In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill in detail as a whole. The question is that bill be agreed to. The question now is that the opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

(2) Schedules 1 to 3, page 3 (line 1) to page 46 (line 29), omit the Schedules.

The idea that this Albanese government would continue to increase costs to small business at a time when they are desperate and begging for relief—the only answer from this Albanese government is to turn around and impose higher taxes on them. We believe that there should be a splitting of this bill because we believe that measures that are necessary to protect small business should be excluded. Instead, the government is only piling on the pressure and breaking small business. We only heard yesterday of new inflation data which outlined the higher pressures and higher costs that are going to be imposed on small businesses. The solution from this government is to turn around and say: 'It's fine. We're going to impose higher taxes, higher costs, $50,000 per Australian small business, to navigate and steer through the higher costs being imposed by this legislation.' We're not just hearing that; we're hearing about a $13.3 billion deadweight cost to the entirety of the Australian economy. What is it that this government doesn't get? What don't they understand about the laws they're introducing? Why don't they understand they're breaking families, breaking small businesses and breaking people's hopes, dreams and livelihoods? Hundreds of thousands of small businesses across this country are being targeted and attacked, assaulted by the Albanese government, because it cannot control its spending addiction. As a consequence, they are being sent to the cleaners.

We know how bad things are now. It's only going to get worse, because every time inflation goes up, interest rates go up. We know next Tuesday, while many people are hoping for a win from the race that stops the nation, what they're going to be at risk of is further punishment by the Albanese government and its inflation addiction. We always come into this parliament and talk about the problems of addiction. We always come in and say, 'We've got to support people through their pain and make sure they're not exposed.' When is this Treasurer going to have his spending addiction brought under control? When are we going to see legislation from the other side of the chamber saying that we've got to control this Treasurer and his spending addiction because he is sending Australian families backwards?

If it was a gambling company, they'd be straight on their feet and acting. Even worse than that, they'd turn around and make sure that there was intervention and action every step of the way. But we don't see similar action when it's their own, because, at the end of the day, in their lust for power, the Labor Party will focus on one thing, which is: how can they feed themselves at the expense of the Australian people? They're turning around to the small businesses of the nation, who are already struggling to keep their doors open, already struggling to pay their costs, already struggling to pay their tax bills, struggling to pay the tens of thousands of dollars of surcharge fees, struggling to meet their basic needs so they can pay their staff before they even give a second to thinking about paying themselves. And what's the answer from this government? What's the answer from this Treasurer? It's to impose higher costs so the government can pay themselves first.

We do not believe in that vision or that future for this country—sorry! We do not believe the strength of Australia is built from a government that cannot control its spending addiction. We believe in a nation where we back families, communities and small businesses as the foundation of this nation's success. We are completely unapologetic about splitting this bill so that we can make sure we protect Australian families, small businesses and households. We have no apology for standing up against this Treasurer and his inflation addiction, because if we don't stand up, then no-one will.

We've seen too many times—we just saw in the chamber then—Teal MPs once again betraying their constituents, as they're so wont to do, by voting for a minimum tax on small business. You look at it and think, 'What is wrong with these MPs?' They do not understand the consequences. Neither do members of the Labor Party. I can assure members opposite, on the other side, that they might carry on with their hubris and, lemming-like, follow this Prime Minister and this Treasurer off the political cliff, but the small businesses of this nation will remember at the next election what you did. They will be able to say, 'We know what you did in the last parliamentary term.' They will look at you and say: 'You betrayed the Australian people. You betrayed Australian small businesses. You betrayed the families that depend on them. You betrayed the employees that depend on them.' And for what purpose? So that you can rapaciously satisfy the needs and the spending addiction of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

The game is up. We're going to fight and we're going to fight all the way to the next election.

The question is that the opposition amendments be agreed to.

The question now is the amendments circulated by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.

Member for Curtin's circulated amendments—

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

(b) the bill applies a beneficiary test to testamentary trusts 'established' on or after 1 July 2028, but does not say whether a testamentary trust is established when the will is made, when the will-maker dies, or when estate assets pass to the trustee;

(c) as a result, Australians making or reviewing a will cannot know whether the trust it creates will be covered by the new rules; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the bill so that:

(a) the beneficiary test applies only where a testamentary trust is established under will or codicil provisions made or varied on or after 1 July 2028, under a court order made on or after that date, or on an intestacy where the deceased died on or after that date; and

(b) the exclusion applies to income derived for the benefit of an individual, an exempt entity or the trustee of a special disability trust, so that naming an ineligible beneficiary in a will does not affect the treatment of the trust's other income".

I support the intent of this bill, which is to tax income in a broadly similar way whether it comes from work or from wealth, and I welcome the changes the government has made following consultation, including the electable regime and rollover relief. But we're asking family businesses to make significant decisions quickly without knowing what those decisions will cost—Treasury puts the average cost of restructuring at around $11,000; COSBOA puts it at $15,000 to $50,000 before stamp duty—and the window for making a decision closes early, with rollover relief ending on 30 June 2030.

