I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government did not take a minimum tax on discretionary trusts to the 2025 election and promised before that election not to raise taxes;

(b) Treasury's own Impact Analysis says around 350,000 small businesses operate through a discretionary trust, and that each of them is left with three options:

(i) pay a new 30 per cent tax; or

(ii) restructure and pay stamp duty; or

(iii) lock in fixed shares for life in a one-off election in 2028-29;

(c) Treasury puts the compliance cost at an average of $141.5 million per year; and

(d) twelve matters are left to legislative instruments that have not been released, and consultation ran for less than the 30-day minimum set by the Government's own Office of Impact Analysis; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) withdraw the minimum tax on discretionary trusts, or, failing that, delay the start of the minimum tax on discretionary trusts by 12 months, to 1 July 2029; and

(b) split the bill such that the capital gains tax amendments, the definition of a new residential dwelling and the payday superannuation transitional relief can be dealt with separately".

I rise to speak on 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, which are being debated in cognate. Let's be clear: the coalition opposes Labor's small business tax on trusts, and we oppose all three bills. The last of them is rushed, and it's a botched attempt to patch the damage that Labor's own capital gains tax increases will have on startups. A coalition government will axe Labor's startup tax and end the tax breaks for electric vehicles altogether, because we believe it's important that we have a sustainable budget position. And when the House considers the bill in detail, I will move amendments to split the bill, with small business tax on trusts out of the bill.

We have a situation right now where small businesses of the nation are screaming for help. They feel tortured by their government. Whether it's higher costs, taxes or regulations, the Albanese government's attitude towards small business is to see no small business and to hear no small business, and they certainly do not want to talk to small businesses. As a consequence, the government simply has no understanding of the impact of their higher-tax agenda on the small businesses of this country. Our taxaholic Treasurer is consistently focused on how he increases costs on Australian small businesses so he can feed his own spending addiction. And as we know, as we've just seen from the latest CPI data that came out minutes ago, that means we're seeing higher inflation pressure and of course higher interest rates, and unfortunately we no doubt are going to see further increases in interest rates as a consequence of the decision of the Reserve Bank on Tuesday. The government is playing a game of interest rate chicken with the Reserve Bank, and, once again, their hand is being forced by an Albanese government addicted to spending.

But the problem is that the more they continue to spend the more they have to tax. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxes and it's today's inflation, and small businesses are being asked to put their hands in their pockets because the government cannot pull its own belt in. You just need to look at the suite of these measures in these tax bills. And let's just be very clear about this. They're called 'tax reform' bills, but tax reform is not something that occurs when you increase taxes on Australian communities.

I think it's really important that we be honest about this. These might be bills introduced into the parliament by the government, but these tax bills are also in alignment with the tax agenda of the member for Wentworth, who consistently has gone out and flagged higher taxes on the constituents of Wentworth. And of course, the government, the Labor Party, has turned around, when they've said, 'Increase taxes over here but cut them over there' and said, 'We'll just take the tax hikes on the Wentworth constituency.' There's a point at which business needs to wake up and realise that, while you might think politics works like business, politics does not work like business. Business leaders who think politics works like business get dudded, because the Labor Party has a rapacious appetite and a lust for power. They use that power to empower themselves and to reward their friends. If you think you can negotiate with these people, if you think you can negotiate with this government to somehow get a better tax system, you are deluded.

And that is what we've seen. The member for Wentworth supported increasing taxes on innovative businesses, increasing taxes on small businesses, and the government took those tax increases but didn't give the offsets that she proposed. As a consequence, small businesses around this country are now rallying to try and see change, to have an advocate in the opposition and the coalition, because we knew at every step that when you put forward higher taxes on small businesses then the government is going to deliver on those and is going to punish small business. Our job is to stand up and fight against that. But the innovative businesses that turned around and supported the campaign by the member for Wentworth and now feel dudded seem shocked that the Labor Party, in their desperate lust for money and power, are of course going through and imposing higher taxes on them without the overall benefits and tax cuts elsewhere. This is what happens.

Politics is binary. The government wins, or the opposition wins. It's a contest between the organised and the disorganised. The teals at every point have consistently sold out the constituencies they claim to advocate for and represent because they have a naive understanding or belief that they can somehow deliver better outcomes for the community. The Treasurer at every point has been playing the member for Wentworth. The Treasurer has been using the opportunity the member for Wentworth has provided to increase taxes on innovative businesses. The Treasurer has been playing the teals like a fiddle, and they have enjoyed every step of the way until they realised how much the Treasurer has been using and manipulating them.

Now we are at this point where the government is introducing and trying to ram through this parliament higher costs and higher taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses and selling Australians down the sewer, which ironically is a contest because the Prime Minister has a particular penchant for sewers at the moment, it seems. We need to understand the real impact this is going to have on Australian small businesses. Right now, they are struggling with record insolvencies and even higher rates of voluntary closures because they can't find somebody to sell their business to or the government has bullied them into submission. They no longer feel that they can get ahead. Small businesses are gasping for air as they are experiencing higher costs and higher taxes as a consequence of this government, whether it's increasing the cost of their energy bill, payday super and the impact that has on cash flow, or the surcharges ban and the impact that has on cash flow.

Only the other day, I spoke to a small business, and they were telling me about how they're paying about $10,000 a month in surcharge fees, and the government has for the first time turned around and said, 'You've got to absorb that cost.' But, by the way, with gross hypocrisy and double standards, they turn around to the Australian Taxation Office and say, 'You can't provide the pathway for people to use exactly the same payment methods.' Apparently every small business across this nation is expected to accept legal tender except for the Australian Taxation Office. Today, we've revealed the Australian Taxation Office is engaging in automated fines against small businesses when they don't even have any data that there is a wrong and are then threatening small businesses with 200 per cent fines. The answer from the Albanese government is: 'Let them eat taxes. Let small business eat taxes.'

This government has no empathy for the small businesses of this nation. This government has no understanding of the pain, the suffering and the torture they are deliberately inflicting—unless, of course, they're getting their jollies from it. And sometimes you have to question whether this Albanese government is enjoying the pain it is inflicting on small business, because no rational actor could honestly believe that this government could inflict so much harm, so much damage and so much anxiety on Australian small businesses as the Albanese government, unless they drew a sick pathological joy from the exercise.

When I talk to small businesses across this country, what they are doing is screaming for hope. They are desperate for change, and they cannot understand why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and so many members of the Labor caucus seem to find a sick fascination and joy in their pain. They feel tortured by this government, and there is a time and a place at the next election where they are going to have their voice heard. And, when that voice is heard, I'm afraid that a number of members on that side of the chamber who are currently there are going to be thrown out, and they deserve to be thrown out because of the number of lives and the number of families that they have destroyed, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Even worse than that, these three bills, as they're now introduced, are deliberately putting targets on so many small businesses in the government's rapacious appetite for revenue. Just look at what they're doing on their small-business tax on trusts. So many small businesses don't even understand that they are yet the target of this bill. This is why we tried to refer these bills off to the House economics committee—a good committee, one I used to chair when I was last in parliament—and that was for the Labor Party members' benefit, so they could finally understand the insanity that their treasurer was engaging them in. If they want to follow him like lemmings off the political cliff, they have to understand the consequences of the decisions that they are making.

