Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will conclude on my search for the member for Lilley. I understand that he was overseas and that he went to the coalition school of government looking for how to manage an economy and finances better than what they did for many years.

The member for Mitchell said it is back to 2007. I do not think we want to go back that far. I do not think we want to go back to their time in government at all because that was not the greatest period. People would say to us, 'They were the worst government since the Whitlam government,' and that was said many a time out in the electorate. 'They were the worst government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—since the Whitlam government.'

Let us reflect on the member for Lilley's comment about targeting working families. As we have heard so much over the last couple of weeks, where are the targets of the Labor policy for negative gearing? They are at middle-income Australians. They are at hardworking Australians. Let us get some statistics on the board. There are 10 times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers and Defence Force personnel than there are surgeons, anaesthetists and finance managers. I can give you some statistics, too, on the numbers and percentages: there are around 10,000 fitters around Australia, and there are close to 10,000 steel workers. These are not the high-income-earners and the rich. These are everyday Australians who Labor's negative gearing policy is going to be targeting. It will target their hard-earned money that is invested in property and invested in wealth to help our country grow.

Looking at some of the comments from industry experts, the Urban Development Institute of Australia says:

… when seen as a package of taxes …, the government ends up making a lot more out of property investment than it gives in support to investors.

They also say that, 'The housing policy model is unique and is under threat with the proposed changes to negative gearing.' It goes on to refer to incentives for private investment for rental supply in a fast growing population and rapid urban expansion; and we know that there is rapid urban expansion through our big cities, whether it be Melbourne or Sydney. Part of the solution is the investment by the private sector in the supply of housing and that is where negative gearing does have an important impact and does help this policy challenge that we have. It is why our approach is a much better considered approach. We are weighing up what the appropriate response is to a policy challenge.

We know that Labor's rushed, reckless negative gearing policy hits mum and dad investors and does not hit those people who are working hard and doing the right thing in Australia. Going to the results of the analysis, we can see that if house prices were to fall by five per cent, as the Prime Minister has said, it would leave households in the lowest income quintile—those in the lowest 20 per cent, not the highest—just under $12,000 poorer. Their house prices will decline. That is the impact of this negative and reckless negative gearing policy of the Labor Party.

We promote hard work, we promote investment in our country and an appropriate policy that incentivises people to do the right thing, to go out and invest, to go out and make a living—those teachers, those police personnel and those Defence personnel who are doing the right thing investing and trying to make a difference in our country.

See this speech in context