Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (09:34): I move: That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 1 July 2027. The legislation that's just been introduced into the parliament never went to the Australian community or a federal election.

The federal government took to the Australian people last election and said 50 times over that they wouldn't introduce exactly this type of legislation. What we now have is small and family businesses, farmers and tradies who want one thing from this government, which is a degree of certainty. They certainly don't want a continued tolerance of the deceit and dishonesty that has come from the Albanese government.

These are Australians who backed themselves. They're Australians who invested and created jobs for their communities. And what we have heard from the Albanese government, despite all the spin and despite all the deceit, is a problem where the government simply cannot tell the Australian community the truth.

We have no confidence in the numbers the Treasurer throws up. We have no confidence in the legitimacy of their agenda or the consequences. Frankly, I don't think they understand the consequences of it.

What we know full well is that this government has gone to the Australian people and deceived the Australian people, and they've introduced this legislation into this parliament and don't understand the practical implications and consequences for everybody to see. I can assure all members of the backbench that you are going to want this legislation to go to an inquiry too.

In a few weeks time, as the small-business owners of the country go to their financial advisers, you are going to get a train wreck that is going to be revealed to you, and they are going to come back to you as the local member of parliament and say, 'Your government has deceived us again.' And let's be very clear about this: trust in your government is already extremely low.

But, even more than that, you're going to hear how they're going to incur costs of up to $50,000 just to restructure their affairs, just to stay within the compliance of the law. Do not misunderstand the scale of the train wreck that is about to come. You have a problem at the moment with the legislation in front of you where, if people move structures, once they move structures it automatically triggers a stamp duty obligation.

We know that to be the case. In fact, the Treasurer has admitted this, although he is again deceiving the Australian community. He's going out and he's briefing all of the Labor backbenchers right now.

We read about in it the papers where you were complaining increasingly about the impact on small businesses. He was saying that he was in consultation with the federal minister, the state premiers and state— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Scrymgour ): Member for Goldstein, I ask that you withdraw that statement that you made about deceiving the public, the comments that you made in relation to the Treasurer.

Minister for Infrastructure? Ms Catherine King: The member has moved a motion that something be brought on, and he's not actually sticking to the motion. He doesn't get to just use it as an opportunity to sledge people.

Mr TIM WILSON: With the greatest respect, Deputy Speaker, I'm speaking specifically to the legislation around trusts and moving a motion to refer it to the House economics committee to have a proper inquiry about the information that is available to the public, including for Labor backbenchers to understand the implications of what the Treasurer is leading them to do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, can you get to the motion that you've moved and the issue rather than the sledging, please. Get to the motion. Mr TIM WILSON: I've read out the motion.

I'm now giving the rationale and justification, which is that the problem that Labor backbenchers have is that they went to an election, firstly, and they said to the Australian community that they weren't going to introduce this legislation. So there's a reasonable justification to have an inquiry on that trigger alone. The second justification is that we have the Treasurer briefing caucus where caucus members are turning around and saying, 'We're sick and tired of these attacks on small businesses.

We're getting feedback,' so maybe give them a voice. The third one— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Infrastructure? Ms Catherine King: The motion that the member has moved is to refer a bill to a committee.

He needs to address the motion rather than use it as an opportunity to speculate on things of which he knows nothing about. Mr TIM WILSON: The third point is that we have reports where the Treasurer claims he's speaking to state treasurers. We now have the Queensland treasurer saying that that is misleading.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, what was the motion that you're moving? Mr TIM WILSON: The motion was that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics for consideration and an advisory report by 1 July 2027. I am simply making the case about the reason why the Labor members of the caucus who went to an election saying they weren't going to do this maybe should have the House economics committee inquire into the legislation the government is putting in, including that, once you actually do this, you will have people move their business operations and it will trigger a stamp duty moment.

We know full well from public reporting, including from the words of the Treasurer himself—he's the guy, by the way, Minister, who put this legislation in—that it's going to create problems with stamp duty. We also know that the Queensland treasurer has turned around and said very clearly, 'He hasn't consulted with us.' So, people in Queensland who conform with this legislation, you're going to have to pay stamp duty to conform with this legislation.

We also know that if people move over to the new structures, as the Treasurer would like the Australian people and small businesses to do, they're going to have to go back to their banks. They're going to have to renegotiate their finance facilities. I understand from members of the Labor Party that they don't understand this.

I do understand that members of the Labor Party do not understand the consequences of the legislation the Treasurer has just introduced. For your benefit, I am saying to you very clearly it is in the Labor members' interests that this go off to an inquiry. The third point, as I said before, is that, when they go off to the banks, they're going to experience the reality.

The banks are going to look at financing facilities for small business in an environment where asset values are declining by design of this treasurer. Just remember that, by design, he's trying to crash house values. Then in addition to that, in an environment of declining consumer confidence and declining small business confidence and an environment where people are going to need more and more security, what they're going to find is that they're not going to be able to access finance.

Once you do that, then you're going to have a problem where a lot of small businesses are not going to have any liquidity. When that happens, people lose jobs. That's why yesterday the International Monetary Fund, among many reasons, warned 800,000 Australians are about to lose their jobs because of this Labor government.

If the Labor Party don't want to understand the consequences of what they're introducing into this parliament, if they don't want an inquiry into what they're introducing into this parliament, this government is closing its eyes. It is deaf to the consequences of its legislation. And we know full well that the small businesses of this country are desperate to have their say.