This tax on trusts is deliberately targeted towards small businesses, many of whom don't know they're impacted. Most Australians who run small businesses were advised by their financial adviser or their accountant or their solicitor to go on and establish a trust. They didn't choose to do so because they thought it was some sort of genius way to achieve an economic end themselves. They were advised to do it because that was what century-old law—let me say that again: century-old law—recommended they do. They went off and set up a trust, and it is simply a piece of paper annually that their accountant presents to them that they sign to confirm to the ATO when they're making their submissions to the Tax Office and approving their audits. What they're going to find in the coming weeks and the coming months as these bills are passed through parliament—they're going to go and talk to their accountant, and their accountant is going to say, 'This is how much you owe for your tax return this year, but, by the way, next year you're going to have to pay double, triple, quadruple the increase in tax because of what the Albanese government is doing for you now.' Even worse, if you want to restructure your finances to minimise your exposure to the higher taxes the Albanese government is going to impose on you, you are going to experience $50,000 of adjustment costs—if you've got assets by the time you deal with the legals, the financials, the compliance.

If members of the Labor Party think that this is the end and this is the end of the debate, politely, this is the beginning of the debate. This is where the financial advisers, the accountants and the lawyers of Australia are going to tell the Labor Party members' constituents how much the Albanese government has betrayed the small businesses of this country. As they find out the cost and as they find out the consequences and as they shift structures, they're going to incur $50,000 bills. That's a massive deadweight cost on the economy simply to reorganise their finances and legal structures. Even worse than that, they're going to face a deadweight cost which could aggregate to as much as $13 billion across the economy. It's effectively the same as saying: 'We're just going to write off an entire year of economic growth. We're just going to write off a year of business activity.' No Australian is going to be better off after these tax changes. Not even Labor, when they come into this chamber, try to say that somehow small businesses are going to be better off as a consequence of these tax changes. They're not even trying to pretend. They're just after more revenue because they can't kick their spending addiction. They cannot kick their addiction to inflation and to higher interest rates, which are punishing Australians and more importantly increasing the cost of mortgages and which mean Australians go to the supermarket and pay more and get less.

If small businesses change their structures, that is just going to invoke a whole series of further steps. Only last Friday, I was in the federal electorate of Flinders with the wonderful member for Flinders. Many small businesses from the Mornington Peninsula, which is one of the great hubs of small-business activity across Australia—not quite as good as the Goldstein small businesses, but I do respect the fact that they are definitely my spiritual home small businesses. It's one of the places where my mother used to have a small business. I need to be clear.

When I met with those small businesses, particularly the accountants, the solicitors and the financial advisers, they said, 'This is the beginning of the end for a lot of small businesses because not only are you going to see changes in structures; it will immediately trigger a series of events.' Those are events like going back to their bank and asking for refinance because they'll be legally obliged to because their legal structure will change. So what are they going to do? They'll have their finance facilities adjusted. A lot of businesses that believe that they're going to be able to get the finance they're used to are going to suddenly find an environment of falling asset prices by the design of the Albanese government and the Carroll government, as well as the Allan government and the Andrews government in Victoria—falling asset prices by design, rising taxes and declines in profitability. The Labor government is selling them short. Their runway is going to reduce, and you're going to find that a lot of small businesses simply won't be able to operate.

Job done if you're a Labor government! Smash small business. Smash people's hopes and dreams. Destroy and torture those people who just backed themselves ahead. Do you know what happens then? People have to go and get a job in a unionised workforce, and then the Labor Party can manipulate and control people.

That is what their end objective is—to manipulate and control Australians—but the problem is that it destroys the aspiration, the belief and hope Australians have in themselves. That is what is so terrifying about the insidious, nefarious agenda of the Albanese government. Their focus is on how they enlarge their power as part of their lust for power, but not only are they going to go to the bank and find out that they're not able to get the finance, they're going to go and see their insurance broker and find out their insurance policies are going to have to be reissued. Guess what we're seeing every time small business goes to an insurance broker? The cost goes up.

In fact, what small businesses are going to find is that the cost continues to rise on them because of the decisions of the Albanese government, and that's just legislation point 1, where small businesses are being betrayed by this government, all because they can't control their spending addiction. We also know that they've provided pathways allegedly to be able to solve some of these problems, but, of course, it's by nominating beneficiaries of small business trust into the future. The problem is then, of course, you can't add new beneficiaries, like if people have children. Imagine that—we're now going to tax births in this country. What sort of sick mind decides that should be the basis of legislation?

I see your smirk there, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, I think it's just and wise, because only someone truly insane would design a piece of tax legislation which now actively taxes births, let alone what we've seen with the death taxes that this government has introduced and continues to impose across its federal budget. We have never seen anything like this. It is the arrogance and insanity of central planning, in the belief that, if we just give government all of our money and all of our resources, somehow we'll be a better country, but the old adage stays true that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have, and this government is absolutely determined to take everything it can from the small businesses of this country.

They claim farms are exempt. Farm income might be exempt, but contract shearing, mustering in the farm, stay and the power line rent all get taxed along the way. They've introduced rules that nobody can read. Twelve times the small business tax on trusts leaves the rules for the minister to later decide and determine the outcomes. Not one has been released, because, again, this treasurer, because you've got to trust them—50 times over, they wouldn't possibly tell you a lie. Fifty times over, we know full well that they did told the truth on their higher taxes before the election and have now set to pass them after the election, and now they're going to give themselves more discretionary power under this legislation so the minister and the Treasurer can make any decision they see fit. We pass this tax now. We trust the Treasurer with the rules later. I've got a tip for you: nobody believes this government anymore. Nobody trusts this government anymore because the Australian people have been betrayed by this government so many times before. We know that there's a huge cost to compliance as a consequence of this legislation, and, of course, it means that Australians will be left behind.

Then we have the TLAB No. 4, which targets start-ups. As I said before, this should really be renamed the member for Wentworth tax bill, because she has been the one who, every step, has made the case for higher taxes on business on the idea that you can turn around and the Labor Party is somehow miraculously going to give tax offsets elsewhere. Sorry for those in the big business community, the small-business community and innovative business community who have been deceived by the member for Wentworth, but it doesn't work that way. She has given a permission runway to members of the Labor Party to hike taxes on her own constituents and not given any tax offsets. This is and continues to be one of the great frustrations of debates around tax. Labor literally have no satiation, no end to their appetite, for higher tax revenue, because they see it as a pathway to empower them. TLAB 4, which deals specifically with innovative start start-ups and the like, is going to lead to a situation where a lot of people just aren't going to operate start-ups in this country. I've talked to so many people who have done well, innovators, people who are backing themselves to get ahead, and they consistently say, 'Why would I bother in Australia any more with capital gains tax increases, with the change to small business taxes on trusts and with how the government is basically targeting every innovative small business in this country?' They are turning around and saying, 'Why would I bother?' They're just going overseas or starting their business overseas in places like Queenstown in New Zealand, Dubai, Singapore or wherever they can get better tax arrangements.

