Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government's 2026-27 Budget to deliver on its promises to Australian families, leaving them worse off through higher taxes, higher costs, and broken commitments and a budget of breaking the Australian dream.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians voted at the last election and went into a ballot box thinking that they could trust their government and that the policy pronouncements that were put forward before the Australian people would be honoured on the other side. The Prime Minister said 50 times over—he was red hot with rage and indignant, as the member for Riverina said, about journalists having the hubris and the arrogance to keep asking the same questions of 'will you change the taxes on capital gains? Will you change the taxes on trust? Will you abolish negative gearing?'. The response was, 'For the 50th time, no.' And he consistently demanded that journalists stop asking the questions, because it was so impertinent and rude to do so. We now know why.

Last night the government provided their bad-faith budget that broke so many promises to the Australian people. It broke the fundamental promise from the Prime Minister himself, and it has shredded any integrity or trust that the Australian people have in him for the future. The government have broken promises so many times over, by promising they wouldn't change tax rules around homes, saying they wouldn't change tax rules around rentals and saying they wouldn't change tax rules around family savings. Instead, they simply got the knife and slit each one left, right and centre.

What's the story we now know? This budget, a bad-faith budget, is built on a house of broken promises but won't build any new homes. We're seeing this in their approach where they explicitly state, despite the denials from the Prime Minister in question time, that they are going to build 35,000 fewer homes. It's extraordinary! They come publicly into this House, with this budget, and say to the Australian people, 'This is all about intergenerational fairness because, as a government, we want young Australians to buy their own home,' but, instead, what they do in this budget is go through—measure by measure, step by step—and undermine the chance for young Australians to be able to afford their first home.

Deputy Speaker Claydon, you're looking at me almost in a state of surprise. The budget papers explicitly state that rents will go up under the government's tax changes. I don't know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I'm pretty sure that people tend to rent before they own their own home. So you're going to take with one hand and increase the rents for young Australians saving for their house deposit.

Then, the government is turning around and applying an increase in capital gains tax on the savings of first homebuyers trying to get ahead, trying to save their deposit. In some cases, it's almost doubling the tax on first home deposits when they're invested. So they're increasing rents and taxing people's first home deposits when they invest them to bring the future forward. And now they are building 35,000 fewer homes while, on the government's own projections, they continue to bring more people into Australia—beyond their targets. They're pumping in people to prop up their budget numbers. Australians will simply live under this budget with broken promises, higher taxes, lower living standards, fewer houses and higher rents. We've had a three per cent decline in real wages under this government, and their solution now is to kneecap young Australians through measures that will make it harder for them to save to buy their first home.

And we've heard story after story—there's been contact with us—of young Australians who buy shares, ETFs and crypto; they use that as their home deposit. According to the Australian Stock Exchange's own research, 43 per cent of Australians own their own shares at the age of 21, and now the government is coming with their tax agenda and going after their first home deposits. This is where this government is kneecapping Australians—they're constantly doing it, on the basis that they somehow think they're helping young Australians get ahead—and Australians can see through it.

We are seeing more and more stories come through our NOT THE TAX WE VOTED FOR website, www.notthetax.com.au. If you have a story, I encourage you to submit it because some of them are truly shocking. Here's one:

My brother and I are millennials. We both rent yet we have worked hard over the past 3 years investing all our savings in a tech startup. The business is in electronics/ edge AI space with onshore manufacturing. We have scaled the business quickly. We now employ people locally, and our devices are now sold to 12 countries across Europe and NZ. A true made in Australia sold to the world story we were proud of. This is a high tech product … We have each invested a Sydney-sized house deposit multiple times over in our business without taking a salary because we saw a problem we wanted to solve and we expected to see some upside. This is productive economic activity that help Australia build skills and competition. I'm all for changes to—

certain—

… taxes as we should be directing capital to things that boost productivity. However, Jim's changes kill younger people who try to start a business to get ahead …

There are other stories, like this one:

My wife and I started with nothng and have worked so hard to try to get ahead. We have both worked full time whilst raising a family, stretching ourselves and taking on risk, hassle and huge stress to buy and renovate investment property. To have Labor change the goalposts on CGT and negative gearing is heartbreaking and a huge impact on our plans for the comfortable retirement we deserve. Albanese—

the Prime Minister—

and Chalmers—

the Treasurer—

are breaking an election promise in a cynical tax grab whilst turning a blind eye to billions lost to CFMEU and NDIS corruption and giving handouts to others who haven't had a crack like we have.

Finally, here's another example:

Less than 18 months since I left PAYG to set up a business. The business has been structured in a way that will enable me to pay myself a salary—

the dignity of a salary—

but profits … will be earned by my family trust as the shareholder of my business. I'm subject to strict professional services rules and so I can't push all income into the trust to the benefit only becomes large when income for the business grows substantially above what is reasonable for a similarly qualified employed professional. So, if trust tax is 30% min, the incentive is gone.

