With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today

In doing so, can I say: what a terrible way for me to end my Senate career—to hear these terrible answers about how out of touch this government is with real people, small businesses and farmers. Apparently this government doesn't know what a farmer is, by the way. We sort of had to stumble through question time there, trying to figure out how this government felt.

Hey, hey, hey, my grandfather's a farmer.

Oh, well, the grandfather of Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is a farmer, so we'll take that. But, of course, when the question was asked, 'Where does food come from?' they all said Uber Eats.

What really did astound me out of that set of questions and the answers given was, of course, the response to the question about McPhillamys goldmine. In the last term, I was the shadow environment minister, and, on this issue, the finding of the government—the former environment minister Ms Plibersek—was to rule against the capacity for this billion-dollar goldmine to proceed—a mine, I might say, that met every state and federal planning and environment approval and had gone through millions of dollars of assessments and years of work. It had done the work with the traditional owner group, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, only to be stopped by Minister Plibersek, the minister who also gave it environmental approval. The same minister, after all of those approvals had been given, then took in a bit of evidence from a group who didn't actually represent the traditional owners of that part of the country around Orange, Bathurst and Blayney, which the McPhillamys goldmine was located in. After all of that work, the minister said, 'No, it cannot proceed,' because of evidence we have never seen—evidence that was provided in secret by a group of people who, again did not represent the traditional owners, evidence that has never been tendered to the proponents of the mine to analyse, and evidence that was perhaps given orally. It's not even required under the act that governs this that it be given in written form.

So how is this piece of legislation, which is, in fact, as old as me, still fit for purpose? This government has an opportunity to reform it, and I believe a test that the new legislation should pass is: would this mine survive under the new laws? If the answer is yes then pass the laws. If the answer is no then go back to the drawing board. It's pretty simple.

The fact is that we have people who want to invest in this country and this government's mantra is: 'We want a future made in Australia. We want to create more jobs. We want to get the economy ticking over.' Well, how do you do that when you have a government that allows someone, whether they're a domestic investor or a foreign investor who has come to this country, to sink money into multiple approval processes over a long period of time, only to say, at the very last hurdle: 'You know what? We're not going to let you go through with this. We're not going to tell you why. Good luck. Hope you do well'?

The court, of course, found, just yesterday—and it was a great gift for me, on the day of my valedictory speech to this Senate, which I'm now going past and now talking again, to have the court recognise this—that this government made a terrible decision by denying procedural fairness to the proponents by hiding the evidence they relied on from the proponents of the mine. So I hope this government takes this opportunity to reflect on how terrible this decision was and how, if they are really interested in a future made in Australia, they'll get these laws right. In saying that, it's been a real delight to sit through my last question time as a senator for Tasmania, and I thank my colleagues again for their good humour and forbearance with me as I fill in that five-minute slot.

Senator Duniam, may I say, that was a very fitting conclusion to your time in the chamber, although we will have you for estimates. So I look forward to your continuing contribution in the Senate.

I also congratulate Senator Duniam on his last contribution in this place. Our changes at its core are about making the system fairer for working Australians. At the core of our reforms to trusts is aligning the treatment of income from assets and income from work and helping fund our tax cuts to Australian workers. It is true that the flexibility provided by trusts can also allow some Australians to plan their tax affairs in ways that aren't available to most workers and their families. To make Australia a fairer country, we need to make sure that tax obligations are distributed evenly throughout our society.

Those in this chamber know that numerous reviews have raised concerns with tax arrangements for discretionary trusts over many years. The first instance of this was a report in 1975. There was the Ralph review in 1999. There was the Henry review. And there was the coalition's own tax discussion paper in 2015, which I know is a pretty inconvenient truth for those opposite. The settings are becoming more unsustainable with the number of discretionary trusts doubling over the past 20 years to over 800,000. There are legitimate reasons to use trusts, and anyone operating through discretionary trusts can continue to do so. There is a substantial period for anyone using a trust to prepare before the 1 July 2028 start date, and we're providing expanded options to limit or eliminate restructuring costs as well. That includes expanded rollover relief from 2027 and options for trusts to elect to be exempt without requiring a restructure or paying a wage to beneficiaries employed in the trust.