What does that mean? It means that Australia does not have the pathway for growth in the future economy. Small businesses, particularly those in their first five years, are most likely to employ people proportionate to their size, most likely to be innovative and most likely to be productive. The Albanese government has turned around and said it wants to steal from the innovative, productive and employing side of the economy to feed their rapacious appetite for revenue today. They've created an environment of sovereign risk where they have smashed business confidence to back in the future growth of this country. With that, it isn't just capital that will disappear; talent will disappear. That will be a disaster for the future Australian economy.

The Treasurer continues to say that this is somehow going to be very pro start-ups. Well, I've never yet met anybody in the start-up community who has said: 'That last federal budget was great for us. We loved it. If only we could have more taxes to be able to back us in, if only we could have the government break more promises, because that's the pathway to our growth and success. If only we had more dishonesty from the government, we would end up being more confident about our future.' In case this is ever quoted back at me, I want to make it clear that I was being ironic, because not a single small business that I have run into, particularly innovative small businesses, believes in any way, shape or form that to be the case. What they are actually saying is the complete reverse—that they are being attacked and assaulted by this government every step of the way.

The Treasurer has continued to make the case that his budget is somehow beneficial, but the reality is small businesses, innovative businesses and the like continue to suffer under the consequences of this government's dishonesty. This federal budget and these pieces of legislation come down to a simple choice. It's a choice about the type of country we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that is built from families, communities and small business as the foundations for the strength of a nation? Or do we want to be a nation where the government controls people's lives and imposes conformity on them? No human society in history has been successful in respecting rights and freedoms, building a nation where hard work pays off and empowering people to be in control of their lives while imposing conformity from Canberra or a capital like that. Every society that has sustainably succeeded is one that has backed families, communities and small business and has backed them to thrive, not just to look at their feet but to look to the horizon with hope. Every society that has been successful and every economy that has met the material needs of its people and the spiritual needs of their journeys has always backed families, communities and small businesses as the foundations for their success—particularly small business. Every small business is an act of economic hope. It's an act where people back themselves because they believe that through their ingenuity, their own productivity and their hard work and effort that they will be able to get ahead.

The tragedy of these bills is that the government has come along and in the Prime Minister's very trademark way now said, 'No, that's mine.' He has come along and tried to take away that hope, that ambition and that dream of so many Australians that are the self-starters of our country. They don't just lift themselves up; they lift up the opportunity for every Australian because they are the ones who then go on and create the pathways for employment. They're often the place that a young kid gets their first job, gets trained and developed and has a pathway to get their first foot on the ladder of economic opportunity. They're the first people to go in and support our community—organisations like local sporting clubs, charitable groups, scouts groups and guide groups—because they believe that the health of their community is good for their business. They're the ones most likely to lead, disrupt, compete, dare and challenge the status quo for change and to build the technology and the capacity of our nation. That includes, by the way, the biotechnology and medicines that not just make us competitive but improve human health and human outcomes.

At every point, the Albanese government are turning around and saying, to a better future—they want to take that back for themselves. They want to take that power, that energy, that ingenuity and that potential and give it to Canberra because they believe, deep down in their being of beings, that they have a better answer and know how you should live your life better than you do. They believe that they can provide better economic opportunities for you if you just empower them. They believe that they can provide better mutual support to individual citizens than families. They believe that, if they impose their will from Canberra, there will be a better outcome for small businesses than backing small businesses in to empower them.

We've made it very clear, every step of the way, that we plan to repeal all of the government's taxes that they introduced in this federal budget, which they never had the courage to take to the Australian people. Let us never forget that. Every single member of the Labor Party went to an election and said they would not introduce these taxes. More importantly, they lacked the courage to go to voters and tell them that they were going to introduce these taxes. Even worse than that, every member of the Labor Party betrayed the Australian community when they then went and followed this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, like lemmings, off a political cliff and decided that they were going to back in these taxes.

I cannot believe that, in a nation that so badly needs more trust, more honesty and more courage, we have a government as dishonest, as spineless and as distrusting as this government—the Albanese government. This is not just the way forward. It is not just the way forward for the Labor Party, certainly not the Labor Party, and the inheritance they receive. It is a betrayal of the Australian community and what they went to the ballot box and cast their vote for. Now we're left with the consequences.

What we can say is that there is hope on the horizon, because this government will end. Their higher taxes that no-one voted for will end. There will be a better future, because some of us in this parliament understand that the pathway to build Australia's success is by backing the Australian people—backing their ingenuity, backing their sacrifice, backing their hard work, backing their innovation capacity and backing them—to make sure that they build the foundations of a better future for all of us. The coalition understands that when we repeal these taxes we will be backing in the small businesses of this country, not just small businesses that exist today but the glint of hope and opportunity that rests in the eye of the next generation of Australians who dare to dream, who dare to look to the horizon with hope and a belief in themselves that they can do great things. That's the type of citizen I want for this country.

I do not want the soft bigotry of low expectations that the Albanese government oversees. I want to see a country where, no matter who you are or where you come from, you can build a better future for yourself, lift the standards for yourself, lift your economic welfare and lift your whole community with you. That's what we back and that's what we believe. We do not believe in the government being the solution to all problems. We want the government out of people's way. The role of government is to make sure that it respects its citizens, backs them in and understands that it is to create an empowering and enabling framework for people to go out and live their best lives.

It's our chance and our moment to make sure that we build a better Australia for every Australian. That is not what is being done in these laws being put before this parliament. Instead, what we see is a government that is so addicted to spending that its only solution is to grab its very large hand and shove it in the pockets of Australians, of whom it is jealous and resentful because they have managed to back themselves into success. Even worse than that, the jealousy and resentment from the Albanese government then tries and punish and humiliate people who want to back themselves in and have a better future. This sick fantasy of the Albanese government, and the focus it brings to this parliament, is not one that breeds the type of nation we want. It is not one that builds a better future for Australia, and it is not one that enables Australians to live out their best lives.

Now is our critical moment. At the next election, these taxes, and, of course, the assault on small business, will be on the ballot paper. I look forward to a Taylor-led Liberal government that is going to repeal these taxes and build a better future for all of us.

Before I call for the amendment to be seconded, I just want to put on the record, Member for Goldstein, not to reflect on myself as a deputy speaker, that I wasn't smirking and that wasn't part of the debate. I just want it noted for the record that I wasn't smirking. Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and related bills deal with taxes and with trust. When it comes to trust, you cannot rely on Labor. And when it comes to taxes, we know that this government is the highest-taxing government ever. The problem is that we've got businesses going backwards. We have small business in this country in freefall at the moment—30 businesses a day closing their doors. The small business sector is on its knees. Because of Labor's policies, nearly 15,000 small businesses collapsed in 2025. It was the worst year in record and, sadly, this year it's no better.

