For those of us who were lucky enough or privileged enough to sit through the whole 30 minutes of the member for Goldstein's contribution, I think looking at it in equal parts horror and fascination, it took until maybe the 26-minute-and-30-second mark before there was something of interest and value to respond to; that was when the member for Goldstein, the shadow Treasurer, started talking about the philosophical differences between Labor and the Liberals. We see now a stark difference between the two sides. He is correct to point out a difference, even if he is incorrect in the way in which he characterises those differences. I want, in the time that I am in this place, to continue to prosecute this argument that Australia is not the country I was born into. The country I was born into in the 1970s was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world, and over the course of the last 40 years or so we have become one of the least egalitarian countries in the world.

I know that there is division in the opposition on this value, on this idea, on this philosophy of the role that government plays in society, and that the shadow Treasurer is one of the spear carriers for smaller government, for government withdrawing and leaving it all to the private sector. It is this philosophy, which is responsible for privatisation, economic rationalisation and deindustrialisation, which has devastated the working-class communities that most of us in this place represent. It is those three things, and the withdrawal of the role of government and the idea that the private sector can always do better, that have laid waste to our textiles industry and our manufacturing industry and have wrought havoc on that sense of what it means to be Australian—that is, none of us are better than any of us. That philosophy is exemplified in what we heard in that contribution from the shadow Treasurer.

I support these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 4) Bill 2026. They are part of the government. As Paul Keating said, change the government and you change the country. We have seen over the last 40 years, as I said, a descent into inequality and poverty for working-class communities. Change the government and you change the country. We have seen change over the last four years of the Albanese government. Some people would like it to be quicker; perhaps some people would like it to be slower. We're not about throwing over the tables and letting the chaos work it out for itself; we're doing it in an ordered way and in a way that will provide some longevity to these changes.

I know it is not just on our side. I know that on the other side—it's always good to see the member for Riverina here, because the agrarian socialists that exist within the National Party, I'm sure, also appreciate what it means for government to play an active role in our economy. Big wheels turn slowly. It's not just on our side. I think the member for Goldstein is now isolated in many ways with, as Paul Keating described it, a 'sterile ideology' that should be rejected. These bills exist within that change. In business, I like the idea that it's riskier not to invest than to invest—that doing nothing is actually the risky option. As the Treasurer has said, these are contested matters. There is no doubt that these are contested matters. We have over the last few months consulted widely with the community. (Quorum formed)

Now that everybody's here, they might want to sit down and listen to this contribution! I wish I was a bit better prepared now. Where was I? Oh, they've gone—give them about five minutes and then call a quorum again, perhaps. There are many elements to this bill which are worth addressing, but I'll confine my remarks to a limited number of them. The biggest one in there, of course, is housing. The changes to the CGT are going to have a significantly positive impact on dealing with a problem that has resulted in one of the greatest examples of inequality in Australia, as we have seen homeownership fall off the cliff from rates around 72 or 73 per cent to around 65 per cent and falling. When you look at that demographic of between 25 and 45, it has just completely fallen off a cliff. One of the measures in here deals with the capital gains tax changes and housing. There was a time when you were able to buy a house that was worth four times your income. These days houses are worth about nine or 10 times your income.

There was also a time when people wrote letters to the editor—handwritten or typed, put in an envelope and sent to the editor. A constituent of mine, Ian from Shailer Park, brought to my attention a letter that he wrote to the Courier-Mail in 2007 in which he said:

If Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello want to take credit for the economy, they must also accept the blame for the housing affordability crisis threatening our country.

House prices do not double of their own accord in five years. They were stagnant for much of the 1990s. I don't know what levers Howard and Costello pulled to cause this doubling, but I do know that, as a result, Australia is facing one of the greatest social disasters possible—a generation of people who cannot afford their own home in the once lucky country. Many parents will see their superannuation disappear very quickly as they try to assist their children buy a home. The legacy of the Government's pursuit of an ill-considered ideology will blight this country for several generations.

This guy should be on government economic committees because he nailed it 19 years ago. He knew what was coming. We saw house prices double after the introduction of the CGT changes. Since then they have doubled—in some cases doubled again—to put homeownership out of reach. Fundamentally, these TLA bills do three things; they are about: providing more tax cuts for workers; making it fairer for first home buyers; and realigning earned income with income earned through other means.

That is why the changes to trusts are so important. Somebody asked me why we are doing this. The answer is really quite simple. Over the last 20 years, the use of discretionary trusts has doubled in this country. Something like 90 per cent of the wealth held in those discretionary trusts is owned by the top 10 per cent of households in Australia. So that's why we're doing it. As the Treasurer said, these are not easy changes; these are contested changes. The consultation that has happened over the last few months is a commendation as to how this government consults with all members of this House.

Trish, a constituent I've been working with on this very issue, is an example of somebody who will be looked after by this legislation. She's retired. She owns one investment property with her husband. She has a little bit of super. At the moment, because her accountant advised her to set up a discretionary trust, she is able to divide the income fifty-fifty between her and her husband—a very modest income from a very modest single investment property—which nets her about 20 grand, just around the tax-free threshold. Of course, a 30 per cent automatic tax is not meant to catch people like Trish. The changes in these bills will mean that she will be able to elect to reapportion those distributions very simply so that they are effectively fixed. That will mean that she won't have to pay that 30 per cent minimum tax.

Her second concern was what would happen when she passed. Again, this legislation deals with that. She or her estate will be able to nominate beneficiaries who will take up a proportion of what was there for the beneficiary who passed away. Rather than stuff the explanation, I thought I might read out the example in the explanatory memorandum—which I'm not sure I've ever heard the member for Riverina do! I hope reading the explanatory memorandum out is okay. The example reads as follows:

The trustee of the Green Trust made an EET election in the 2028-29 income year, which complies with the requirements including specifying Mr and Mrs Green as beneficiaries in the EET nomination and specifying each with a 50 per cent share of the income and non-income earnings of the trust estate.

Mr Green passes away during the 2036-37 income year. Mr Green's will names Mrs Green and their two children as beneficiaries of Mr Green's deceased estate. Before the end of the 2036-37 income year, the trustee decides to allocate Mr Green's nominated share of income and non-income earnings equally between the two children. The trustee of the Green Trust notifies the Commissioner of this decision in the approved form by the due date, and the EET election remains in force.

I've read that out because Trish is listening to this and because we have listened to Trish. We have consulted widely. We have here a package that deals with that inequality that has beset Australia in the last 40 years. And we have consulted to make sure this is a fair deal for Australians. I commend the bill to the House.