This government has overseen record numbers of small-business insolvencies, and now their solution to all those small businesses who are struggling to get ahead, all those small businesses that are suffering under the crippling regulation and taxation of this government, is to—

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go into debt!

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there is a point! There is one thing they're proposing: why don't you go into more debt? The other one is to increase taxes on small business. Remember, small business is not just the place where people can get ahead and support themselves and their families; so often, it is the first place that a young Australian in a community gets their first job. The Labor government's answer is: 'Let them eat taxes!' This is the problem with this government: they simply have no understanding of the consequences of their measures, and the Treasurer has the temerity to come into this parliament and quote my own book at me.

I'm reminded of that old quote: 'What's the difference between a capitalist and a communist? Both have read Marx; one understands it.' The difference between a shadow treasurer and a Treasurer is this: the shadow treasurer wrote the book; the Treasurer clearly doesn't understand it.

I did an actual search. I have an electronic copy on my phone. A number of times I typed in 'higher taxes', 'higher taxes', 'higher GDT' and 'higher capital gains', and each time it came back with 'search completed; no matches found'. That's the difference between writing a book and understanding it, but I don't expect the Treasurer to ever understand that. When it comes down to it, this government does not understand the consequences of their measures, but Australians do because they're living through the pain and the punishment of the Albanese government. Australians, if you have a story about how this betrayed trust is impacting you, please submit your story at www.notthetax.com.au because we want those stories. We can shine a bright light on what this government is actually doing.

We know that tomorrow night the Leader of the Opposition is going to come into this chamber and offer Australians hope. This government will end. It will end when their taxing agenda is finally over. It will end. This government will end because Australians see through their deception and their deceit, and we are going to offer a better future where young Australians look to the horizon with confidence.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Tiny Tim!

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's enough of the interjections. Yes, a point of order?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs used inappropriate terms and didn't refer to the member by his title.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all members of this House to refer to people in this chamber by their correct titles, always. What is your point of order?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs should withdraw the remark and refer to members by their proper titles.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a comment you need to withdraw, Member for Isaacs?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It would please me if you would all talk to each other in a respectful way and use correct titles. That would be really helpful. I'm now going to give the call to the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My maternal grandfather, Roly Stebbins, was born in a tent in 1922. His dad was a veteran who'd fought in World War I, and his dad could never afford a home of his own; he never owned a home. During the Great Depression, my grandfather left school at age 14 to support the family and then worked as a boilermaker. It was only after World War II that he was able to afford to buy a home of his own. He got a block of land in Seaholme, near Williamstown, and he and mates worked together to fire the bricks. He and my grandmother, Jean Stebbins, raised four kids in a home they built themselves.

My grandparent's story was the story of Australia in that period. In the interwar era, about half of Australians owned a home, but, by the time you got to 1966, thanks to the Curtin, the Chifley and, yes, the Menzies government, the homeownership rate had gone up to two-thirds. Yet, what we've seen over recent years is the reversal of that great Australian dream. We've seen the Australian homeownership rate falling now to a 60-year low. We've seen the abandonment of what used to be a great principle of the Liberal Party, just as the Liberal Party members in this House have abandoned so many principles of their party.

At street stalls and town hall meetings, teachers, tradies, nurses talk to me about their sense that it's become too hard to buy a home in Australia, that the statistics out there in the community are what they're feeling in their own lives, as homeownership soars out of reach. They keep on saving for a deposit, but house prices are soaring out of reach. And it's not just young Australians; it's their parents and their grandparents that are repeatedly getting in touch with me and so many members on this side of the House, saying we need to do something to boost homeownership.

We have the most ambitious plan on housing supply of any government in recent decades, but we're also, through this budget, tackling the challenges in the tax system. How did we get here? Well, it's the combination of two policies. In 1936, Australia moved to allow taxpayers to deduct interest losses against their salary. You can't do that in Britain. You can't do that in the United States. And then, in 1999, the Ralph review was handed to the Howard government. With not a word on real estate, it was a report that suggested that putting in place a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount would turbocharge investment in innovative firms, and we immediately saw the result of that. The impact was principally felt in the housing investment sector. Previous to that, net tax paid by landlords was positive, but it very quickly turned negative, and, in most of the period since those changes, we've seen landlords lose on net some $4 billion to $10 billion a year. Landlords in Australia have become among the biggest recipients of tax handouts.

It has disordered investment decisions. The incentive now is to overinvest in loss-making assets and to invest largely in existing properties. Four out of five investor loans are for existing homes. This budget changes that. It responds to calls that experts have been making for decades for reform on capital gains and negative gearing. You will still be able to negatively gear a new home, but you won't be able to negatively gear an existing home if you buy it after these measures take effect.

