will reduce its emissions by just 7 per cent.

Defence spending

The Coalition wants to increase defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2021. ( ADF )

Morrison: "[Investment in defence spending under Labor had] fallen to 1.56 per cent of GDP in this country, which is the lowest level since World War II and we'll get that back by 2021 to 2 per cent."

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull made a related claim in April 2016, in which he said that under Labor defence spending had dropped to its lowest level since 1938.

Fact Check found that claim not to be the full story.

In the 1938-39 financial year, defence spending was 1.5 per cent of GDP.

Since then, it has been at least 1.68 per cent of GDP in all but two years, according to estimates from the Department of Defence and the ABS at the time of Mr Turnbull's claim.

Under Labor in 2012-13, spending was 1.60 per cent of GDP, the lowest it has been since 1938.

Under the Howard government, defence spending was 1.62 per cent — only 0.02 per cent higher — in 2002-03.

Defence spending as a percentage of GDP from 1901-02 to 2013-14. ( ABC Fact Check )

Figures available at the time Mr Turnbull made his claim but not mentioned by him showed defence spending also rose to 1.93 per cent of GDP under Labor in 2009-10, which was higher than at any time during the former Howard government and higher than it had been under Mr Turnbull or his predecessor Tony Abbott.

It was the highest figure since 1994-95, when Paul Keating was prime minister and defence spending as a share of GDP was 1.96 per cent.

Whilst a share of GDP is commonly used by governments of all stripes to measure defence spending, GDP estimates are subject to quarterly fluctuations due to new economic data becoming available, whilst defence spending remains fixed after its final determination.

This can arbitrarily affect the appearance of defence spending in any given year, and there is no way to predict whether the figures for 2002-03 and 2012-13 will be estimated as higher or lower than each other in future releases from the ABS, as more information comes to light which could alter GDP estimates.

An earlier claim by former senator Jacqui Lambie that Australia's defence spending as a ratio of GDP (1.5 per cent ) was the lowest since World War II was found to be incorrect.

Health care

In all but six years of the three decades to 2016, government funding for hospitals increased. ( ABC News: Margaret Burin )

Morrison: "[Looking to 2030], we will have ensured that we've maintained an increased funding, at record levels, for our hospitals and schools and our roads."

Mr Morrison again took credit for hospital spending reaching "record levels" under the Coalition.

He made this point during the first leaders' debate, repeating a claim that surfaced shortly before he became prime minister.

At the time, Fact Check found this amounted to a "fair call".

Federal spending was indeed expected to be higher then than in any year since 1989, even with population growth and inflation factored in.

There was, however, an important caveat: in the three decades to 2016, government funding for hospitals increased in all but six years.

Real estate

Ownership rates for young people had declined substantially in the last decade or so. ( ABC News: Giulio Saggin )



Shorten: "This is an out of touch government. They don't understand that first home buyers every week save up their money, they go along to the auctions and, for young people in particular, who've seen the price of housing massively increase in last 10 and 20 years — first home buyers in this country, the young, are locked out of the housing market."

In a skirmish over Labor's negative gearing changes, Mr Shorten argued the Government failed to understand the plight of first homeowners dealing with massive price increases in the last two decades.



"The young," he said, "are locked out of the housing market."

Fact Check tackled a related claim in February by Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen, who said ownership rates for people aged 25-34 had fallen by roughly 20 per cent in recent years. Though his numbers were imprecise, to be sure, the claim was in the ballpark.

Fact Check found home ownership rates for young people had declined substantially in the last decade or so.

Based on datasets with different time periods and methodologies, the size of the drop ranged from 12 per cent to 28 per cent.

This was comparable to drops during the 1980s and early 1990s, experts said, noting that the current trend was part of a longer term decline.

Morrison: "I asked you, it's a simple question: will you guarantee that rents won't go up and values won't go down?"

Like Mr Morrison's claim that Australia will meet its Paris Climate target, knowing whether or not Labor's changes to negative gearing will push up house prices and rents is impossible without a crystal ball.

We can, however, look to the past.

In 2015, then-treasurer Joe Hockey said abolishing negative gearing in the 1980s led to a surge in rents, a claim Fact Check found didn't stack up.

During the period that negative gearing was abolished, real rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth — where rental vacancies were at extremely low levels.

This is inconsistent with arguments that negative gearing was a significant factor, with negative gearing likely to have a uniform impact on rents in all capital cities.

While the rent increases in the two cities did coincide with the temporary removal of tax deductions on negative gearing, Fact Check found it unlikely that change had a substantial impact on rents in any major capital city in Australia.