Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026

Mr PASIN (Barker) (09:12): I want to give a quick shout-out to the kids up in the gallery as I wave to them. These students—I'm sure, looking at their age—have been taught about grammar and these things. I'm sure by now they know a verb is a main word in a sentence that expresses an action or occurrence, a state of being.

There is, of course, one verb that's not allowed to be used in this place. Take, for example, the students up there. I reckon, if they were talking to their teacher and gave the teacher an assurance that they would do a particular thing after recess with every intention of doing completely the opposite after recess, the teacher would bring them in and use the verb and say, 'Little Johnny, you "what-ed" to me.' But, of course, we're not allowed to use it in this place.

Quite frankly, it's causing frustration because, I've got to tell you, outside the crystal gates of this building, people are using that verb and many more besides. Do you know why? It's because they tuned in before the last election because they never want to get it wrong.

In my view, electorates never get it wrong. But the fundamental, if you like, bargain between electorates and those seeking election is that you'll be straight up and fair dinkum with them before an election so that they can make that decision in good faith. Why do I say that this is a 'bad faith budget'?

It's a bad faith budget and it's a bad faith set of tax changes because the architects of this change, or changes, looked squarely down the barrel, speaking into the households and loungerooms of millions of Australians in the lead-up to the election, and said not once, not twice, but more than 50 times, 'No, no, no, we don't propose any changes to property taxes or the like.' Now, I've got to give former prime minister Bill Shorten his due.

He was looking to establish many of these changes, but he had the honesty, the guts, to put it to the Australian people. Do you remember the current energy minister, who was then shadow Treasurer, saying—it's in fact my favourite quote from the energy minister—'If you don't like it, don't vote for it.' And guess what? The people of Australia didn't.

That led to poor Mr Shorten going through some very difficult times, but the truth is that he was honest with the Australian people. Personally, I think those opposite have learnt the lesson that, if they're straight up and fair dinkum about what they want to do before an election, they won't win elections. It's a change of strategy.

The strategy now is to say, 'We won't do certain things,' with the very clear intention that they will do certain things. We've seen the Prime Minister in question time. When he's now asked about yet further property and other changes—for example, taxing the family home—he rules it out.

But could anyone take the word of this man, the Prime Minister of Australia, given what he sought to do in this budget? Let's be clear: these are the most significant changes to Australia's tax law that were never put to the Australian people—full stop. When John Howard established the GST, he took that to an election.

When former prime minister Shorten proposed changes, he took that to an election. These changes were never put to the Australian people. The Prime Minister wonders why, when his face is splashed on the television at a sporting event, the crowd boos.

It's because he's broken that fundamental agreement that sits between those that are elected and those that elect members in and to this place. I've got to tell you that almost everything about these changes is rotten. It's not just the fact that they weren't socialised with the Australian people before the election.

It's not just the fact that the likelihood of them occurring was denied not once but 50 times. I'll tell you what else is rotten about it. Those opposite, almost in an Orwellian doublespeak, seek to say that the very measures that will strip aspiration away are doing the opposite—that they're measures that will assist our nation with its endeavours for aspiration.

In another example of Orwellian doublespeak, they say this will help young people into homes at the very time these measures do quite the opposite. Let's talk about young people and homeownership, which, thankfully, all sides of this place, I think, agree is a social good. We want more young Australians owning a stake in this great country.

What do these tax changes do? As a result of these tax changes, there'll be 35,000 fewer homes. Leave aside the fact that we've got a migration policy that's now out of control, with more people coming to the country and seeking homes.

There are fewer homes. If you don't own your own home, presumably if you're not living with family members otherwise, you're renting. But what do these tax changes do to renters?

It's suggested, on the modelling of those opposite, that there'll be an impact of about $2 a week. I've got to say, I've had more than one person come up to me in the street and say, 'Tony, have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?' And you know why they say that? It's because many of them are renters.

Very few of them have seen their rent go up by $2 a week. They've experienced rent increases much more than that and, indeed, couldn't imagine a world in which there would be an increase of only $2 a week. What, then, about first home buyers?