Labor has introduced thousands—not hundreds, but thousands—of new regulations: more compliance, making it difficult and more expensive to do business. Businesses' electricity bills have surged by about 40 per cent since May 2022. Coffee shops, hairdressers, motor mechanics—all of those small businesses that we all rely on—have to find that money, over and above their running costs, each and every week, just to make ends meet. And they can't keep doing it. There's only so much that you can charge somebody for a cup of coffee. There's only so much that you can charge somebody for a haircut. There's only so much that you can charge somebody when it comes time to fix their motor vehicle. They're doing it so tough, and Labor is only making it harder.

We have put forward a number of sensible amendments, and I hope the government, in good faith, accepts them, agrees with them and votes in favour of them. We know that the government did not take a minimum tax on discretionary trusts to the election last year. Indeed, they promised before that election that they would not raise taxes, yet we know that Labor has done that. Treasury's own impact analysis says that around 350,000 small businesses operate through a discretionary trust. Many of them are farmers. Many of them are those who work the land, who provide the food and fibre our nation relies on—and not just Australia but many other countries as well. Each of those businesses that rely on that discretionary trust is left with some options. They can pay a new 30 per cent tax hike, they can restructure and pay stamp duty, or they can lock in fixed shares for life in a one-off election in 2028-29. Treasury puts the compliance costs at an average of $141.5 million each year.

Labor loves to spend money. On Monday night I went and listened to the Senate estimates environment committee hearing. That's what I did; that's what I spent my Monday night doing. It was really interesting to hear the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Minister Murray Watt, the senator who has carriage of the water portfolio, answer questions in that important portfolio area.

It was with some disgust last night, in between reading legislation, that I read an article in the Border Mail, the newspaper covering Albury-Wodonga. It said:

Regional NSW Minister Tara Moriarty visited Lavington Sports Ground on Tuesday, October 27, to outline spending across 34 projects covering an area from Wentworth to Goulburn.

This just goes to show the malaise about spending and why communities, and people, are so frustrated with politics, politicians and Labor governments in particular. The article said:

Lavington Football Netball Club received $52,555 for resurfacing and upgrading a court that has been in place since 2023 but unsuitable for hosting matches.

The club's netball administration manager Rhys Winckle said "it's actually essentially just a training facility at the moment, and that's all we can really use it for until this court surface has actually been applied".

Of course, Lavington was pretty happy that they received this funding.

The article went on to talk about AusCycling in Wagga Wagga, my hometown, receiving $99,954 for a mobile cycling centre and the Ganmain sports club—it's a great little community, a wonderful little community; for a little village, Ganmain's sporting history is probably second to none per capita in the nation—receiving $83,524 to 'upgrade an underused area for a community hub'. The article continued:

The bulk of the money, $1.365 million, went to Goulburn's council to upgrade that city's hockey centre with two modern fields to attract major championships.

Good luck to Goulburn. Well done, Ganmain. Congratulations, Wagga Wagga, and half your luck, Lavington.

This is the rub. All that money. All those four centres received part of the windfall of '$6.58 million in funding that was shared across 14 projects as part of the active regional communities program'. Deputy Speaker Chesters, you'll be interested in this because, being from Bendigo, you are in the Murray-Darling Basin. The article reported:

Ms Moriarty said the NSW government did not support the policy of water buybacks pursued by the Commonwealth but would not be rejecting a total of $160 million offered by Canberra to mitigate the impact of more environmental flows.

She was quoted:

There's a lot of other options that are available for repairing our waterways and our environment, which we do support. But we want to make sure that this region, that is so incredibly important for food production not just for this region, but for all of New South Wales and for all of Australia … stays strong into the future while we repair our environment.

Ms Moriarty estimated 624 jobs would be created through the $50 million spending but could not say—

this is the interesting point—

how that figure would tally against the number of positions lost because of buybacks.

I mention all that as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 debate because that article shows how wrongheaded the bureaucracy and Labor governments are at the moment. Whilst those four centres that I mentioned certainly are in the Murray-Darling Basin, they are certainly not—n-o-t; put it in capitals, underline it, put it in red; I don't care—affected, really, by water buybacks. They are not.

When it comes to taxes, when it comes to discretionary trusts, when it comes to government spending money, when it comes to helping communities—I just don't understand why communities that are not affected by something then receive a cash windfall at the expense of other towns which are on their knees. Small businesses in towns such as Leeton, Narrandera, Finley, Deniliquin and Tocumwal and in the city of Griffith have diminished so much because of bad water policy. Those small businesses are on their knees not just because of bad water policy but also because of bad federal Labor policy. They have the double whammy, then they pick up the paper and they read that the towns close by in the same region but not affected at all by water buybacks are receiving a cash windfall for their sporting organisations. It's no wonder that people are angry. It's no wonder that there's grievance. It's no wonder that people are asking why. It's no wonder that people are just saying, 'We are sick of these bad policies.'

Now, people might ask what we will do to fix it. We will put in place a tax-back guarantee. When it comes to Treasury laws amendments, when it comes to reforming the tax system, under a coalition government—hopefully one after 2027 if the Prime Minister goes early or in 2028 when the next general election is due to be held—85 per cent of taxpayers will be fully protected from bracket creep. From 2028-29, every taxpayer will be protected from 2031-32. From 2028-29, the bottom two income tax thresholds will be indexed to inflation, fully protecting 85 per cent of income earners from Labor's higher taxes. That's what's crippling. That, folks, is what is crippling small businesses and taxpayers everywhere.

Labor is fond of talking about real income increasing, but it's a folly. It's a fantasy. It's a Labor Party talking point that just doesn't ring true out in the community, because people know that, every time they fill up their car, it's costing them more. Labor will talk about the Strait of Hormuz. They'll talk about the situation in Iran. They'll talk till they're red in the face about situations overseas affecting Australia markets.

Someone else's fault.

It's always someone else's fault, as the member for Berowra just said. Every time people go and buy their groceries, they're paying more or they're getting less in their trolley or both. This can't continue. Then, we have a situation where Labor just wants to buy more water out of the agricultural productive consumptive farming pool, like they did just recently with 86 gigalitres taken out, the equivalent of 34,400 swimming pools. What's that going to do to the ability to have Australian produce on the supermarket shelves? What's that going to do to the ability to have cheaper food? Well, it's going to have less Australian made food and higher food prices. It's obvious.

Then, of course, you have Australians opening up their power bills. We hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy constantly spruiking his home battery program. Well, people are paying through the neck when it comes to energy costs, not just people but manufacturers. I heard the member for Forde earlier talking about textiles and manufacturing. He was good to mention that and good to acknowledge that. But those industries are going backwards. If it is so good and great, why is Labor constantly having to subsidise and rescue alumina in Newcastle in the Hunter Valley, the steel industry in Whyalla in South Australia or the rice mills down in the Riverina to the tune of $14 million? Recently the latest buyback cost 92 jobs. Fourteen of those people found other work within SunRice. They were fortunate, much more fortunate than the 78 who did not. That's 78 families who now don't have an income. Then they hear us talking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026. They see that Lavington and Wagga Wagga and Ganmain and Goulburn are getting money as a recompense for the water buyback situation, and they get angry. And they get annoyed. And they get frustrated. And they are in despair—and for good reason.

