Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:08): I have led an interesting life thus far—and I hope it continues for some time to come—and I have enjoyed many and varied careers. I was a chippie by trade not long after I finished school. I have worked with my hands; I have been a tradesman. Not long after I finished my trade, I decided to go back to school and I did my law degree. The time that I had my own business as a builder and went back to university full-time was a time that my then three daughters—I now have four daughters—referred to as 'that time in our lives when we were poor'. Fortunately, I finished law school and then became a barrister. So I have enjoyed all sorts of different businesses and incomes. But the beauty of this country is that, depending on who is in government, we have the ability to bring ourselves up by our bootstraps, invest in ourselves through a good education and take a punt. On this side of politics, we reward people who back themselves. We provide reward for effort. On that side, all they want to do is redistribute income; they do not believe that anybody should be rewarded for the effort that they make. That's a real shame. It's a terrible shame. They believe in the politics of envy. They're led by the Robin Hood of Australian politics, by the Jeremy Corbyn of the South Pacific. We believe that, if you are prepared to take a risk, this side of politics will back you. That side of the House believe that, if you are in small business— Opposition members interjecting— Mr WALLACE: Now, I know that on that side of the House their experience in small business is very, very limited. We know that. We know that, because they're all union hacks over there. We know that. But on this side of the House we encourage people to have a go. This fairer tax system that Labor talk about is code for higher taxes and higher spending. That's all it is. They want to penalise mums and dads. According to the other side, according to that lot over there, if you own a house, you're wealthy—let alone if you own an investment house. You're filthy rich. We don't believe that on this side of the House, because we believe that many, many people—policemen, nurses, salt-of-the-earth people who are on the PAYG tax system—also are investors in property, and good luck to them. On this side of the House, we want to reward them. We want to ensure that, if they want to take a risk on that, they ultimately receive a benefit for it. Interestingly, those on the other side of the House talk about discretionary trusts. They think they're evil, by the sounds of it. They also want to do things like reducing or eliminating negative gearing. In August 1987, in a cabinet submission on the debate for restoring negative gearing after it was abolished in 1985, the then federal Treasurer, Paul Keating, suggested that the removal of negative gearing caused investors to desert the property market and drove up rents. Those opposite are clearly not students of history, because they're bound to repeat the mistakes that they made in the mid-1980s. It stands to reason. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Fisher needs to resume his seat; I'm sorry. It being 4.12, the time allotted for the debate has expired.