My amendments would make sure we find out how this reform is affecting small business while there's still time to fix any problems. These amendments insert a new schedule, 3A, which sets up two reviews. The first is an early inquiry by the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. The minister would ask the ombudsman by 1 July 2029 to inquire into how the trust changes are affecting small business, using the ombudsman's existing inquiry powers. The ombudsman would report by 31 March 2030, three months before rollover relief closes, and the report would be tabled in parliament. The ombudsman would look at how small businesses are using rollover relief and the option to fix beneficiaries and stay outside the minimum tax and whether those settings, including the June 2030 end date, should change. It would look at what businesses are really paying to adjust, including professional fees and state stamp duty, it would look at whether ATO guidance and support are adequate, and it would look for any unintended consequences. The amendment also lets the ombudsman request aggregate data from the Commissioner of Taxation on rollovers and elections. No individual or business would be identified, but it would give the ombudsman hard data to consider alongside what small businesses are saying. The timing of this review is important. If costs turn out much higher than expected or ATO guidance arrives late, we need to know before the deadline for rollover relief passes, not after businesses have made decisions that they can't undo. A report in March 2030 gives the parliament time to extend the deadline if it needs to do so.

The second review is a full, independent review of the trust amendments. At the moment, the bill requires no review at all, which is a significant gap for a reform that impacts 840,000 discretionary trusts. This amendment would require an independent review to begin between July 2030 and January 2031, once there's tax data to show how the new rules are working in practice. It must be conducted by people who are not officials of Treasury or the ATO, completed within nine months and tabled within 15 sitting days. The review would go back to the purpose of the bill and ask: has it brought the taxation of trust income closer to the taxation of income from work? It would compare actual revenue and compliance costs with the published estimates and identify which income and wealth groups have ended up paying more. On small business, it would look at how much additional tax has been paid, what restructuring really costs and the effect on investment and succession planning. It would examine how people have changed their structures, including any shift towards companies, and it would examine how the commissioner and the minister have used their discretionary powers under the rollover and election regimes—because powers of this kind should be open to scrutiny.

These amendments don't change the tax, and they don't cost the budget. They simply make sure parliament sees the real-world impact of this reform, not just the modelling, and has the chance to respond. Getting the detail right is how this reform can keep the community's support. I call on the government to support these amendments and commit to these reviews. I commend the amendments to the House.

Once again, we have a problem where we have—I don't know what we call them these days, community Australia, strong community Australia, I think, or teal Independent MPs. Whatever they're called, once again they're betraying their small-business constituencies. We saw, in the last vote, the member for Curtin, the member for Wentworth, the member for Warringah and the member for Kooyong all betray their small business constituencies and vote with the Labor Party to separate out components of the bills that would actually give more protection to small businesses. We saw that in the last vote on the substantive issue. We saw—

Member for Goldstein, I remind you to keep your comments to the details of the amendment rather than general debate, please.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Garland. Indeed, I am addressing the different components of the detailed amendments, because what we've seen is small business continually being portrayed as part of the substantive issue of this legislation. What we want is to see a pathway for this legislation to be defeated and, more importantly, for it to do as little harm as possible. Instead, what we've consistently seen from this government—

Member for Goldstein, this isn't a policy debate. I would invite your comments on the detailed amendments, please.

I'm offering them, which is a part of how it adopts them and changes the legislation or fails to change the legislation. It's a critical—

I'm listening very carefully.

We have a substantive piece of legislation—

I understand. Thank you so much.

then we have an amendment to that substantive legislation. What I am saying is I would like to see a change to the legislation, so it becomes less damaging—

We're asking you to comment on the member for Curtin's detailed amendments.

Exactly! We have consistently supported changes to the legislation to minimise the—

To the review that the member for Curtin is discussing, not the policy at large.

Just to be clear, Deputy Speaker Garland, I'm allowed to make a contribution in this debate, and it's currently—

To the detailed amendments.

It seems to me that the chair is reflecting on the substantial nature of debate. We have a piece of legislation. We have an amendment. I am talking about the amendment—

It needs to be on the details.

And I'm talking specifically about the amendment, except for when I'm constantly interrupted—

I call the minister. Please take your seat, Member for Goldstein.

It's a simple matter of respect for the chair, Deputy Speaker. It is not appropriate for the honourable member to assert that you're reflecting. In fact, it's a reflection on the chair.

Thank you. Again, I invite the member for Goldstein to reflect on the detailed amendments as put forward by the member for Curtin.

Once again, Deputy Speaker Garland, I am reflecting on the amendment, which is around a review. We support the proposition of a review, like we have sought to try and contain the damage of this legislation. But the problem we consistently have had is not just that this legislation does enormous damage; it's, again, that we have had individual members who claim to want to do the same thing not achieving that purpose. As a consequence, this legislation continues to do damage and will target and hit the small businesses of Australia. Even if there is a review—of course we would like there to be one—small businesses of this country are going to be hit by a 30 per cent minimum tax, in part because of the decisions of this Labor government and, of course, the crossbench members of this parliament.

Member for Goldstein, I really don't appreciate having to call you up so many times to remind you to listen to what I have to say and to listen to what the member for Curtin has to say. It's very disrespectful behaviour. Whether that will make a difference to your future conduct, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The question is that the amendments circulated by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

The question is that the bill be agreed to.