Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Energy Security and Affordability) Share this | Hansard source

It's good to follow someone else speaking on regional Australia and the impact of this government's budget. We are on a unity ticket; this is very much a Labor budget. I'm going to address some of the issues that I have with this budget. I think it is important to reflect on both the local impact and the broader one. Obviously, I'll start locally with the news we had dropped two days before this budget: the announcement that the government would not be pursuing Inland Rail to Toowoomba, which has a huge impact on our local economy and on local confidence. This was a promise that this government had made that the Labor, when in opposition, had made that they would maintain. We were never under any doubt that this project would be delivered. This was a project that was going to deliver huge benefits to our region. It was something that we were looking forward to. As I've mentioned in other speeches, we invested. Locally, I can speak to one project where over $50 million of private investment was made in preparation for Inland Rail coming in. There are other sites that have also made those sorts of investments.

To us, to have that project taken away from is was a big hit. It was a big hit to our plans for the future, for our future economy. It's a project that we are going to fight to try and maintain. It's a project that we think still stacks up, and we hope very much that the government will listen to our pleas to bring the Inland Rail to Toowoomba. We still think there are plenty of benefits that can be achieved from our region and for the nation by doing so.

Before I before I go to more details, I want to speak on one issue that this budget does address which is a worthy point of conversation: what an east-coast gas reservation might look like. I think this is an important conversation. We are going through a period of time where it's very clear that, in terms of our resources, self-sufficiency is something that has had a heightened level of acceptance that we need to address in this country. The government, to their credit, have started that conversation. I think they have some issues to address, and I want to I want to lay out the practicalities of what it takes to establish an east-coast gas reservation. Ninety per cent of the gas on the east coast comes from Queensland, but 90 per cent of the usage on the east coast is in the southern states and mostly in Victoria. That gas travels through a pipeline from Queensland to Victoria that is currently at capacity. There is no more reservation. There is no more room. It's at capacity. To have an east-coast reservation, you're increasing either the number or the size of that pipeline or you are opening up new gas projects down south, at the southern end of that pipeline. That's what an east-coast reservation actually, practically looks like. People have this idea that the government's proposing to build these tanks or some sort of storage capacity that's got to be around. No, there's a pipeline that's already at capacity. You can't push more gas through it. We're already at capacity, so to actually address this requires some significant change—far more than what the government has envisioned in this budget. I think that shows this government's lack of practical understanding of what it takes to do things. You can talk about a gas reservation all you like, but this will not create that. It's a challenge to the government. Can it put on paper something that can actually solve the problem it seeks to address? I look forward to that.

But this budget is the highest taxing budget ever. Goodness me! In this economy, at this time, it is the highest taxing budget ever. What a challenge for future treasurers! How do you address the impact this will have? What this budget does in addition to being the highest taxing budget ever is it banks in 10 years of deficits. When you talk about the performance of a Treasurer or a government—the economic credibility, its legacy—one would think that the economic situation it leaves after it is the most important factor in determining that legacy. A government that leaves you a decade of deficits, after having delivered the highest taxing budget ever, that's an incredible legacy and one that this government should be ashamed of. It is also the highest spending budget in 40 years, outside of the pandemic. In the first term of this government, we heard about spending restraint from the Treasurer. I'm not sure that the word was being used as it is commonly understood. We have the highest spending budget in 40 years. There is no restraint. There is no spending restraint here at all!

If we look back to 2019, at the last budget before the pandemic hit, since then we have seen spending almost double. So we went through the pandemic. We agreed. Labor, then in opposition, supported and, in fact, wanted us to spend more and, on multiple occasions, pushed us to spend more than we were spending in our pandemic response. Having gone through that, we haven't reduced our spending at all. That spending hasn't come down. We've actually continued the same heightened levels of spending. We didn't come down afterwards, and I can't find the justification for that. During the pandemic, it was the decision of the government of the day to provide support to the states to allow them to individually manage how they responded to the pandemic. We provided that. We made that decision. What is the justification for keeping spending at that rate now? I think that's an important conversation for us, because it does have an impact.

There is no surprise that in a period of continued heightened government spending that we are seeing inflation continue to stay high. In fact, homegrown inflation, as confirmed in this budget, will be five per cent. That's domestic inflation; that's not imported. That's what we're doing here. That's the result of domestic issues. We can't blame wars overseas for this. And that five per cent is above every other developed nation. There is a long-established link between government spending and inflation, and, sadly, we're seeing it here again.