We've got to be better than this. Bureaucrats have to get maps, and they have to look at those maps. They have to also speak with local members of parliament and say: 'If we're going to spend money in Goulburn, will that help them because they've lost the irrigation channels and they've lost all the irrigation farmers? If we give money to the Lavington sports oval, is that going to help the irrigation farmer who might have a paddy of rice?' They don't have rice in Lavington! It's just ridiculous.

Labor has to be better. Bureaucrats have to be better. I'm almost pleading. It's just dumb. It's nonsensical, it's stupid and it's a waste of taxpayers' money. Labor, you have to be better than this. People demand it. People expect it. People need it. People deserve it. Be better.

Tax reform, by its very nature, concerns rates, revenue and fiscal sustainability. But, at its core, at its heart, tax reform is about values. Underlying every debate about rates, about thresholds and about revenue are deeper questions: Do Australia's economic rules reflect the aspirations and reward the hard work of Australian taxpayers and of everyday working people? Do they reflect who we want to be as a nation?

A fit-for-purpose tax system does more than just raise revenue. It influences where capital flows, it decides how innovation is rewarded and it translates hard work into opportunity—not just opportunity for those individuals but opportunity for our country. Most importantly, it helps determine whether Australians believe that, if they work hard and play by the rules and contribute to their communities, they have a fair chance to get ahead. This is Labor's approach to tax reform.

The Albanese Labor government's agenda focuses on rewarding work, supporting that aspiration and better aligning the income earned through work with income earned in other ways. If you're a nurse working shift work, caring for our sickest Australians; if you're a boilermaker, working a double, clocking in and out; or, if you work in aged care, looking after our growing older population, you shouldn't have to pay more taxes than people holding wealth in other ways. Labor's reforms are pro-worker because Australians who earn their income through their own effort should know that that hard work is valued and that hard work is rewarded.

The reforms are pro-aspiration because homeownership should not become an impossible dream for the next generation. Young people in this country have never had a dream to pay off someone else's mortgage. Young Australians have a dream to own their very own home, something that helps them plan for their future. Labor is supporting tens of thousands of people to enter the property market, to own their own home and to build security for themselves and for their families.

And, yes, the Albanese Labor government's tax reform will create a fairer balance between the way income from work is taxed and the way income from other sources is treated. Let's have a closer look at that point. There are now more than one million trusts in Australia. There are, of course, sound reasons and legitimate reasons for individuals and businesses to use those trusts, including succession planning, asset protection and the management of family affairs. However, the rapid growth in the use of discretionary trusts over recent decades—by the way, the number has more than doubled in the past 20 years—raises critical questions about the sustainability and, indeed, the fairness of the current system.

The benefits of the discretionary trusts are not evenly distributed. The majority of income generated through trusts flows to households in the highest income bracket, and around 90 per cent of private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households, those with net assets exceeding approximately $2.3 million. A key feature of discretionary trusts is their flexibility which can provide opportunities to organise tax affairs in ways that are not available to most wage and salary earners, in ways that simply aren't on the table for everyday Australians. Treasury analysis indicates that families using discretionary trusts paid an average effective tax rate around four percentage points lower than families with similar incomes who did not use a trust.

Reviews of Australia's tax system over the past 50 years have also identified these inequities. This includes the 1975 Asprey report, the 2008 Henry review and the coalition's 2015 tax discussion paper. All of them said exactly the same thing: we have to do something about this. They highlighted the failure of that fundamental principle of fairness, that income should be treated consistently regardless of how it is earned or how it is held. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 will deliver a fairer tax system. These changes will affect only a small portion of taxpayers. More than 95 per cent of individual taxpayers and over 90 per cent of small businesses will not be impacted in any given year. It's also important to note that these changes will not apply to a range of trust arrangements that serve important social, charitable and public purposes. This includes fixed trusts, charitable trusts, special disability trusts and superannuation funds along with primary production income and certain categories of income received by—(Quorum formed) vulnerable minors. The exemptions also extend to deceased estates and discretionary testamentary trusts. In addition, distributions made by trusts to registered charities and deductible gift recipients will remain outside the scope of these changes.

The government has undertaken extensive consultation throughout the development of these reforms, seeking stakeholder feedback on the practical operation of the trust reforms and the exposure drafts. These consultation processes have helped to refine the legislation and ensure the reforms are implemented in a considered and effective manner. As a result, there are options to minimise, and in many cases avoid altogether, restructuring costs for small businesses and other taxpayers who use discretionary trusts.

Discretionary trusts will be exempt from the minimum tax if they make fixed distributions to nominated beneficiaries. This provides an alternative to accessing rollover relief and offers greater flexibility in responding to the reforms. For those who choose not to restructure, trusts will continue to be available for legitimate purposes such as asset protection, succession planning and business operations. The reforms do not remove or restrict the use of trusts. Instead, they will reduce disparities in tax outcomes by ensuring that income distributed through trusts is taxed more consistently with income earned directly by workers and families through wages and salaries.

The remaining schedules of bill No. 3 represent the next stage of Labor's housing affordability reforms and focus on the changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing announced in the budget earlier this year. The objective is very clear: to create a housing market that works better for first home buyers while maintaining incentives for investment that expands the nation's housing stock. In short, we want to make sure that we get more supply in the system after four decades of undersupply and get everyday Australians into their very first homes.

These reforms strike a balanced approach by preserving the gains that existing investors have already accrued while directing future investment more strongly towards increasing new housing supply. By improving access to homeownership and easing some of the barriers facing prospective buyers, these measures are expected to assist around 75,000 Australians—additional first home buyers entering the market over the coming decade—and this will help reverse the long-term decline in homeownership rates and restore the prospect of owning a home for a new generation of Australians.

This bill builds on the foundational capital gains tax reforms passed by the parliament, and it addresses a number of more complex and technical issues to ensure the changes operate as intended across a diverse range of taxpayers, investment structures and trust arrangements. Comprehensive consultation with stakeholders was carried out, as with the other schedules of this legislation, but the legislation contains safeguards to prevent the loss-ordering rules introduced in the first stage of the reform from having unintended consequences for superannuation funds and other superannuation entities that invest through trust structures.

The bill also provides clarifying detail regarding the definition of a new residential dwelling, by identifying the categories of housing that will remain exempt from the new limits on negative gearing. Consistent with Labor's fundamental drive to encourage additional housing supply, investors in eligible new housing will continue to have access to negative gearing provisions and the 50 per cent capital gains discount. These measures provide clarity for investors while directing incentives towards housing that increases the overall stock of homes in this country.