One of the very important prerequisites to entering the housing market is that you need to be able to save for a deposit. I'll leave aside criticism of the five per cent deposit scheme, and we read a tragic story this morning in the news of a young person who went and bought an abandoned home for an alarmingly large amount of money, given that I think it was around $850,000.

He spent $150,000 doing it up and he's just had a valuation of it at about $850,000, meaning he's now deeply into negative equity. I'll leave the criticisms of that for another day. What I want to talk about is this idea that you've got to save for a deposit.

Now, smart investors or smart savers put those savings where they're likely to earn a substantial return—the share market, ETFs and other forms of wealth accumulation. What do these taxes do? These taxes say to those people who are doing their best to get themselves on the property ladder: 'Thank you very much for doing the right thing.

We're now going to take 30 per cent of that in the form of tax. That is what you've managed to gain by making that investment.' This makes it harder for first home buyers who might be investing in shares or ETFs to get into a first home. Then there's the idea of rent vesting.

Many might not be familiar with this term, and I wasn't familiar with the term, but I've got to tell you, my wife and I did it. We purchased a home we couldn't afford to live in at the time, and so we leased it for a period of years until we could manage the mortgage payments without the rent and without the tax deductions that came along with it being an investment property.

I now know that what we were doing is what people now call 'rent vesting'. Well, there's trouble on this front as well. Trouble on this front comes in the form of the fact that the advantages that come with rent vesting are stripped away as well.

Like you, Mr Speaker, I grew up in a small-business household. My parents weren't butchers, although as farmers we've cut up our fair share of meat on the farm. My parents were farmers and my mum was in retail.

I learned the value of hard work from both of my parents. Small businesses are a 24/7 operation. In my mum's case there wasn't a day or an hour the shop was open that she wasn't standing in the shop.

She would then come home and do copious amounts of bookwork both to pay accounts and to manage her accounts, because she ran a business that allowed ladies to buy goods on credit and pay monthly. Then, weekends were spent driving to Adelaide or Melbourne to purchase stock for upcoming seasons. In my father's case, he would get up before dawn and often come home in the dead of night.

There were good years, there were bad years, and, effectively, they drew out of those small businesses simply enough to live, because every other dollar was invested back either on the farm, in the farm or in my mother's business. My parents weren't Robinson Crusoe when it came to running small businesses. I think that very much is the story of small businesses.

You work every hour the good Lord made, you invest everything back into your business, you don't put away superannuation. You don't have that free cash available to you. Your business is your superannuation.

So imagine the alarm of business owners around the country. I think those opposite have underestimated the likely backlash. I expect that members of the backbench are feeling it up close and personal when they do their little coffee catch-ups or pop in on street walks and those sorts of things.

Imagine the alarm across the small business sector when they'd just found out they'd acquired a new shareholder. The Prime Minister and those opposite are now 47 per cent shareholders in those small businesses. We've seen the memes online.

That is an outpouring of concern, of frustration. I'll tell you what: when Aussies are really angry, they use comedy and levity to deal with it. But my feed has filled up on the back of this, because Aussies think it's rotten, mean and nasty that those opposite, who haven't picked up a shovel, haven't been on the pricing gun, haven't drenched the sheep, haven't done the fencing— Ms Ryan: Name someone here who hasn't picked up a pricing gun!

Mr PASIN: I'll take the interjection. I can tell you, when it was sale time in my mother's business, we were there till midnight and after, reducing all the prices, praying that people would buy those goods. In any event, those opposite, having done none of that work in the businesses and small businesses across Australia, want to take a 47 per cent stake.

That's why—and perhaps I can end where I began—the Prime Minister of this country, when he goes to the football, when he goes to the tennis and when he goes to other places, is a little surprised by the response he gets from ordinary, everyday Australians and why those opposite are having to embark on these history-making, world record tax increases. It is because those opposite are addicted to spending.

If they run out of money, as Labor has traditionally done and has done again now, they come after yours—the businesses of Australia—and that's exactly what's happening here.