That approach, of course, is the approach that we take with foreign investors. Those on the other side of the House support it when it comes to foreign investors. They will happily argue why foreign investors should only be able to buy new built homes—because we're asking them to add to housing supply. But somehow they walk away from that principle when it comes to negative gearing, and the idea is exactly the same: if you want to benefit from negative gearing, we want you to benefit the whole community by adding to the housing supply. We're seeing very clearly this week who the coalition is fighting for. We know from analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office that the top 10 per cent get three-quarters of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount and about 40 per cent of the benefits of negative gearing.

The Grattan Institute has crunched the numbers to ask the question: what has been the benefit of these policies to the typical income earner since the year 2000? They estimate that the typical income earner has benefited to the tune of about $12,000, cumulatively, over the last quarter century. What about the top one per cent, though—those now earning over $800,000? Well, the benefit to the top one per cent cumulatively has been around $700,000, so these are policies whose benefits are more than 50 times larger to the top one per cent than they are to the median income earner.

What these tax reforms do is fund a working Australian tax offset for everyone—not just for the fortunate few but for every working Australian who earns a salary. That's why the Grattan Institute has referred to this as 'the budget we've been waiting for'. It's a set of reforms which respond to the Economic Reform Roundtable last year, and it's a set of reforms that respond to calls that have been issued across the political spectrum.

I remember sitting here in this House when Joe Hockey gave his valedictory speech, and he said in that valedictory speech:

… negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property.

Well, Joe, we're doing exactly that. We've heard calls from the member for Canning, who, in response to the question, 'Is this why you're also open to negative gearing and capital gains tax changes?' said:

This is a new era … I just think we need to overhaul the whole system.

And we've heard from the member for Goldstein, who has said:

… the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead.

He went on to say:

In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't.

Senator Kovacic has said:

We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared …

We've heard from the member for Groom, who said:

I think there are some real issues we need to address. I'm open to a discussion on CGT

The former member for Menzies, who held it when Menzies was a seat held by the Liberal Party, said this year:

Current tax settings tilt incentives toward investors, particularly in existing stock. They reward bidding rather than building … The Liberal Party should lead with this: cap negative gearing for established dwellings at one property per investor, while allowing the deduction for up to five newly constructed homes.

Even Scott Morrison, former Liberal Treasurer, when asked, 'Does negative gearing need to be reformed?' replied, 'There are excesses.' Dom Perrottet and Rob Stokes, sensible Liberals from New South Wales, have made exactly the same case.

What we are doing is responding to a huge run-up in house prices relative to incomes. Unlike the shadow treasurer, I'm not afraid to have written a book or two and to be able to quote from those books. In Battlers and Billionaires, I crunched the numbers, looking at how house prices have moved relative to the earnings of the average worker. If you go back to the 1980s, the typical house cost four years of average earnings. It then ran up to five or six during the nineties and then to seven in the 2010s. In the 2020s, buying the typical house took the typical worker 11 years of earnings. We had more than a doubling in the house-price-to-income ratio. No wonder young Australians are mad that they can't break into the property market.

It has taken a Labor government to act on boosting supply, working with states and territories to overcome unnecessary regulation on an abundance agenda but also working to ensure that we have the right tax settings—fair tax settings that fund a tax cut for every working Australian and ensure that our tax system is fairer and the incentives are there for people who want to take advantage of negative gearing to invest in new-build homes. This is a budget for all Australians and a budget that tackles the central issue of housing affordability in Australia.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that was quite the economic lecture from the minister opposite.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope you were listening. It was excellent!

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was excellent. But it begs the question: where was that lecture to the Prime Minister in May last year, when the Prime Minister said that he would not change negative gearing and he would not change the capital gains tax? He got quite upset. 'Fifty times,' the Prime Minister said. So it is amazing that the minister would give that economic lecture today. He obviously didn't have the ability to give that lecture last year. He just thought of it now. Suddenly, 12 months later, the world has changed. This is the reality. Every backbencher over there has broken their word with their communities. They all went to their communities and said they wouldn't change the tax settings. They made a promise and a commitment. Those first termers lasted about 12 months before they broke faith with their communities. It's not that surprising that they've had to break faith with their communities, betray their communities and mislead their communities.

We understand what it's like to be a backbencher in the Labor government. One of them had the courage to background the Saturday Paper this week. How did they describe the PMO? And I quote:

PMO is like North Korea, right? They're like Pyongyang …

I guess that would make the Prime Minister Kim Jong Un. It means the backbenchers know that they have to follow orders. They have to break faith with their communities. They have to break their own word to their communities, and that's something they'll have to live with. The worst part about this broken promise is that it was a clear, deliberate decision 12 months ago to mislead their communities. What makes it even worse is that it's actually not going to work. Supply is so important to getting housing down and affordable for everyone in Australia, including first home buyers.