Eligible new housing includes residential properties that make a genuine contribution to supply, such as more homes built on previously vacant land and redevelopment projects where existing dwellings are replaced with an increased number of new residences. The legislation also recognises that some forms of housing serve important social and community purposes and, as a result, a range of housing types will remain exempt from negative gearing restrictions. This includes special disability accommodation, affordable housing projects, public housing, retirement living communities, residential aged-care facilities and build-to-rent developments.

The focus of this bill is to drive innovation, to unlock new investment and to help build a more dynamic and resilient Australian economy, and this means more support for businesses and start-ups, investing in more research and ensuring that our Australian tax system is sustainable. The Albanese Labor government has already rolled out $3.8 billion in tax relief for businesses, and this bolsters those supports. It includes the innovation business capital gains tax concession, which will support investment in innovative start-ups. That's on top of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. It's on top of the loss carry-back, and, in my local electorate where, if you jumped up, hopped in a hot air balloon, dropped the sandbags and floated over the south side, the strongest glow would come from the small businesses in Sunnybank, retail, hospitality, manufacturing—this bill supports small business, as does this government. This bill is about building a system that rewards effort, supports aspiration and drives investment for all Australians.

What we are dealing with is this federal Labor government's proposed trust tax reform, and it represents another major burden on Australia's small-business community. Don't take my word for it. Don't take the coalition's word for it. Let me give you, in a set out, methodical manner, a range of examples from businesses in my electorate of Monash, because, across the board right now, small businesses are struggling to keep their head above water. They are running on financial and emotional reserves. They have had an increase in input costs right across the board, from fuel to insurance to the complexity of employment laws and regulations, and they are really struggling right now.

One example is Abe from a local agrispecialist accounting firm that has over 500 regional agriclients. Abe says:

This legislation has Australia moving from a flexible tax system to a rigid tax system

Abe says:

Minimum 30% tax in trusts is higher than the 25% company tax rate

And Abe feels that many small businesses will be forced to close their door due to these changes. Abe's small business example is the following: a family trust that splits income. Family adults pay more far more tax under this proposal. There's an example that's set out of $150,000 of trust income split equally between a husband and wife in a farming family and their adult son who works in the business with no other income. In the 2025-26 financial year, the tax would be $19,614. This will be lower again if we applied the 2026-27 financial year rates. From July 2028, that tax is $45,000, or 30 per cent, simply because the trustee pays a minimum tax and a beneficiary's credit is non-refundable. The result is $25,386 more tax a year on the same income, and each person loses around $8,462 of unusable credit. That's not fair. Abe goes on: escape routes and restructures all cost. Restructuring can mean stamp duty, and the fixed distribution locks in beneficiaries and shares. How is this fair? How is this equitable for a small-business entity? It's not.

Then we've got stamp duty. The ATO's rollover relief doesn't cover stamp duty. Duty is a state tax, so it depends on where the property is and how you restructure. The expanded rollover relief gives exemptions to income and capital gains tax for three years if they restructure. It applies for three years from 1 July 2027. I'd note that CPA Australia says the draft leaves state taxes untouched. What it does not address are the regulatory and state stamp duties, and the stamp duty barrier remains, so a restructure can be tax neutral federally and still trigger a large state duty bill.

The legislation lets an existing discretionary trust avoid the new tax by choosing to make fixed distributions to prenominated beneficiaries, with tax still paid at the beneficiaries' marginal rate. What is the point of a discretionary trust when they must now be fixed? The question that has arisen from my constituents is: how is it fair that a taxpayer has set up a structure based on historical discretionary trust rules, and now the goalposts have moved? Shouldn't the rules be grandfathered? My constituents put it quite rightly. Commentators have called one consequence 'a birth tax'. Under the current draft, beneficiaries generally need to be nominated when the trust makes its election, so a child born later can't easily be brought in.

I want to go through my email inbox, with some other feedback. We've got Carrie, from South Gippsland. Carrie says that the proposed tax on trusts will hurt essential businesses in the Monash electorate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, I represent a regional community. Oftentimes we will have a farming family who are in tough times, in drought or a bad season, and one of the partners will have a business outside of the family farm in town, be it food or hospitality, that is an important supplement to their income—so it's going to hurt those small and family-run businesses as well. Carrie also says many family, small and medium-sized businesses are structured as discretionary trusts for asset protection flexibility in managing irregular income and distributing profits and for family business continuity. These family, small and medium-sized businesses are critical to the local economy. Carrie says:

Family businesses such as tradies, accountants, cafes, retail shops and hairdressers are likely to face considerably higher tax bills. Many businesses will be forced to restructure their operations, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal, accounting and financial aid.

One thing I get feedback on regularly is that we are creating a compliance industry in this country because red tape and duplication of regulations of tax imposts are growing. As a small-business owner, you do not have a HR department, an IT department or a marketing department; you are the marketing manager, the IT manager and the HR manager. At the same time as you are wearing all those hats, you've got to run a business and serve your customers. These regulatory imposts, this additional red tape—small businesses are drowning in red tape right now, and this just makes it worse. Carrie says:

At a time when businesses are already dealing with escalating cost pressures, I believe we should be making it easier—not harder—for businesses to invest, grow and employ more Australians.

I say to Carrie: hear, hear. I say to Carrie: as your local federal member in this parliament, I'll always stand on the side of small and family owned businesses. The coalition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—will always stand on the side of small and family-run businesses because it's those businesses that get out of bed every morning and put their houses on the line to give other Australians a shot at a job. It's those Australians that are the first to put their hand up to volunteer in our service clubs and community organisations. It's those Australians who are the first to put their hands in their pockets to sponsor our food banks, our footy and our netball clubs, and to run, invest in and grow our regional communities.

I've had feedback from an accountant, also in South Gippsland. Four clients attended their office in one day, when this was announced, who had to restructure. The cost of this is huge, and they can't afford the cost right now because the cost of everything else is going up and up, and there is no respite for these small businesses. The changes will be made and the tax paid will be identical, but the disruption and impact are huge. Quite frankly, they will be left wide open with no protection in many cases. I had a solicitor from my hometown of Warragul contact me saying that local people that that solicitor provides advice, support and service to are concerned. Their main concern is the unknown. They don't know. It goes to Carrie's point earlier about the goalposts continuing to move. This solicitor says that we definitely need certainty in the testamentary discretionary trusts space. There have been changes since the budget, but they still have big concerns. As it stands, people will need to change these trusts to remove companies and trusts as beneficiaries. However, in some cases those who have set up these trusts have lost the capacity to make those necessary changes.

There are fewer than 11,000 active testamentary discretionary trusts currently in existence in Australia, compared to over 840,000 discretionary trusts. These testamentary discretionary trusts are largely set up to protect really vulnerable people, protecting inheritances for children, widows, widowers and people with a disability who are beneficiaries after a death. There is a concern, this solicitor from West Gippsland says, that people just don't know. She's had lots of discussions with clients, but she doesn't have any clarity. She says, 'Our advice is that we'll just have to wait and see.' That is a response from so many businesses across my electorate and, indeed, across regional Australia right now under this government who pulled the rug out from under them and moved the goalposts and who run on a legislative platform of surprise for small businesses, who just don't know what is around the corner for them except for the fact that costs are going to rise and regulations are going to increase under this government.

