My question is to the Prime Minister. Forty young Australian founders have written an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: 'Rather than back us, the Prime Minister has ambushed us with a massive tax increase, a tax that will hit us, the Australians we hire and the investors who believe in us the hardest. This aspiration ambush doesn't just impact tech startups either. It impacts every growing business in Australia.' Does the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that his budget of broken promises and higher taxes will hurt Australian small-business owners?

I thank the member for his question. Indeed, we have in the budget $3½ billion of support for small business in additional initiatives that we have taken. We've said very clearly that on Thursday we'll introduce legislation. It will have the core elements of tax cuts that will particularly benefit young Australians, the standard deduction that will particularly benefit young Australians as well as the framework for the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. We've said that in addition to that we will have implementation legislation, and, as part of that process, we're consulting tech companies, startups as well as the groups that you'd expect us to consult that have already been involved. The council of Australian small business, the National Farmers' Federation and ACCI have all been involved in roundtables and have all been involved in the process, which is the normal way that you have tax reform.

This is a reform that is necessary—as it was called for by your shadow treasurer, for those very reasons. I want to point out that, indeed, the Treasurer isn't the only one who's read the book of the shadow treasurer. In fact, it's good reading. It's good reading because it puts the case for reform of capital gains tax and negative gearing very eloquently, and primarily it puts it in the context of intergenerational equity and the fact that young people are, to use the words of the shadow treasurer, 'getting screwed by the system'. That is what he has said.

Order! The shadow treasurer will pause so I can hear a point of order from the manager.

It's on relevance, Speaker. The question was about the letter written to the Prime Minister by the young entrepreneurs, not about the shadow minister's book.

On the point of order, the final sentence of the question started with the words, 'Does the Prime Minister finally acknowledge,' and then had a characterisation of the entire budget which opened the question wide.

And about hurting young Australians, so the Prime Minister is—

The whole budget is a broken promise.

Order! Leader of the Opposition, the manager was—

Alright. We'll just continue, then. I call the Prime Minister.

When it comes to young people, which is what the question went to, and the impact of the budget, as the shadow treasurer said, I confirm that I've looked at this book. It says: 'It's time to be honest. The tax system is screwing over young Australians.' That's what it says.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left.

It continues: 'Instead, it favours well-off established interests against those trying to get ahead.'

There is far too much noise. The member for Forrest can have some time out—

for three hours. If you're asked to leave by the Speaker, you definitely do not give commentary on the way out. It is a serious offence. If that occurs again, I'll be left with no other option but to name members.

The member for Forrest then left the chamber.

The fact is that over the years there have been fair dinkum people among those opposite, whether it be those who are still here or people like the former member for Menzies, who said: 'Current tax settings tilt incentives towards investors, particularly in existing stock. They reward bidding rather than building.' That is exactly right, former member for Menzies. (Time expired)