Back in 2024, I decided to raise my voice in public—much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day—that I thought that we needed to address the growth of NDIS spending. I made the argument then that this was becoming a very bad way of doing a very good thing. There's not a single Australian—and I stand very strongly with them—who feels that we shouldn't be spending some of our tax dollars looking after our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. There's no question whatsoever. I'm proud of that. It makes us a good nation. It's something that we should always strive to achieve. However, it has been clear for a long time that the growth of the NDIS has been at an extraordinary rate. I'm very happy and comfortable looking back at my public comments at the time, which I then doubled up again in 2025, repeating calls for the government to look at reforming the NDIS—again, much to the chagrin of the leader of my party of the day.

I recall very clearly being absolutely shut down by Labor when I dared to raise the issue and say that it was worthy of reform, that it was worthy of keeping, and that to keep it, it required reform. I was the subject of something of a scare campaign. According to that scare campaign, it was my intention to kill the NDIS and to cut services—absolutely not. What I was concerned about was that there was a program in place that was disincentivising care and support for the most needy. We have seen that time and time again. If you have a service provider who has the option of giving care at the same rate to someone with high needs versus someone with mild autism—I'm talking about the personal, intimate care that is required to be provided—they are going to choose the person with mild autism. They are not going to choose the person with high needs. Why would they? It's a much harder job, but they're being paid at the same level. I have seen that over and over again. We are disincentivising, through this scheme, care towards those who need it most. Sadly, I saw that firsthand. Residents in my electorate made me acutely aware of that, and I thank them for doing so.

So I'm glad that we are finally addressing the growth of the NDIS. I think it's an important step. I would point out that most of the steps that have been put forward by Labor are steps that were previously put forward by the opposition, some also by the crossbench. They're steps that are quite reasonable. They were subject to scare campaigns then. The government is now putting them forward. Unlike the government, I won't fight back. I'm very happy to engage. I think it's an important conversation. It was important when I was saying it then, and it's still important now.

The other issue I want to talk about—and I think this has been the subject of much conversation with regard to this budget—is the changes to tax settings. I refer particularly to those relating to housing—negative gearing and CGT. For a long time both sides have argued, based on evidence from a study in New Zealand, that to make such changes would result in a reduction in the supply of housing. There is evidence of that, and that's always been offered as a reason not to make changes. Much to the chagrin of my party's leader of the day, I said I was always open to this conversations. I though we should look at it and have a discussion about it, but I had always had the proviso that we should do so in a way that never puts downward pressure on supply. That was my obvious proviso: if you want to talk about these changes, we must maintain supply. Clearly, at a time when supply is at its lowest level in our history, any changes can't negatively impact supply.

When the budget paper came out, I got to page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 and read very clearly that the result of the government's taxation changes would be 35,000 fewer homes built by the private sector. It was exactly as everyone had been concerned about—that if done in an inaccurate way, the result would be a downward pressure on supply, and that's exactly what we have. Thirty-five thousand fewer homes will be built by the private sector as a result of these changes. There is nothing that can make that a good news story—absolutely nothing.

When you frame this within the context of a budget that was being sold as one that addressed intergenerational inequality—the disparity between those who have and those who want to have—this is a laughable attempt at addressing the concerns of young people who are trying to get into property, because what it is doing is reducing the supply of housing. A basic, entry-level view of any economic theory will show that, if you maintain demand and reduce supply, prices will go up.

But it is much worse than that for young people, because this budget confirms that there will have been two million people arrive in Australia during the first two terms of this Albanese government. This is an issue of simple mathematics. Not only are we reducing the supply of homes; we're increasing demand. You add both of those things together and the mathematics go one way: prices go up. Sadly, there is no moral outrage that one can apply to mathematics. It simply is. That is what will happen. Those are the courses that this government has chosen to take—to reduce supply and to increase demand. Prices will go up. So, on any assessment, does this budget help young people? No. It reduces their opportunities to get into affordable housing. It will not help them.

But there's one thing about this budget that I think really rubs people who I've spoken to about it. The idea that we would be introducing a death tax in 2026 is extraordinary, and I think that will hurt people a lot—particularly young people, who are looking ahead.

Young people in my electorate wanted to have the opportunities we had. They wanted to have the pathway to prosperity that was created for my generation. It'll have to be a different pathway—sure. But we have to create it. That's our job. We have to find that. And this budget does not find that. There is no new pathway to prosperity. All there is is the closing of a door for the young generation, who are looking ahead and saying, 'I wanted that,' and now can't have it.

See this speech in context