It's very common for some parties, particularly family members, to work in a business on a paid or unpaid basis. This leads to consequences in the sense that it often undermines one business partner in terms of capital contribution and labour contribution. The consequence of these changes will be fewer people choosing to go into small business. That is the Australia that we're living in right now under this federal Albanese Labor government. I really worry for the next generation of younger small-business leaders in this country that they have had such a fright from looking at all of the obstacles, all of the imposts and all of the challenges that their parents' generation and the current generation of small-business owners and leaders in this country are facing. We've got young people right now, this week, starting their VCE exams, and my best wishes to them. To own and run a small business is a noble vocation. It should be applauded, it should be encouraged and it should be celebrated. And yet, right now, under this federal Labor government, the Prime Minister is making it harder. Small-business owners have never had to work harder for less and have never faced more risk and red tape. This is a prime example of that. It is warning off younger Australians who would otherwise say: 'You know what? I love entrepreneurialism. I love running a small business. I love serving my community. I love working with my staff. I've got a few ideas about some products or services that I could offer to my local regional community. I think that would add to the visitor economy and the attractability of the town. It'll employ people from farming families.'

As I said earlier, when times are tough, often being able to supplement that farming family's income through a hospitality business or a gift shop business in town can make all the difference. Right now, there is a big flashing red light that this government is imposing on small-business owners and, indeed, the next generation of entrepreneurs and small-business owners in this country by asking, 'For the imposts, the hours, the risk and the red tape that you will be under, is it really worth it? Tragically for this country, there are thousands of younger people looking right now at the risks and reward outcomes and saying: 'I think under this federal Labor government it's not worth it. I'll go and get a salaried role. I'll go and become an employee, because risking my house and risking my own children's future to run a small business with all of this ahead of us just might not be worth it.' That is a tragedy. It is a crying shame, because we cannot do without small businesses. They are the largest employer of people right across this country. They employ young people, often giving them their first shot at a job and their first experience in a workplace. They provide flexibility and opportunities for progression, particularly for women. In regional Australia, small-business owners, particularly women, have said to me, 'Working in a large corporate entity in a capital city, I just didn't get the opportunities for career progression and promotion that a small family run business afforded me.' We're going to lose out on those opportunities, and that is a crying shame.

Right now, small business is up against it. It's up against rising costs and rising red tape and not getting a fair go in this country under this federal government. But I stand on the side of small and family run businesses. The Liberal and National parties stand on the side of Australian small and family businesses. We will give you a go, we will support you, we will stand up for you and we will do everything we can to defeat the punitive, the unfair and the untold pressures that this federal Labor government is imposing on thousands of Australian small-business owners right now.

There is an old saying that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes, but in Australia we've managed to introduce a third certainty: if there is a tax concession available, someone will find a way to turn it into a property investment. And, if that concession is particularly generous, they might establish a family trust to manage it. I don't begrudge anyone working hard, building a business, investing their savings or trying to get ahead. That is part of the Australian story—but so is the fair go, and the fair go means the rules should not depend on whether you earn your income through a pay packet or through a structure that requires three accountants and a family lawyer to explain. Working Australians should not need a trust deed to get a fair deal.

These three 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, put that principle into practice. They rebalance how we tax work and investment, encourage new housing and innovation and make sensible adjustments for businesses and workers. Of course these reforms are controversial. Tax reform usually is. Everyone supports a fairer and simpler tax system right up until someone suggests changing the concession they happen to be using. Suddenly the national interest becomes a lot less interesting. But our responsibility is to ask whether existing arrangements still serve Australia, not simply whether someone has come to rely on them.

Start with discretionary trusts, because this is where much of the opposition is focused. There are entirely legitimate reasons to establish trusts—asset protection, succession planning and managing family affairs. The people who have used them lawfully have done nothing wrong. But consider two families earning broadly similar incomes. In one household, both parents receive wages, their employers withhold tax and the rest goes into the family bank account. In the other, income is earned through investments held in a discretionary trust. Depending on its circumstances, the trustee can distribute that income among beneficiaries and reduce the family's total tax bill. Both families may be following every rule, yet their tax outcomes can differ simply because of the structure through which they receive their income. Treasury found that, in 2022-23, families with discretionary trusts faced an average tax rate of around four percentage points lower than families with similar incomes without them. Four percentage points is not a rounding error to someone who earns their living from wages, and the advantages are concentrated. Approximately 90 per cent of private trust wealth is held in the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. That does not mean every trust beneficiary is wealthy or every trust is designed to minimise tax. It tells us where the greatest benefits of the present system flow.

There is a broader budget consequence too. A concession does not cease to cost money merely because the cost appears as revenue never collected. If income from one source receives more favourable treatment, the government must make up the difference through other taxes, reduced services or borrowing. That is why this debate is not a contest between those with trusts and those without. It is a question about how we share responsibility of funding the country we all rely upon. It also exposes a question parliament cannot avoid. Why should two families with comparable incomes face different tax burdens because one has access to a more flexible legal structure? The first of the schedules of the No. 3 bill and the accompanying rates bill answer that question with a 30 per cent minimum tax on the relevant discretionary trust income from July 2028. The trustee pays it. Eligible noncorporate beneficiaries receive credit so the same income is not taxed twice without recognition of tax already paid. There are exclusions for genuine testamentary trusts, deceased estates, special disability trusts, charitable arrangements and primary production income, among others. (Quorum formed) This is not a ban on family trusts. It is a limit on the tax advantage that some structures can deliver.

I recognise the concern amongst business owners who established trusts years ago on professional advice. They may hold business assets, employ staff and have planned their succession around those arrangements. Changing the rules affects real decisions. That is why implementation is important. The legislation provides expanded rollover relief for those who choose to restructure a company or fixed trust. It also offers an election to make fixed distributions to nominated beneficiaries without restructuring. More than 90 per cent of small businesses are not to be affected in any given year. Those protections are not an afterthought. They reflect consultation and an attempt to preserve legitimate business activity while fixing the tax imbalance. We're also helping businesses through a permanent $20,000 instant tax write off, loss carry back and other measures supporting investment. Supporting small business should mean helping people build enterprises and employ Australians. It should not mean promising every tax advantage will last forever, nor can we pretend this issue is new. The Asprey review examined income-splitting through trusts in the 1970s. The Hawke-Keating government returned to it in the 1980s, and the Howard government committed to trust tax reform in 1998. The reform never eventuated, yet the capital gains changes of that period, which made investment concessions more generous, went ahead. The concession survived. The reforms did not. More than 20 years later, the number of discretionary trusts has more than doubled. It is difficult to argue that another decade of inaction will somehow resolve the problem.

