My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Brisbane small-business owner David Kelly, who employs nearly 40 Australians through his cleaning company, warned of Labor's tax changes.

They're not looking at taxing big business or large corporations, they're coming after the little guy.

With Mr Albanese pressing ahead with his 30 per cent minimum tax trust, why is the Prime Minister making it more expensive for hardworking small-business owners like Mr Kelly to operate, invest and just employ Australians?

I thank the senator for the question, and I would say to her that we disagree with the suggestion that the tax changes are about not helping the little guy, because, in fact, this is about better aligning the tax treatment of income from assets and income from work and helps fund tax cuts for working people. I would make the point—I know those opposite may may not wish for these facts to be on the table—that the number of discretionary trusts in this country has doubled over the past 20 years to over 800,000, exceeding the growth in companies. The majority of trust income flows to the top-earning 10 per cent of families. About 90 per cent of total private trust wealth is held by the wealthiest 10 per cent of households. So let us get the facts here about who is actually utilising trusts.

Order!

No; people are entitled to arrange their financial affairs as they see fit. But we are also, as a government, entitled to say that, actually, it is fairer to ensure a reasonable taxation of income from assets in order to fund a tax cut for working Australians. And that is what we are doing. That is what we are doing.

I'd also make the point—as Senator Gallagher, I think, has pointed out—that there have been numerous reviews of the tax system which have pointed out the challenges arising out of trust arrangements. Going back to 1975, there have been multiple reviews recommending reform in the area of trusts, and that is what we are doing.

Senator Blyth, first supplementary.

I'm sure Mr Kelly will be really delighted with that response from you, Senator Wong! Fernwood licensee Larni Mailer, who employs 50 Australians, warned of the Prime Minister's tax changes:

… what this legislation is doing is making me rethink where every single cent is spent.

Why is the Prime Minister pursuing tax changes that leave small-business owners reconsidering every dollar they spend rather than investing in their businesses and their employees? (Time expired)

I'm not sure if that continues to be a question about trust income, but, if it is, I again refer you to what I already—

Pursuing tax changes, yes.

Hang on. I was asked about trust. I'm not sure if that supplementary relates to other aspects of tax changes, Senator Blyth. But what I would say to you is this: we are reforming the tax system to better align income from assets and income from work. It is a very simple proposition. I accept that there are people who don't believe that that is the right thing to do. We do. And we have enabled, as a result of that reform, the delivery of tax cuts for the vast majority of the Australian population, which means that all working Australians who pay tax will get a tax cut.

Because Larni doesn't work?

I'll take the interjection. No-one is suggesting that people do not work. What we are saying— (Time expired)

Senator Blyth, second supplementary?

Master Builders Australia have warned that Labor's tax trust will hurt small builders, stating, 'They followed the rules, they acted on professional advice and they built their businesses accordingly, and now they're being punished for it.' Why is the Prime Minister imposing further costs on small builders at a time when Australians are struggling through a housing crisis?

I think I was asked the same question yesterday, and I made a few points. One is that more than 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected in any given year. I'm going to say that again—more than 90 per cent of small businesses are not affected in any given year. I know that those opposite want to focus on some who will be affected by this change without talking about the overwhelming majority who will not be affected by this change.

What those opposite are effectively saying to Australians is they think income from assets should be protected far more than income from work. Why don't you just come out and say, 'Actually, we reckon if you get your income because you own assets you should get more tax breaks than people who earn their income from labour.' Why don't you just say that because the reality is that that is what you are arguing. (Time expired)