The Prime Minister himself, in a moment of honesty, said that supply was the most important way to make housing sustainable. The problem with the tax changes and the broken promise of this government is that its own budget papers, its own word, confirm that these measures will decrease supply. Their own measures will make it harder for young people to get into a home.

It does say that. I can give you the page. Stop taking the talking points. Learn to read the budget paper yourself. Member for Banks, the budget papers confirm—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You need to direct your comments through me as the chair, and I'd like the member for Hunter to stop the interjections.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the member for Banks should read the budget papers himself. The budget papers confirm that 35,000 fewer houses will be supplied because of these tax changes. The budget papers also confirm that rents will go up because of these tax changes. So maybe don't follow orders from Kim Jong Un and do your own work, and don't break your own word to the Australian people. This is the reality. They follow their talking points without understanding the detail, and they're actually going to make it harder for the Australian people.

While we're on the budget paper, let's have a look at what is happening—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this on a point of order?

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is a point of order. I would ask the member to withdraw his comments around Kim Jong Un.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's not a member of parliament.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't say things like that. That's harsh.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a matter of taking offence. A lot of things are said in this House for an offence, and as long as you are not referring to a particular person and you're not ascribing that person to another, then I will allow it.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we're looking at the budget papers, we should also think about what comes next. Page 137 of the budget papers says, and I quote:

… access to home ownership increasingly depends on the wealth of the previous generation—'the bank of mum and dad'. This entrenches higher levels of wealth inequality across generations.

What's that? The bank of mum and dad. Sounds a lot like an inheritance tax. Sounds a lot like a tax on the primary place of residence. It's the logical next step. It's in their own budget papers. Guess what? When the Prime Minister gets asked about it—he already has—he'll deny it. Gee, we've heard that one before. He's broken his word once; he's broken his word twice. Come the next election, he's coming after your money and he's going to break his word again.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd remind the member for Casey that only one side of this chamber voted against a tax cut for every taxpaying Australian last year. When we talk about this MPI in this debate today, I want to give you this quote again, because we heard it earlier in the day:

… it's time to be honest: the tax system is screwing over young Australians. … it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead. … In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't.

And you might think that that is a quote from the Treasurer. You might think that that is a quote from the Prime Minister. You might think that that is a quote from Minister Gallagher. But it's not. It's a quote from the person who moved this MPI—it's a quote from the member for Goldstein; it's a quote from the shadow treasurer.

I think that quote proves that conviction politics for the Liberal Party of Australia is not just dead; it is buried and cremated, because, when you think about that quote, it isn't just the first Cirque-du-Soleil-worthy backflip that the member for Goldstein has made to date, because he made another one, just the other day, and that was that he's opened the door up to a potential Liberal, National and One Nation marriage—a terrifying prospect, but potentially not as terrifying as what the Leader of the Opposition said just yesterday.

What the Leader of the Opposition said should have every everyday Australian shaking in their boots, because he said this: 'whatever it takes to unwind this budget'—'whatever it takes'. So if you're a young person yearning to get into your first home, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want you to have an even playing field; in fact, he'll do whatever it takes to unwind the reforms of this budget. If you're a working Australian who's looking forward to getting a $250 tax offset, the Leader of the Opposition is gunning for you. If you are a taxpayer looking forward to another tax cut, the Leader of the Opposition still doesn't want you to have that.

When we talk about economics, we talk about it being a function of two things. It's a function of choices and of scarcity. And I think two things are really clear when it comes to those who sit opposite. The first is that they have made a choice, in their response to this budget so far, and that choice is not for everyday Australians. That choice is not for young people. That choice is not for everyday taxpayers. And, when it comes to scarcity, if you consider the result in the Farrer by-election and you also consider the member for Flynn's potential defection to One Nation, people from the LNP in this place are getting scarce!

The intergenerational vandalism of those sitting opposite puts a target on the back of thousands of people in my community and on the back of millions of Australians across our country, because, when it comes to housing, this is a budget that has a reform of tax systems to support 75,000 more Australians into the housing market. It's creating homes for Australians. And that investment is now over $47 billion. That's on top of Help to Buy. That's on top of five per cent. It's limiting negative gearing for residential property so it can only be used for new builds. The dream of homeownership can be back again, because we are making significant reform that will address intergenerational equality.

The budget bottom line is nearly $45 billion better compared to MYEFO. This is more than a trillion dollars better than what the coalition left us with.