The majority of trust income flows to the top earning 10 per cent of Australian families. About 90 per cent of the total private trust wealth is held by 10 per cent of households. The vast majority of Australians do not receive a discretionary trust income, and the vast majority of small businesses also do not operate using a trust. Less than 10 per cent of small businesses will be affected in any given year. This change is about improving the fairness, integrity and sustainability of the tax system. We're focused on taking the pressure off Australians with permanent cost-of-living relief, including tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer that started on 1 July this year. Those opposite are determined to present these fairer tax changes as an attack on business. We in the Labor Party see it for what it is: a smoke screen that they can hide behind while trying to protect their ability to minimise their tax and increase the divide.

Like I've already touched on, our reforms are about better aligning the tax treatment of incomes from assets and income from work and to help fund tax cuts for Australian workers. It's also worth noting that primary production income is exempt from the minimum tax on trusts, which we announced on budget night. It's also important that we note that this week the National Farmers' Federation said:

We strongly welcome the Government's decision to legislate the exemption for primary production income, providing critical certainty for farming families.

Do you know an inconvenient truth? I'll tell you an inconvenient truth. This government has trashed the economy, this government has crushed Australian households and this government has brought Australian small businesses to their knees. That's the inconvenient truth. The answers, or the lack of answers, that we got to the questions asked about trusts are very telling. The suggestion that this is a niche group of businesses at the top end of the town is absolutely false. This is the everyday tradie. This is a builder, someone in the construction industry. It also crosses into other service industries like hairdressers and doctors and dentists—you name it. Do you know what they all have in common? They're all small businesses. They're not large businesses. They're not multinationals. They're Australian small businesses that have been targeted by this Albanese Labor government with even more tax.

One of the answers that Minister Wong gave was in relation to it just being about a small group of businesses or individuals that receive their income via a trust. I'll take a step back. We are in a housing crisis. We don't have enough houses. That's a given. In the budget in May, instead of making it easier for young Australians to get into a home, this government decided to increase taxes across a whole spectrum of mechanisms under the shield of intergenerational equity. We all know that to be false. They said that these taxes would make it easier for young Australians to own their own home. What they refuse to admit publicly is that they are taxing young Australians even more as they save to afford those homes. This trust tax has now impacted the companies, the organisations, the tradies, the Australian small businesses and the Australian family businesses that build those homes.

HIA's managing director, Jocelyn Martin, in a press release, said the proposal would have consequences far beyond taxation, affecting how many small businesses are structured and operated. She also said:

Around three in five HIA members operate through a family trust.

Do you know what HIA members primarily are? They are builders, the people who build the homes that Australians need to live in, which we currently do not have enough of.

This takes me to what I believe is the agenda of this government, and it's becoming very clear. We've spoken about this over and over. We would like Australians to be able to own their own homes. Those opposite would like your super fund to own your own home and for you to be a perpetual renter of that home. That's what they want. That's what the agenda is. Guess what? Your super fund can invest in property, but you can't via your own super or via your SMSF any more, because this government has said that you can't. This is just another layer in that same agenda to make homeownership less accessible for the everyday Australian. It is totally lacking any foresight to think that taxing Australian tradies and taxing Australian builders even more will actually make housing more accessible for people in this country. (Time expired)

On the topic of trusts, over the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion in discretionary trusts. We now have over 800,000 of them, and they are heavily used by wealthy households. As the former member for Higgins, I represented one of the wealthiest electorates in this country. Trusts were widely used by my constituents. It was driven largely by the top marginal tax rate, which, as you know, is 45 per cent. With the Medicare levy, which is two per cent, it is 47 per cent. People on those incomes are paying a lot of money to the tax man. I'm speaking about the constituents I used to represent. That top 10 per cent shoulder a high tax burden. They account for nearly half of the tax take—around 46 to 50 per cent. So they pay a lot of tax, which pays for all the services and the infrastructure and the things Australians need. They also work really hard.

