David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this side of the House we support business investment in the economy unashamedly, and we support families that are trying to get ahead unashamedly. We believe in these things because we believe that business investment and the aspirations of families to grow the financial position of their family are very good things for our nation. Those opposite are taking increasingly belligerent and populist positions which are against these things—which are against business investment—very, very clearly and very explicitly. And they are against households who seek to build their wealth. There are numerous examples of that, which I will run through in a minute.

But I wanted to begin with a happier story, and that concerns investments in the Australian start-up sector. Back in 2015 I wrote an opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review calling on the government to abolish capital gains tax for investments in start-up companies. As a nation, we have been somewhat underweight in the start-up sector. We do not have as strong a start-up sector as we should, relative to the size of our economy. We need a good start-up sector, because start-ups create wealth in the economy and tend to create a substantial number of high-wage jobs. Happily, the government did abolish capital gains tax investments in start-ups and also put in place a number of other initiatives in the National Innovation and Science Agenda back in December 2015, including reductions in income tax through tax rebates for investors in start-ups. I want to acknowledge that at the time that was actually supported by those opposite, and I would like to note the sensible efforts of the member for Chifley in understanding the importance of these issues. We have seen a very substantial increase in venture capital investment in Australia, so much so that it has gone from $154 million raised in 2013 to $568 million in 2016. So there are very, very positive developments in the venture capital sector, and the policies we put in place were somewhat bipartisan.

But, in other areas of policy, there is a very different situation. According to Credit Suisse, Australian households are the second wealthiest in the world. The average Australian's household wealth is the second highest in the world, and that is a good thing. That is not bad; that is good. It is good that the average Australian household has high levels of wealth. But 66 per cent of the net assets of Australian households are held in housing, and if you look at the middle deciles, from 40 to 60 per cent, 92 per cent of their net assets are held in housing. So the last thing a sensible government would seek to do is damage the value of that housing asset. Those opposite are wanting to abolish negative gearing, which has existed for over 100 years in Australia, and raise capital gains tax by 50 per cent on everything, not just housing. This would have a very substantial negative impact on the value of the most important asset held by Australians. Those opposite have, sort of, acknowledged that. The member for Fenner said, 'House price growth with our policies would have been at a slower pace than it is today.' The shadow Treasurer, somewhat awkwardly, said it would 'take some of the heat out of prices going forward'. But if it is going to have a negative impact on prices—and, in many markets, prices are already going down—that means that the opposition's policies would make house prices go down even further. In Darwin, house prices have already fallen six per cent in the last year. In Perth, it is about four per cent, and even in Sydney and Melbourne we have seen an absolute decline in house prices in the last month—in May. Those opposite have acknowledged that their policy on negative gearing and capital gains would reduce house prices relative to what they would otherwise have been. They are explicitly saying they want the most important asset of Australian households to be worth less. That is an extraordinary policy.

They are also making an extraordinary, populist attack on people who invest in things. I did a little exercise today where I went onto the Hansardonline because I thought there were some expressions that were getting used by those on the other side quite a few times. The term 'millionaires' has been used 140 times in this parliament, and 'billionaires' 34 times. Those opposite have said 'top end of town' 66 times, and 'big end of town' 176 times. This is about trying to create an 'us and them' mentality and to demonise investment in Australia, and that is not a good thing for our country.