On the cost of living, we know that the Labor government is investing in things that ease pressure for everyday Australians. So, when we talk about an aspirational budget, a budget that is based on resilience and on reform, the Labor government is focused on driving the opportunities for the next generation, not leaving them behind.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget is un-Australian. It treats aspiration like a problem to be managed, not a value to be rewarded. You know the system's wrong when Queensland got a tokenistic acknowledgement of country mention, but there was not a single mention of infrastructure in this budget. This Labor budget's message is simple: lower your expectations and clap politely for crumbs. The Labor treasurer really should have included that in his talking points on how to mislead the Australian people. You can't claim to back housing while punishing the people who actually provide it. Mum-and-dad investors are not monopoly men; they're nurses, tradies and retirees just trying to get ahead. The Treasurer said 'war' more times than he said 'Queensland'. You have to be real here. This is four years of poor decisions by a Labor government, not a four-month-old war.

Last night's budget was presented as a plan for relief, but, for many in Townsville—small businesses and investors—it will feel more like pressure with better gimmicks and branding. People are working harder than ever, but they don't feel like they're getting ahead. In Townsville, mum-and-dad investors are not the big end of town. They're just teachers with one investment property, tradies trying to build some security for retirement, or small-business owners who have backed themselves and taken risks. Many of them are now feeling like aspiration is being punished instead of rewarded.

This budget adds billions of new taxes over the coming years, including higher taxes that will ultimately affect investors, small businesses, superannuation and housing. Because, when investors pull back, fewer homes get built. When small businesses lose confidence, fewer people get hired. And, when businesses are hit with high operating costs, families end up paying more at the check-out. Families are already dealing with rising grocery costs, power bills, insurance premiums and mortgage repayments. Despite all the announcements and spending, inflation is still expected to remain high. That means interest rates could stay high for longer, and, for many households, that's the difference between coping or falling behind.

Small-business owners are carrying wage pressure, energy costs and supply costs, while customers themselves are cutting back. Despite all the government spending, we are still left asking, 'Why doesn't life feel easier?' The reality is this: if inflation stays higher for longer, interest rates stay higher for longer, and that hits regional communities like Townsville particularly hard. Townsville is growing, and growth is a good thing, but growth without enough housing, infrastructure and planning puts enormous pressure on everyday Australians trying to buy, rent or build.

In this budget, many papers have now reported that there have been significant cuts to veteran services—a $5,000 cap on allied health that veterans can get starting next year, which is not enough for those that have been injured, wounded or ill from their service. People need more physio, more occupational therapy, more time in front of the GP and more time in front of the doctors, but, with this cap, they will be out of pocket or living with chronic pain. This is a bad cut. This shouldn't have happened. Another part of this budget that I think is quite concerning is the defunding of Invictus Australia. Invictus Games is a tier-1-level sporting event that supports people who have been wounded, injured or ill from their service. Prince Harry was the founding father of it. I have been at Invictus Games events. I was at the inaugural one and then went back as a coach. I've seen it change lives and I've seen it save lives, because sport is a healing power.

To cut veterans' services, to cut supports to veterans, is absolutely shameful. This government needs to have a long, hard look at itself when it comes to what its priorities should be. Because I know that Invictus—I've heard testimony from families who have said that, without this sporting event and without this coming together as veterans, their son, their daughter or their husband wouldn't be here any more. This needs to be overturned. Invictus Australia should be funded.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a farce this MPI is—an MPI criticising the budget, from a shadow treasurer whose great economic idea was a thought bubble to force young people to make an absurd Faustian bargain to either raid their retirement savings or accept never to be able to buy their own home, the shadow treasurer who, as the chair of the economics committee, went around the country with a scare campaign telling pensioners that they would be made worse off by our policies, which was completely incorrect. It's little wonder that the Liberal Party are currently polling so low they're on the verge of becoming non-existent come the next election. They have zero vision, they have zero capacity to put forward a positive agenda for Australia and they have absolutely zero credibility. We saw the results of that just over a year ago at the federal election, and we saw the results last weekend in Farrer. Voters have made up their minds on those opposite.

Contrary to the proposition in this MPI, this budget delivers much-needed hope and a real plan to increase housing affordability for first home buyers. Our changes will open the door to 75,000 new homebuyers. We're making the tax system fairer by reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax to ensure that every Australian has a chance at homeownership—and I know that everyone in this place, including those opposite, will be hearing from their communities, as I do, about the difficulty of breaking into that housing market, particularly for young people.

The changes to negative gearing are grandfathered so that those who currently negatively gear will not be affected; they can continue to do so. The capital gains that people have made to 1 July next year will be unaffected. Gains procured on existing investments prior to the start date will retain the 50 per cent discount. Most importantly, investors can still use negative gearing on new homes, so it's building into the tax system the incentive to invest in new houses and more homes, which is about addressing the supply issue as well.