That brings me to housing, where the consequences of tax choices are visible every Saturday morning. We all know the scene—young Australians at a home open, working out whether they can stretch their deposit, increase their offer and still afford the mortgage. Often they are competing with investors who can deduct eligible rental losses against other taxable income. The investor gets a tax deduction; the first home buyer gets another Saturday at a home open. Private investment plays an essential role in providing rental homes. The issue is not whether people should invest in property; it is what taxpayers should be subsidising through the tax system. Buying an existing home may be a sound investment, but it does not by itself create an additional home. When supply is already constrained, subsidies for buying existing homes can intensify competition for the same limited stock. And, for the first home buyer, the house is not primarily a line in an investment portfolio. It is security, somewhere to raise a family and somewhere to put down roots and stop worrying about the next lease renewal.

The government's negative gearing and capital gains reforms change the incentive for future investment. They preserve favourable treatment for qualifying new dwellings that genuinely add to housing supply. The legislation provides certainty around what counts as a new home, including the relevant occupancy period, and protects arrangements supporting affordable housing, specialist disability accommodation, public housing and other essential housing. Existing capital gains are protected through the broader transition, rather than being retrospectively rewritten.

Importantly, the legislation recognises that not all housing serves the same purpose. Homes for people with disability, for affordable rentals and for retirement accommodation respond to needs the market does not always meet on its own. Protecting appropriate concessions for those developments is not an inconsistency; it follows the same principle. Public incentives should support identifiable public benefits. That distinction is one reason these reforms are more carefully targeted than a blanket restriction would be. The intention is not to punish investment; it is to attract investment to construction, where more capital can mean more homes. Treasury estimates that housing tax reforms will help another 75,000 first home buyers enter the market over the next decade.

I will not pretend that tax reform alone will build the homes Australia needs. We also need skilled workers, infrastructure, planning approvals and construction capacity. There is little sense in spending public money to expand supply while tax settings encourage investors to bid up existing stock. Government policy should be pulling in the same direction. This leads to the larger economic question behind the No. 4 bill: if we're going to offer tax advantages, what activity should we encourage?

Australia needs people prepared to start businesses, develop technologies, invest in research and employ skilled workers here, rather than take their ideas overseas. Those are not guaranteed investments. A startup may take years to earn a profit, and many never do. That risk is precisely why targeted support can influence whether a promising Australian idea receives the capital it needs. The Innovative Business Capital Gains Tax Concession provides a 50 per cent discount for eligible new equity investments in innovative companies, including for founders, employees and early-stage investors. There are limits on company age and turnover, innovation requirements and a minimum three-year holding period. These are incentives for backing businesses over time, not turning over assets for a quick tax result.

The legislation also modernises venture capital incentives so funds can continue supporting growing companies as valuations and investment needs change. That is especially relevant in sectors such as clean energy, advanced technology and medical research, where capital needs are large and the returns may be years away. The research and development changes apply the same logic. They direct stronger tax support towards core research, increase the turnover threshold for refundable incentive and lift the expenditure cap to encourage more research to remain onshore. Young firms receive targeted support while eligible biotechnology and medical technology businesses can access the refundable offset for up to 15 years, in recognition of the longer product development and approval processes. Developing new medical treatment can mean years of trials, specialised manufacturing, regulatory approvals and considerable expense before a single patient benefits. After all, developing a new medical treatment is slightly more complicated than purchasing your fourth investment property. The economic points I've been making are serious. A country cannot build a future simply by trading existing assets on ever higher prices. We also need to create products, skills, treatments and industries that did not exist before. Tax incentives should help unlock that work.

The No. 4 bill includes two more practical adjustments. First, it allows more businesses to choose monthly pay-as-you-go instalments, helping payments reflect changing trading conditions. Anyone who has run a business knows that 'profitable on paper' and 'cash in the bank' are not always the same thing. Second, it phases the electric vehicle fringe benefits tax concession towards more targeted support while protecting eligible existing commitments. The original discount helped the electric vehicle market develop and, as that market matures, it is reasonable to ask whether the same subsidy is still required in the same form. Good incentives should be judged by the outcome they achieve, not by how loudly people object when they are reviewed.

There is one final measure worth addressing: payday superannuation. Since July employers have been required to pay super alongside wages rather than waiting until the end of the quarter. That means contributions reach workers' retirement accounts earlier, with more time to compound. It also makes unpaid super easier to identify before months of entitlements accumulate. But the transition can result in some workers receiving contributions attributable to the previous financial year and the current year within the same tax year, potentially pushing them above the concessional contributions cap. The No. 3 bill provides automatic transition relief for that timing problem. Workers should not face an unintended tax penalty because we have made their superannuation payments more reliable.

I rise to make a plea to the government to pause—stop and consider what these bills will mean for the small businesses in Fowler and right across this nation. In Fowler, there are more than 27 small businesses. Many of them are family run—the mum and dad who run the local laundromat, the family with a small real estate agency, the couple who've built up a few restaurants and the mechanic who opens the roller door at seven every morning and close long after dark. Many came to this country with nothing. They work long hours. They do not ask for handouts. They are building a safety net so their children and their children's children will never have to rely on government. These are not tax dodgers; they are the backbone of this country.

At our Fowler business forum last week, one owner, who runs Salon Online, asked me a simple question: who pays the government's taxes? Small businesses employ people. Those employees pay tax. Without those businesses, where will the government get the taxes that pay for this parliament, the bureaucracy and the services this nation relies on? She has a point. Small business is the engine of this economy. Changes of this scale to negative gearing, capital gains tax, trusts and R&D should have been taken to the people at the last election. They were not. The Prime Minister ruled out these changes again and again during the 2025 campaign. These are not technical tweaks. They go to the livelihoods of families who have spent decades building something.

I'm concerned about how the government is handling these bills. These are complex changes with significant consequences for businesses, families and investment. Yet they have been brought together in a cognate debate with very little time for us to review the detail. Members should have a proper opportunity to examine these bills. How can we assure business owners that the consequences have been carefully considered when we have had so little time to examine those consequences ourselves? These serious matters require serious scrutiny. The government controls the timetable. It should allow parliament time to do its job.

On 21 October I held the first Fowler Small Business Forum with local small-business owners. They came from cafes and restaurants, allied health, textiles, IT and other industries. Their message was consistent. They are already struggling, and they fear these changes will make things harder. Small businesses pay tax and collect GST without withholding employees' superannuation. Making it harder to run a business affects workers, families and revenue-supporting public services. Several owners at our forum operate through trusts. Some have arrangements involving what are commonly known as bucket companies. They now face difficult questions: Will they pay more tax? Will they need to restructure? What will professional advice cost? That is the perspective I bring to this debate, focusing on the trust and restructuring measures in the No. 3 bill and the R&D changes in the No. 4 bill.

My starting point is fairness. Everyone should pay their fair share of tax. I understand the government's argument about differences between the taxation of discretionary trust income and a worker's earnings, but fairness also means considering who is affected and whether the transition is reasonable.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.