STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls) (13:48): You would have heard us talk a lot about Labor's toxic taxes. The key part of the toxicity of these taxes is the impact that they're having on investment. This should have been known by Labor, because, on page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1, there is this comment of the Treasury forecasts: Lower house price growth will have a modest impact on housing supply, with the increase in supply over the next decade expected to be only around 35,000 dwellings fewer compared to no tax policy change … That means fewer houses.

How can you contort yourself to say that if there are fewer houses there's going to be more opportunity for people to get into housing or that people's rents aren't going to skyrocket? I don't know how you can make that argument. We're not the only ones saying that this will have a negative impact on housing.

CEDA has said in a letter that they've written, which has been co-signed by 26 other industry associations, that the impact of Labor's CGT proposal has not been properly considered. Higher taxes on investment in business means fewer opportunities to expand, less innovation and ultimately fewer jobs and slower wage growth. This has been backed up by the Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black.

He said that the test for economic reform was whether it increased investment, grew the economic pie and boosted living standards and 'it is clear that the reforms fail that test'. Therefore, these taxes in many ways are toxic.