For Australian workers, this budget is cutting taxes for 13 million people. In the ACT, that includes 260,000 workers who will receive a tax cut of up to $250 through the working Australians tax offset, and 140,000 Canberran workers will benefit from a new $1,000 instant tax deduction. This is money going back into people's pockets. Labor governments always deliver. We said we'd cut income taxes—done. We said we'd invest in housing—done, to the tune of $47 billion since we've come to government. And we've said that we would take the pressure off working families, and that's exactly what this budget delivers and what the previous four Albanese Labor government budgets have delivered.

The shadow treasurer wants to talk about broken promises. Where was the shadow treasurer when his government promised to fix housing and then proceeded to oversee a decade of doing absolutely nothing? We don't need a lecture on promises from a party that spent a decade in government and left Australians with nothing to show for it.

This budget is about who this government is fighting for: for the hard workers doing double shifts, who will keep more of what they earn; for the young couple in any electorate—mine or that of anyone here—who thought homeownership was out of their reach; and for the small-business owner who now has a permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off. This budget is about fighting for hardworking Australians—all of them, right across this country. That is what Labor does and what this budget does.

It also invests in my own community here in Canberra, which is something we didn't see much of at all under the previous government. Yet, since coming to office, our government has committed more than $4 billion to the ACT. This is what it looks like when we are recognised as a community like the communities all around this country. Our government is investing $50 million, matched by the ACT and New South Wales governments, to upgrade the Canberra-Sydney rail link. This is something people have talked about for so long, and it is finally happening under our government. We're investing in our national institutions, which were falling into rack and ruin under the previous government, and we're ensuring that the CSIRO's groundbreaking research will continue with an additional $387 million funding boost.

This is a budget that is delivering for Australians all around this country, helping them to earn more and keep more of what they earn and find stable housing, whether it's buying a new home or getting into homelessness support.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know who I feel for today, apart from all those mums and dads that are out there that are really struggling under this government? You know who I feel sorry for? I feel sorry for Bill Shorten, because Bill Shorten would be sitting in his vice-chancellor's office at the University of Canberra and be thinking: 'Why? I tried to do the right thing. I took these policies to the to an election. I took these policies to the people, and they knocked me back.' But this government, under this Prime Minister, learnt their lesson. You've got to give them that much. This government knows that, if you take unpopular policies to the people in an election, then the people will figure you out, and they'll let you know about it. But, under the cover of darkness—and not just the cover of darkness—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer consistently said: 'No, there'll be no new taxes on housing. It's not going to happen. How many times have I got to tell you? Fifty times, I've got to tell you it's not going to happen.' Guess what? It's happened.

Believe it or not, we cop a lot of you-know-what with the members of the public as politicians. Is there any wonder why, when you have people like the Prime Minister making those solemn promises, looking squarely down the line of the camera and saying, 'It's not going to happen under my leadership.' And then there's a change of heart, and it's sold like this: 'We've had a change of heart because things have changed. There's this intergenerational equity issue.' What a load of rubbish. This is socialism from that lot, the government over there. This is the biggest form of redistribution of wealth in this country since the Whitlam government.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you thought these policies were so good, why didn't you take them to an election? You didn't take them to an election, because you knew you would lose, just in the same way—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask comments to be directed through me. Stop this personal attack across the chamber.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's just in the same way that the government knew it would lose, so it didn't take them to an election. That's why the Australian public is so upset. It's not just about the negative gearing. It's not just about the CGT. It's not just about discretionary trusts. I've got an older electorate. People in my electorate are white hot with rage. You know why? It's because they've worked all their lives—they're a bit older than you and me—for 40 years. When they were in their 20s, they listened to the government, and they were encouraged to go out and get private health insurance. They were even told, 'If you don't get private health insurance before you turn 30, then we're going to actually penalise you the older you get.' On good faith, they've gone out and taken out private health insurance.

I received an email from a member of my constituency this morning. She's a pensioner on a fixed income. I don't know how they do it, but so many of my pensioners still pay their private health insurance. And now, under this health minister—who, unfortunately, has just walked out of the chamber—is going to rip those concessions away from you when you turn 65. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government wants to rip those rebates away. What's the magical figure? When do you most need private health insurance? It's when you're getting to your and my age, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you reflecting on the Speaker?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you're getting to that age and need that help and medical assistance, this government is going to make my people and Australians around this country who are over 65 pay $1,600 a year extra. Shame on this government!

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a point of order?

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a point of order. It's in relation to the member for Reid, who, as you pointed out, was continually interjecting.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already dealt with that.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's a long way out of her seat.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've dealt with the issue of interjections already.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe her seat is somewhere down there.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat. I've already asked the member for Reid to stop her interjections, and I'd ask all of the people not to be reflecting on the chair in future discussions, either.

