ADJOURNMENT

Mr GREGG (Deakin) (17:19): I rise today somewhat aghast at the debate I have seen around the small business tax incentives. We have seen catastrophising, alliteration in amounts that I haven't heard since I was reading children's books to kids and a level of debate that seems more focused on theatrics than facts. The truth is that tax debates are complicated.

They impact the businesses that we are proud to represent in our electorates and the people who rely on them as well. The Australian people deserve a debate based on facts. I'm not going to get up and present myself as some kind of fact checker.

Obviously, I'm an advocate for the government's policies but it's important that we avoid misinformation and have a calm, rational debate about these reforms. The sad reality in this House is that, instead of engaging in that complexity, instead of giving genuine feedback and having discussions about details of policy, we've had: 'It's all bad. I can't deal with it anymore.

It's too hard.' Basically, it's a campaign that could be summarised as, 'Wah.' And then we have a government that is pursuing legitimate taxation changes that are focused on ensuring that there is equitable treatment between income earned from capital and from labour, believing that both risk and also hard work ought to be rewarded. We have a government that has an understanding of the CGT system, bearing in mind that it sits in a system that has discounts embedded into it already through division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the small business exemptions.

And we have, through this tax package, an important development—expanding those discounts from around 91 per cent of active businesses to about 98 per cent of active businesses. All small businesses continue to receive considerable CGT discounts within the package put through the budget. This is an important note deliberately omitted by those opposite who prefer to go through the theatrics of a scare campaign.

Really the tactic is simple. They want to make it look like something that is averse to a small number of people is an absolute disaster for everyone. If they were actually making an argument that was proportionate to the issues they were raising, it would be even more boring than usual.

So what do we see? Cheap theatrics. We see yelling; we see screaming; we see insults.

It's worthy of a playground. We are talking about the future of our economy. We are talking about important incentives for small businesses.

And so much is good for business in this budget. There is investment of billions. We have, embedded and permanent, the $20,000 instant asset write-off—not a comparison to be had with the pixie-dust hypothetical policy from the political equivalent of Blockbuster Video, but real tangible reform in the legislation.

It's there for the future, for the benefit of small business everywhere. We have got the tax loss carryback for businesses up to $1 billion. That is a huge reform.

It essentially means, rather than waiting on capital losses and having a whole complex regime, if you have a good year and you pay tax and then you have bad years and you lose a lot of money then you can reclaim some of that tax back in future years. It's really assisting with the cash flow of businesses. It's also supporting those innovators taking a risk by introducing a new incentive, which we are still in genuine consultation on.

There have been a lot of attacks today about the details of the reform, about innovative businesses and things like that, but the thing about consultation is it's not something you do after you've made a final decision. Consultation is there to inform the process, so it is with a genuine ear that we consult with the business community and get their insights to ensure that we get this right for the businesses that will benefit from it.

We want to create an ecosystem where innovation is encouraged, where new starts are given the chance, because we know that so much of the innovation and so many new jobs in this country come from those new-start businesses. And so those that risk putting the capital in from day dot, those upstarts that get in and try something new, deserve the support of the tax system.

This calibration of the tax incentives embedded into our system should focus on those things that improve our productivity, which will encourage the things that will take our economy forward, rather than a subsidy for inflating the price of existing housing. The reality is that the housing system has not served its key purpose—providing shelter and homes for people.

It is important to ensure that the distortions that exist in our tax system are ended once and for all, but that it is done in a way that is considerate of all those who legitimately did the right thing. That is why grandfathering is an important part of this bill. It is essential to ensure fairness at the same time as not getting in the way of important reforms to the system.

I only wish we had an opposition that could engage with the detail, that could talk about reform in a real, serious, adult and professional way so that we could actually enhance the policy rather than just have this series of white noise and repetitious alliteration, which, frankly, is unworthy of the parliament.