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

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 are significant. They mark the moment when this House will make a determination on the way in which our government collects revenue and the way in which we set up our tax system into the future for future generations. The changes that we are discussing as part of these bills are some of the most important considerations that this House has made in my time here as a member of parliament, and I am proud to support these bills, which will set up our tax system and our revenue collection for future generations—to make it fairer, to make it more appropriate and to make sure that hardworking Australians are not left with the growing burden of our tax revenue.

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

Member for Macnamara, apologies. I'm going to interrupt you so that I can make clear the question that you're speaking to. I promise I will not swallow up your time. The original question is that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words and the honourable member for Curtin moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to. I will enable the member for Macnamara to start his speech again, from the top.

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

The millions watching at home will be grateful, Deputy Speaker! Thank you very much. This is an important set of bills that will reform the way in which tax is collected in this country, to make it fairer and to make it better for future generations so that income does not continue to grow as the largest form of revenue in our budget, disproportionate to other forms of revenue. For people who are nurses, teachers, labourers or anyone who is working as part of the economy, the amount of tax they are paying versus the amount of tax that other forms of revenue for our budget is becoming disproportionately large. When you add the fact that, when inflation is high, the Reserve Bank adds interest rate rises, the same people are being hit over and over again with higher income taxes as well as higher interest rates. When you look at the sorts of things that government needs to expend in the growing expenditure over the forward estimates—we're talking about things like health, we're talking about things like aged care, we're talking about things like defence—more and more of it is relying on hard-working Australians, people who are earning a wage and contributing to our amazing country.

These bills are the most significant reforms to taxation that I have been a part of in this place. They are an important set of reforms that will set up our country and the budget for future generations. It will focus primarily on four key things: it will restore the original intent of the capital gains tax concession, it will overhaul the negative gearing regime, it introduces a new $250 working Australian tax offset, and it creates a new $1,000 instant tax deduction.

We are a country that is heavily reliant on income tax. It accounts for roughly 48 per cent of revenue in this budget, and that is more than company tax and the GST combined. As a share of revenue, personal income tax continues to climb while all other sources are projected to plateau or fall. The revenue, as I mentioned, of hard-working Australians, is what funds our world-class healthcare, our social security system and all of the other important work that our government funds, but it is just not tenable to continue taxing those hard-working Australians who are earning, via an income and earning via their work and via their labour, while also not addressing the income that people are receiving from assets in a similar way.

The biggest impact that the original capital gains discount has had has been on the housing market, so let's break down a few of the facts. In 1985, the Labor treasurer Paul Keating established the capital gains tax. The premise was simple: if you earn money through the sale of assets, you should pay tax, just as someone who earns money from their labour. It's a pretty simple proposition. Why should a cleaner, a teacher or a nurse be taxed on their income at the marginal tax rate while someone who was an investor or owns an asset pays far less or no tax at all? Keating's system used something called cost-base indexation, which calculates your income by taking the total increase of value of your asset and subtracting the part that could be attributed to inflation. In other words, you only pay tax on the income minus inflation.

In 1999 the Liberal treasurer, Peter Costello, abolished the cost-base indexation and replaced it with a 50 per cent discount on capital gains. This had two major impacts. The first one was on low-yield investments. On one hand, it actually disadvantaged investors in low-yield asset classes. The biggest one of them is apartments. Over two decades from 2002 to 2022, the average apartment appreciated in value by around 4.5 per cent per annum. Over that same period, inflation averaged at 2.8 per cent per annum. That means, if you bought an apartment in 2002 and sold it 20 years later, you would be taxed on 50 per cent of the gain, despite inflation accounting for more than 60 per cent of that gain. In other words, if you had an apartment, you'd be paying about 10 per cent of tax on income that you never really earned. Then there are high-yield investments. On the other hand, the 50 per cent concession created a huge incentive to invest in high-yield assets like houses with land. Over the same period, from 2002 to 2022, house prices appreciated by over six per cent per annum, more than double the inflation rate, meaning investors could bank real gains but only pay tax on a portion of those gains. The result has been so dramatic and, in many cases, catastrophic in our housing market.

In 1993, first home buyers accounted for a larger proportion of housing finance than investors by a margin of two per cent. There were more first home buyers than investors in 1993. By 2018, investors were beating first home buyers by over 25 per cent. Between 1993 and 2018, investors started to dwarf first home buyers. In the same period, homeownership among 25- to 34-year-old Australians fell from 61 per cent to just 43 per cent. We went from the majority of young, hardworking Australians seeking to get a mortgage being able to do so to less than half in just a couple of decades.

The capital gains taxes in the budget are really simple. As of 1 July 2027, the 50 per cent concession will once again be replaced with cost base indexation, but with one exemption. If you are willing to invest in the future of our country by building a new home, you can still choose to access the 50 per cent concession. There's no change to the tax treatment of the family home, which has always been exempt from the capital gains tax. There's no change to the tax treatment of inheritance. The bill does something very simple. It focuses and fixes a system that has completely warped our housing system, which we can no longer leave to future generations to fix. Make no mistake, any member who votes against this tax package will be saying very clearly to future generations that they are unwilling to turn around the homeownership rates in this country.

Our income tax system is based on a pretty simple principle as well. When you spend money on work or to earn money, you should only pay tax on the difference. That's why you can deduct travel, self-education, home office and other work related expenses from your taxable income each year. It makes pretty simple sense. The same applies to real estate. If you've mortgaged an investment property and you're paying monthly interest costs, you can deduct these costs from the rent that you earn. That's also a sensible proposition. However, here's where it gets tricky. Negative gearing is the idea that when monthly interest costs exceed rental earnings—meaning that you're making a loss overall—you can deduct that loss from other unrelated income. In other words, negative gearing has allowed investors to engage in unprofitable ventures they would otherwise not be able to afford simply because it reduces their tax bill. This also has a cumulative effect when combined with the CGT discount. That has resulted in first home buyers not being able to compete with investors.