Matt Smith (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I grew up in towns of timber, agriculture, defence and mining, and I represent the most Australian place in Australia. I know the Australian dream, unlike the member for Goldstein, who, when he's not desecrating Billy Joel—the temerity to attack the piano man in such a way!—is downloading his own book, as we discovered today during the MPI, which I guess is akin to the member for Hunter wearing his Commonwealth medals into the place. He's put together a website so he can speak to working people. Fantastic! I don't need a website. I grew up with them. I know them. These are my friends, my family.

I'm going to talk about a guy who I went to high school with. His name was Niz. It's an abbreviation of his last name. He was the first one of us to shave. He was a sprinter. He played basketball with us. He was built like a bowling ball. Niz wanted nothing more in life than to be a mechanic. He was a good mechanic. He went and worked for Holden—the great Australian car—and he climbed the ranks, to the point where his job was to take the new car out into the bush and do his level best to break it. Then he'd come back, fix it up and start again. We'd have beers when we got to catch up, every now and then, and he would take us through the new car, with sound effects. My favourite would be when it dropped from fifth to third. He loved that job. He loved everything about it. That was his dream.

The member for Goldstein is an economic rationalist. He called the Australian car manufacturing industry 'terminal' and celebrated its demise. What about Niz's dream? That was all he wanted, and it was snatched away. Most people's dreams aren't like those of the member for Hunter here, a five-time Olympian. They're modest, easy. They want to go camping with the kids. They want a nice family. They want security. These are the things my children speak to me about. More than anything else, they want their own home. Homeownership is that part of Australia that belongs to you, where you'll bring your babies home to, where the grandparents will meet the grandchildren for the first time, where memories are forged. My parents live in the house I grew up in. They've owned it for 46 years now. The stickers that I put on the door are still there, because they own that home.

Renting cannot give you that, and that is why we have to address this. We have to give young people the opportunity and let them back into the property market, because they don't have hope. They look at it and go, 'This is ridiculous—$1.2 million for a house!' It's a number that you can't even think about when you're working slinging boost juice for $42,000 a year or working at the local council for $85,000 to $90,000 a year. You're never going to get there. Changes have to be made, and to make changes you have to be courageous. This government is courageous. It identified a problem that has been brewing since I was a child: house prices going up, up, up. It looks fantastic on paper, but, as the economic rationalists do not see, there is a living cost, a real cost, and that is snatching the hopes and dreams of young Australians.

This change will boost supply. We're not saying don't negatively gear; we're saying negatively gear, but build the house. Get more housing. Get more people into the housing. Let them rent it at a reasonable rate to start their lives. Then they can enter the housing market for themselves and, in 40 years time, the stickers from their child will still be on the door. They can have their holidays and return to their home, with their dog or their cat. They won't be living under the rules of someone else. They won't be paying off someone else's mortgage. Homeownership used to be something that everyone could aspire to, but it was taken away. This Labor government is giving it back. We are looking young people in the eye and saying, 'Yes, we have heard you; we are acting, and Australia is as much yours as it was the previous generations.'

I'm proud of this budget, I'm proud to be a member of this government, and I am proud that young Australians will have their own homes.

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget fails to deliver on a list of key promises made to Australians, leaving them worse off through higher taxes, exorbitant costs and a string of broken commitments. Before the election, the Prime Minister looked the Australian people in the eye and proudly declared 'my word is my bond'. Well, we now see exactly what kind of bond he meant. We thought we were getting James Bond: courageous, reliable, admirable. Instead, his economic management looks more like Alan Bond, leaving a trail of catastrophic debt for the next coalition government to clean up. Perhaps the Prime Minister meant a pair of old Bonds underwear, because his promises are full of holes and leave Australians completely exposed. Or maybe his word is just like cheap bonding glue from the bargain bin, completely falling apart the second you apply pressure. His word is not a bond at all. His word is entirely worthless.

This budget confirms that the Prime Minister now oversees the highest taxing government in our history. Labor cannot manage money. They also can't manage spending, racking up an astonishing debt of $1.25 trillion. The yearly interest alone on this debt will hit $42 billion, or $80,000 each and every minute. While this government burns money, everyday Australians and regional Australians cannot afford to live. This budget itself reveals the buying power of wages has declined by three per cent. Homegrown inflation is forecast to hit five per cent higher than in France, Japan, the US and the UK.

We also see Labor completely blowing their immigration targets. By the end of their first two terms, they'll have brought in more than two million migrants, including overshooting their own targets by 90,000 people over the next two years. That puts even more pressure on infrastructure. But, instead of offering relief, Labor introduces new taxes. It is pure intergenerational fraud. Labor are pulling the ladder up on younger Australians, who are trying to get ahead. With its new housing taxes, Labor's own budget confirms that 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next decade. You cannot make this up! But it's not just families who are being attacked in this budget. It's farmers, it's fishers, it's family owned businesses and it's critical industries that keep towns alive, like in Port Pirie.