Apart from the fact that this legislation didn't go to an election, we know that this 30 per cent minimum tax on trusts, which he said 50 times over wouldn't be done but is now being considered by this parliament, will have massive consequences for small business—around $50,000 per small business, an estimated $13.3 billion deadweight loss on the economy that is going to directly impact small business.

I'm telling you, Minister, this is very relevant, and the fact that you don't understand that it is relevant highlights just how problematic it is. This government, when it introduced its budget, has continued to have to deal with the consequences because it didn't understand how its budget was going to be implemented. We've now had five back-downs by this treasurer because he does not understand the consequences of his legislation.

So there should be an inquiry to make sure that we understand the consequences of the Treasurer and him not understanding his own legislation. We know the Prime Minister likes to humiliate the Treasurer in public, and he likes to slap him down. But I'm sorry; this is time for the parliament to slap the Treasurer down so that people understand the consequences of his legislation.

You just need to look at what has happened only in the past week. Only in the past week, we've had the government not understand the impact on small businesses from the credit card surcharge ban. That's why we need an inquiry into this legislation, so we can make sure there's proper accountability and proper scrutiny of the laws so the Australian community can have confidence that, even if this parliament has a complete absence of understanding of the consequences of what they're doing, at least it was fully fleshed out.

But at the moment the government wants to shut down any discussion of their legislation, which they lacked the courage to take to the Australian community and to the last election. And small business is being thrown under the bus under this legislation. We know, from evidence out there in the public domain, that people have companies in which trust structures transfer money between each other because they've got to deal with issues of cash flow.

This is very common, by the way, in the construction sector. But under the proposed legislation that this government has introduced, those different entities will have to pay 30 per cent minimum tax every time they move different parts of their revenue, which means they could end up paying more than 100 per cent of the revenue in tax. Does Labor understand the insanity of what it is seeking to do?

You are going to crash the construction market. You are going to kill small businesses. You are going to destroy the engine room of the economy.

You are going to put hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work. And you are doing this with the objective of some bold claim of equity? This government has no idea what it's doing.

All we're doing is asking you to refer this legislation to a committee that you chair, where you actually have a say. But, more to the point, the people of Australia will get to have their say. I know the member for Flinders is a very big advocate for small business in her communities.

I know the member for Page is as well. I look over there and I see the member for Deakin, as an example, on the other side of the chamber. We know full well that he got elected on a promise of not introducing this legislation.

The least he could do is have the courage to vote for this bill so the Australian community can have their say on the legislation that affects them through a House Economics Committee inquiry. Let's go to the member for Sturt. What about her?

Remember her? The member for Sturt talks specifically about why we need an inquiry into this type of legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister?

Ms Catherine King: Again, this is not an opportunity to sledge members— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, you've moved a motion; speak to the motion. And it doesn't give you open slather to broaden that motion to— Mr Tim Wilson: I am speaking specifically about the legislation, and— Ms Catherine King: I am on my feet, seeking to take a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister. Ms Catherine King: Thank you for giving me the call, and I ask the member to respect that I was on my feet. I had yet to speak, and I don't need to be shouted at across the dispatch box.

You have moved a motion that is requesting that a bill go to an inquiry. You need to address the motion. It is not an opportunity to point to people on the backbench and sledge people.

It is not an opportunity to do that. You need to address the motion. Mr TIM WILSON: Let us be very clear.

The members on the other side of this chamber did not have the courage to send this legislation to an election, and that is the point of why we need this inquiry. And every Labor member who was elected on that side of the chamber went to an election saying 50 times over that they would not introduce this legislation. They can get up at that dispatch box as much as they want and say, 'Oh, we need to make sure we're addressing the motion,' but every single time that this Labor member, this minister, and every one of them comes into this parliament and refuses to have a debate, refuses to have a conversation about the impact this legislation is having on the Australian community, we are seeing exactly the contempt for our democracy that the Labor Party has.

And we will not back down. But you need to understand, Labor members of parliament—every member of parliament needs to understand—the trainwreck, the impact this legislation is going to have on the Australian community, because there are small businesses out there right now who are bleeding. They are struggling to keep their doors open.

They are living with the consequences of declining profitability. They are having to make decisions about whether or not they keep the doors open. They are having to make decisions about whether they can keep their people employed, and they're wondering whether they can feed their families.

For the minister to get up in this chamber and try and shut down debate about that important issue is a disgrace, because now is the time when we need more speakers standing up for the future Australia we want to build. Ms Catherine King: I at no stage attempted to shut you down, so you need to withdraw that comment. I have simply asked you to do what the standing orders require you to do, and I do not need a lecture from you about that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, will you withdraw? Mr TIM WILSON: I'm sorry—there's no basis under the standing orders to withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, you did say something that the minister has asked you to withdraw.

The minister has asked you to withdraw the comments that you made—that she was shutting down debate, which she hasn't done. Can you please withdraw your comments in relation to that. Mr Tim Wilson: To assist the House, I'll withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. Member for Goldstein, you need to withdraw the comments that you made. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, if you're not going to have this debate in an orderly fashion, I ask that you remove yourself from the chamber.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goldstein, I have asked you twice. I asked you to withdraw the allegation that you made—that the minister was shutting down debate. I asked you to withdraw that politely and calmly, and you haven't done that.

I ask that you withdraw those comments. If you don't, instead of having the chatter across the chamber, you can withdraw yourself from the chamber. Mr Tim Wilson: On a point of order, I did withdraw, and the minister on the opposite side has been intervening across the chamber.

I'm simply responding to her interventions. You can withdraw the minister from the chamber as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?