Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

So if we want to have the debate about how to support small business, then bring it on, because the Greens have a very proud record. We'd been out there arguing for small business tax cuts for some time and we're pleased to have secured them. We've been putting forward amendments to the small business and unfair contract bill. We've been arguing for prompter payments to small business. We've been putting forward the case for small-business-commissioner bills. We've been arguing—in the face of opposition from this government, mind you—for many years for changes to bring back the effects test. We've been arguing for all those things for some time, so we're very happy to stand on our record.

I want to hear the definition. I want to hear the case, put forward by everyone in this place, in accordance with the normal process, about why a company that has a turnover of $50 million a year suddenly deserves a tax break. Where did that number come from? Why $50 million? If the government had picked $40 million would Labor have signed up with $40 million? If they'd picked $30 million would Labor have signed up with $30 million? We've had no suggestion that this is somehow urgent. The Treasurer can't even bring himself to speak in support of that. But we do know it will have a hit to the budget.

I want us to have a debate, and to have this debate go through the usual process, about why it is that a tax cut for a $50 million turnover company is more important than lifting someone out of poverty by lifting Newstart. I want to hear from Labor and Liberal about why giving a tax cut to a $50 million company is somehow more important than lifting the minimum wage and closing the gap between the rich and everyone else in this country. I want to understand why it's more important to give money to that than to give money to schools and hospitals, because if this bill passes there will be less money available for schools and hospitals.

I suspect this motion will succeed, because there's one thing that we've learned: on economic policy, on adopting—

See this speech in context