Is it the reaction you would have expected? And does it mean the government's on the wrong track?

No. It's exactly the reaction that I expected from vested interests.

Always happens, whatever reform you're dealing with.

I could have written the script myself, but I think what Patrick just summarised is very, very interesting.

If I can take three or four words out of it.

One was to remove the distortions, and that ought to be a fundamental criteria of tax reform.

The second one is one of equity, trying to treat people the same way, whatever they do.

And you two kept chatting.

So do you believe that the critics, uh, small business, uh, some venture capital firms, have any legitimate points when, when they oppose these changes, or do you think it's all self-interest?

I think it's very largely driven by self-interest.

They've yet to explain the fundamental issue of why it is that salary and wage earners should bear a greater part of the burden for funding of government services like hospitals and schools and police force and the like, than those who invest in capital and get capital gains.

So it's largely vested interests.

I have to say also, Michelle, I think that what we're seeing here is absolutely typical of any form of reform, and that is vested interests that have had featherbedding and benefits flowing their way for year after year, decade after decade, will always get out there with loud megaphones and attempt to resist the reform.

They're ably assisted, unfortunately, by sections of our traditional media, um, and we know who they are at present.

But as you read the traditional media, particularly the financial press and, uh, The Australian, you don't actually have to read the articles.

Do you think these big supermarkets where most people buy their groceries are losing their social license? And do you think that greater powers are needed, in particular divestiture powers, to curb them in extreme circumstances?