It's not surprising that, over that time, this top marginal tax rate, which Paul Keating himself described as punitive, has driven a whole series of perverse behaviour, including the use of discretionary trusts as tax shelters—entirely legitimate over this period of time, entirely legal and lawful. The problem now is that we're seeing such leakage of tax and such rising demands on our economy from aged care, from disability, from paying interest on debt, from defence and national security and from climate change—let's not forget climate change. All of these kinds of pressures are intensifying on us, and there is a need for government to raise revenue and to deal with tax leakage, which is something we are boldly trying to do, knowing full well that it's unpopular. But we are a responsible government and we have to deal with these kinds of issues.

What is of concern, however, is the impacts on small businesses. There are 2.7 million small businesses in Australia. They are the backbone of our economy. We think around 210,000 small businesses will be affected by this change. The government has made some concessions to try and help small businesses restructure without incurring high costs, which COSBOA have said could be in the order of $50,000. We also accept that small businesses use these sorts of trusts for asset protection, for succession planning, for continuity, all of which are entirely important and legitimate, and we are consulting deeply with them right now, particularly with industry, with small business as represented by COSBOA and, of course, farmers.

This change in taxation arrangements for discretionary trusts tax is something that we need to be very careful of in this current economic environment. Small businesses are doing it tough. There is weak demand. Costs are high and, unfortunately, at the moment, rising. We've done our level best to help small business with the $20,000 instant asset write-off and the loss carry-back, which they also advocated for and which I'm pleased we could deliver. We are listening and consulting.

I rise to take note of Minister Wong's answers to questions from Senators Blyth, Colbeck and Ruston on tax on trusts. The Albanese Labor government has once again shown how little it really understands about small businesses and the pressures that they're facing. I, like a multitude of many small-business owners out there at the moment, have seen the tin ear that the Labor Party and the Labor government have shown towards small businesses in recent times. Let's take trusts for the moment. Labor's approach to discretionary trust taxation is causing serious concerns across small businesses, farmers, tradies and many others. Even Labor state governments are now scrambling to protect small businesses from Jim Chalmers latest tax grab. That tells you just how badly this has been handled to date.

Small businesses, including franchises and even small builders, are being given three bad choices: pay more tax, pay accountants and lawyers to restructure or give up the flexibility they've relied on for generations. The NFF says there are more than 37,000 trusts operating in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, but it's still not clear what sorts of farming activities are covered under primary production income. They're asking for certainty, sensible rules and a government that understands the realities of running a business. I know those opposite don't understand this, but for a small-business owner cashflow is everything. It determines whether suppliers are paid, whether rent is met and whether another employee can be hired. I've worked in small business, including our own former family business, and I know the pressures they face. Unlike this government, small-business owners cannot simply spend more money when the numbers don't add up. Yet Labor keeps adding costs, uncertainty and frustration.

Take the recent changes to card surcharges. Banning a surcharge doesn't just eliminate the cost of accepting a card. Just fancy the facepalm when the Prime Minister claimed that the changes would make everyday purchases like your coffee cheaper. One female owner of a Tasmanian hospitality business has told me this week that across two venues her business has now absorbed just under $3,000 in 10 days, including some new fees. This is up from $129 in the corresponding period last year. It forecasts an annual impact of over $120,000, factoring in seasonality—a $120,000 impact!—unless it passes those costs on by increasing prices. Yet Labor thinks the surcharge has simply vanished. It hasn't. Someone pays.

In my short time here, I've heard of so many small businesses saying the same thing under the weight of this government's reforms. If Minister Wong is not hearing those concerns in her office, she should ask herself why. We're listening; the question is whether this government is also listening.

Then came the ATO's plan to stop accepting direct credit card payments for tax. For businesses waiting on overdue invoices, a credit card can provide vital short-term cashflow flexibility. The government was left scrambling on its position. Then there was the hypocrisy. While small businesses were essentially being told to absorb their card processing costs, the ATO wanted to walk away from its own. Small businesses deserve respect, not another round of Labor's moving goalposts and tax grabs on trusts. They don't deserve your higher taxes and energy bills. Labor should back, not break, small businesses.

Question agreed to.