Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the chairman of CEDA said, 'There is no believable end to the deficit in sight.' He also said that revenue measures 'are the only realistic way to balance the budget quickly'. Does the Treasurer agree with this advice from CEDA, and why will the government not embrace negative gearing reform?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. This government does not believe that increasing taxes on the Australian economy is the way to grow jobs and to grow the economy. We do not think that is the answer. We think the answer is to drive investment in our economy by ensuring that we have competitive policies, whether on tax, competition policy, investment in innovation and science or our defence industry procurement plan, which builds the capacity of the Australian industry, builds the capacity of our economy, which drives jobs and growth in our economy.

That is why today we continue to press the opposition, demanding that they support small businesses in this country with turnover of up to $10 million a year who they think are Googles and Microsofts and all the rest of it. They are small businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. They employ around 22, on average—and there are 2.2 million Australians who work in these businesses. Those opposite think the answer to the budget and the economic issues in this country is to tax those businesses more and to not provide them with the incentives to invest back in their business.

So, no: we do not agree with the opposition that the road to dealing with the budget issues is to increase taxes and increase the deficit as those opposite proposed at the last election. They said $16½ billion was the answer to the government's budget issues. They wanted to increase the deficit, increase the debt, increase the spending and increase the taxes. That is not a plan for jobs and growth; it is a plan to stay in opposition.