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

Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (09:52): I stand with great pleasure to second the motion moved by the shadow Treasurer—very sensitive, the other side of the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Page, can we just get to the motion, please, instead of pointing out members on the opposite side. Please get to the point of the motion which you are now seconding, and which you have less than 10 minutes to prosecute.

Mr HOGAN: Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, with the great deal of respect, I am going to get to the essence of the motion, but I'm just raising a point which is very valid within this parliamentary democracy chamber. I made the point that members opposite are very sensitive, obviously, about this motion. I understand why they're very sensitive about this motion.

As the shadow Treasurer has mentioned, it's a really important part of why we want to refer this legislation to the economics committee. This is a really important part of why we're doing this. Every member opposite knows that it was deceitful of those opposite the way they campaigned at the last election.

Those opposite said they weren't going to introduce this legislation, so I understand the sensitivity on the other side, but it's an important part about this motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Page, can you get to the motion, please. Mr HOGAN: With all due respect, I am talking to the motion.

The motion I'm talking about is the fact that we are referring this to an economics committee because this wasn't debated. The fact that this didn't go to an election and the fact that this wasn't debated publicly so the Australian public could get their heads around what this legislation would mean were never debated, so the fact that we're referring this to the Standing Committee on Economics is a really important part.

Now, with all due respect—and I have high respect for you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour—if you are saying to me right now that in this chamber I can't look to the other side and say they're very sensitive about this because they went to an election saying they wouldn't do this, which is part of the reason we're moving this motion, then democracy in this chamber is getting to a dangerous part.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Page, if I can just interrupt, I'm telling you to directly be relevant to the motion, but also to direct your comments to me in the chair. Mr HOGAN: I am. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you're directing them to the other side.

I'm asking you, member for Page, to direct your comments to me in the chair. Mr HOGAN: Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, I was. I said to you, Deputy Speaker, that members opposite are very sensitive about this because they didn't take it to an election, and we are referring this to a committee.

I referred that with all due respect through you, Deputy Speaker, and I will continue to direct my remarks through you. Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, for a motion such as this about referring something to the committee, in 13 years of being in this chamber, I haven't seen people opposite be so sensitive. I'm commenting on that and it's relevant for me to comment on that, because I would be sensitive too if I were sitting opposite and I was a member of a government that implemented a policy that they said they wouldn't implement at the previous election.

It's very appropriate that I mentioned that, Deputy Speaker. I want to go to an example, because I think those opposite also are trying to paint anyone who has a trust as somehow some rich person who is avoiding tax, which is not the case. There's a lovely lady who cuts my hair.

They have three businesses: a hairdressing business; her husband's a diesel mechanic, so they have a diesel mechanic business; and they have a bus run. Their family has three businesses that they are operating. As soon as she heard this through the budget, she said, 'Kevin, what would this mean for me?' I told her, 'This will not be good for you.' These aren't rich people.

They're protecting income through different— Mr Repacholi: You're giving financial advice, are you? Mr HOGAN: I don't know what that interjection was, Deputy Speaker, but I'm sure you'll take note of those. These aren't rich people, but these people did not go to the election knowing that the government of the day was going to do something they said 57 times they wouldn't do and was going to change the whole modus operandi of their business.

The other reason I think this has to be referred to the committee is that this was quite rushed. While they're saying they're doing consultation now, they didn't do consultation before the budget. There were lots of unforeseen ramifications for this, and we've seen lots of backdowns and things around this legislation because they didn't foresee what this would do.

The other thing that's really important about this is in relation to the compliance costs. You know who the great winner of this is going to be: tax accountants. We have a productivity crisis in this country right now.

This isn't going to be helped by new, complicated legislation, where everyone who runs—I'm sure you're aware, Deputy Speaker, that 350,000 small businesses across this country use these structures to protect income, or, as with the example I just gave you, they might have multiple different businesses. A diesel mechanic business is very different from a hairdresser, which is very different from a bus run.

That required them to have a trust structure, as recommended by their accountant. This is going to throw everything up in the air for that young family and the way they conduct their three businesses, and the compliance costs for them are going to increase. So, when they go and see their tax accountant, it means the cost of that is going to go through the roof as well.

Again, this is not a big ask, and I know those opposite are very sensitive because of this. But the chaos that this has caused—we've seen charities come forward because of the unforeseen ramifications for them. We've seen lots of small businesses have to reallocate or dispose of certain assets or whatever—and the tax implications it's going to have on that.

I am going to close on the point that I made at the start. I think it's important as to why it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics. I think there is great disappointment within the Australian public about the political system in Australia, and part of that is a trust issue.

The trust issue is a big issue. To repeat what I was saying at the start, part of the reason that I think the economics inquiry is an important part of this is that this wasn't consulted on, this wasn't taken to an election, this wasn't explained to the Australian public, how this would work wasn't explained to the 350,000 small businesses across Australia and it wasn't publicly debated.

Again, I think this is a small ask. I think the government has lost a lot of trust, with all due respect, from the Australian public with these tax increases, because, again, this is a tax increase. The bottom line of this is that this is a tax increase, and I think they would regain some of the trust lost if they did allow a parliamentary committee to go through a process.

As the shadow treasurer said, they chair the committee, so they can control how that committee works. But this would be a really important thing to do to regain trust of the Australian public and the Australian people. I had a small business come to me the other day about this.

They said, 'Why do you think the government is doing this?' I said, 'With all due respect—and I say this as a matter of fact—there are probably not a lot of members opposite who've had a small business where they've used a trust structure and they've had two or three operations.' As I've said before, you're a diesel mechanic over here, you've got a bus run there, you're a hairdresser there—I don't think any of those opposite have ever used a structure like this to manage or protect income or to disperse it differently because of which members of the family are involved with different parts of their business.

I think those opposite don't understand it. With all due respect, I think they don't understand it. I think this was rushed.

I think it's disappointing that they do. I think what we've seen since the legislation was introduced is the other reason this needs to go to the parliamentary committee, as suggested by the shadow treasurer. I think there are a lot more unforeseen consequences of this legislation.

That needs to be fleshed out before this legislation is introduced and does a lot of harm, because we know, when this government talks about tax reform and when this government talks about tax in general, they are always, always talking about tax increases. This is going to have a lot of consequences on productivity in our country. It's going to have a lot of consequences on compliance costs in our country.

So I support this motion moved by the shadow treasurer. The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.