On Port Pirie, this budget contains no new funding package to ensure the long-term viability of the lead smelter. While an earlier transitional package of $57.5 million is included in the budget papers, that package expired on 1 May 2026, and negotiations for further support are still unresolved. This leaves the future of Port Pirie hanging in the balance, and that is not good enough.

Everyone is feeling the pinch in this budget. Take the wine industry. With one hand, the government grabs money via higher taxes on trust. With the other hand, it takes away the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant. It's a king hit.

When it comes to agriculture, Labor's raid on family trusts will hinder the ability of farms to manage income and transition ownership. Combined with changes to CGT, these policies will deplete finances and potentially force unintended asset sales, just to stay afloat. We also see Labor cutting $52 million from the Future Drought Fund, plus totally ill-timed cuts to Pest and Disease Preparedness and Response Programs grant funds. This is a cheap shot to all farmers, who are only ever one bad year away from disaster.

This government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer gave their word to regional Australia. But Labor's word is now worthless, and this Prime Minister's bond with Australians is now officially broken.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just an honour to hear that insightful reflection from the Liberal Party about how important someone's word is! I thought I'd reflect on someone's word in this chamber when they said:

… the tax system is screwing over young Australians. Instead, it favours well-off, established interests against those trying to get ahead. … In short: if you work hard to get ahead, you get hit hard; if you live off assets, you don't.

Now, that wasn't anyone on this side of the House that said that. It wasn't anyone on the crossbench either. It was the young shadow treasurer, Pauline Hanson's best friend—she's found a gold mine in Goldstein over there! The shadow treasurer said those exact words, because, once upon a time, there were Liberal Party members who used to actually listen to the needs of the constituents that they represent. But those days are long since over, and the Liberal Party have shown that, no matter what electoral punishments they continuously get, they are happy to go back to the well and ignore the interests of Australians. And then they get surprised when Australians ignore them at the ballot box.

On this side of the House, since coming into government in 2022, we have completely changed and transformed the way in which our housing sector is operating, and it's all been around giving more Australians the opportunity either to purchase a safe and secure home or to be able to access a safe and secure home when they need it. We've made sure that renters have a better deal, with long-term tenancies, via working with the states, and better conditions on those tenancies as well.

But let me remind this place of the journey—which the Liberal Party has opposed, at each and every single opportunity—to improve access for Australians to the housing market. As to our five per cent deposit scheme, which over 200,000 Australians have accessed to be able to get into the housing market and purchase their own home, the Liberal Party and the shadow minister for housing—Senator Bragg, from the other place—said that that was subsidies for billionaires. I'm not sure what billionaire he was talking to, and why they were using five per cent deposits, but certainly the 200,000 Australians who have accessed this, I think, would have a very different opinion: that these Australians are hardworking Australians who struggled to get the deposit to get into the housing market. But, once they had the opportunity to get a mortgage of their own, they could pay down that loan.

There's also the Help to Buy Scheme, a shared equity scheme, that, at every opportunity, those opposite decided to come up with the most ludicrous ways of criticising—saying that we'd be in your kitchen and all sorts of other absurd things—when, actually, the vast majority of people who are using that scheme are people who are either low- or middle-income earners who are getting into the housing market for the first time, or people who have separated. A lot of women who are single have used that scheme and have done so in order to give themselves safety and security and stability in their lives. We couldn't be prouder to help every single Australian to be able to get into the housing market and to find that stability and security of paying down their own mortgage instead of paying down someone else's.

But, of course, that is not all. Since coming into government, we have made the largest investment in social housing in decades. Now, those opposite didn't even have a housing or homelessness minister for most of the time they were in government, which showed just how low a priority it was for those opposite. I remember the former housing minister, Mr Sukkar, the former member for Deakin—who has been replaced by an outstanding member for Deakin, may I say—who said that social housing was just a matter for the states, and refused to invest a single dollar in social housing.

Well, we are building 55,000 social and affordable homes that are going to Australians who really need them, whether they be key workers, whether they be people who are escaping family or domestic violence, or whether they are just people who, through no fault of their own, need a safe place to go for a period of time. We are investing in making sure that there are those homes available. I've been touring the country looking at all of those sites, and it is so exciting. The quality of that housing is something that we can all be very proud of.

Finally, I want to mention the youth housing incentive that we are funding in this budget, because what that will do is make sure that young people who are in those difficult circumstances will be on an equal playing field and will be able to access those incredible social housing homes that we're building, along with the others around Australia, instead of being locked out. We care about housing, we're delivering housing and we're helping Australians buy their own home as well.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has now concluded.