This bill makes a pretty simple change. From 1 July 2027, you can no longer offset losses from rental properties purchased after budget day against other sources of income—again, with one exception. If you're willing to build a new home and help us build more homes for our country, then you can still negatively gear. It has been argued that negative gearing is essential to maintaining Australia's rental market, and that abolishing negative gearing will force landlords to sell their houses and drastically diminish the rental market. But this simply does not stack up. These changes aren't about getting rid of landlords. Every Australian who is currently negatively gearing will be able to continue to do so. As people pay off their mortgages and the costs of their homes, this will naturally tail off. The expenses that we make each year as part of the budget will be reduced from our negative gearing and capital gains discounts for housing.

I'm conscious that this House has a lot of other speakers that want to contribute to this debate, but let me say this. These decisions are not easy. Not only are the taxes that we have in this bill important for the budget to be able to afford all of the things that we want to be able to do to support Australians who are working hard; it also goes back to that very simple principle. Each and every one of us has people in our electorates that work hard, that work multiple jobs, that are struggling to get by and that are working to support their kids, their family and their community. They are forced to pay the marginal tax rate to live as part of our society. Yet there are other people who are able and who, perhaps because of the advantage of the way in which the economy was set up, were able to accumulate assets and are earning the same amount of money but paying far less tax. That's wrong.

While we absolutely need to work alongside businesses and small businesses, maintain the exemptions, listen to and consult and work with different sectors like the startup sector, my conscience is clear coming into this place. When we look at the data, when we look at the numbers, when we look at the fact that young people all around this country cannot afford to buy their own home—and when they talk about aspiration over there, they are not talking about the majority of young people who are currently locked out of the housing market. Those people are aspirational as well. So it's time we designed a tax system and a tax regime that don't lock them out of the housing market—the single most important asset for most Australians to retire safely. This is a Labor reform, one that we need to get done for the future of our country and for the future of those aspirational young people that I'm proud to represent.

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

I would note for the House the lack of enthusiasm from the other side talking about this Labor policy—a proud reform of Labor's with zero enthusiasm from those on the other side. They have to stand up and defend this policy that they know is an economy-wrecking policy. The member for Macnamara opposite had five years in Daniel Andrews's office as a senior adviser before coming to this place with no real-world experience when it comes to managing the economy. I mean, Dan Andrews isn't exactly the brains trust of the success of the Victorian economy, with the over $200 billion debt that he left behind—

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's better than the statue!

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

Yes—the bronze statue that everybody can bow at because he's left Victoria in such a great state! It's absolutely disgraceful. I would also say that the member opposite said that aspiration is wrong in his speech. I'd have to disagree with that because what we see after four years—almost five painful years—of a Labor government is Australia now living under the highest taxing government in our nation's history. Why does this government tax? It's because it's the only way they can keep spending and keep feeding the beast that is their spending addiction and that is putting our country in such a bad position economically.

Of course, these changes to the tax system will—well, who knows what it will do? It will certainly damage our economy. It will damage aspiration. It will damage the significant Australian value of 'if you have a go, you'll get a go'. At a time when Australians are struggling with the cost-of-living, Labor's answer is not relief. It's more taxes. It's more spending. It's more debt. We race towards $1.2 trillion in debt. That is going to cost the next generation $80,000 a minute in interest. How are they going to pay for that? Higher taxes—that's how they're going to pay for that.

This budget is built on broken promise. It's built on toxic taxes, lower living standards and fewer homes. It says it in the budget papers. Fewer homes as a consequence of these changes—35,000 fewer homes. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised on more than 50 occasions not to introduce these taxes. 'My bond is my word,' he said. 'For the 50th time, we are not going to change the rules.' Now here he is, changing his mind. What he said was untrue. What he said to the Australian people was deceitful, because Australians were told one thing, and this prime minister has delivered an entirely different thing. He does not have a mandate to deliver these tax changes.

I come back to my original point, which is, when Labor can't manage their own money, they come after yours. So what do they do? They tax, and they're starting with investment taxes, and what's going to be next? Is it going to be a tax on the family home? Is it going to be a tax on kids' piggy bank savings? Where is this government going to stop when they have to feed the beast with too much spending? What does too much spending do? When people spend too much money into the economy, what does it do? It pushes up CPI, otherwise known as inflation, which is galloping towards five per cent, and who pays when inflation is above the band of between two and three per cent? Who is it that pays? It's all Australians, including and especially young Australians, who have to pay more for their everyday groceries. Rents go up. We know that rents are also in the budget. They're going to go up. Yes, rents will go up and fewer houses will be built as consequences of these changes.

Currently, as your pay goes up with inflation, as I talked about, you can be pushed into higher tax brackets. That is called bracket creep, and that is where the government gets extra revenue from. The only winner is the government, who now take more from you every year without having to change the law. That is why the coalition wants to see tax thresholds indexed to inflation so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. Our plan fully protects 85 per cent of income earners, delivering relief of around $250 in the first year, up to $500 the next year, $750 the year after that and then $1,000 in year 4 back to you. This is this will be a permanent feature of the tax system.

With Labor's plan, they'll give you $250. Let's have a let's have a little think about what inflation—I talked about it galloping towards five per cent, at 4.6 at the moment. What is that going to look like in the following year? Let's just say inflation heads to five per cent, gets there and stays there. That means your $250 that you get every year is going to be worth five per cent less every year, whereas the coalition's policy of a tax-back guarantee will actually go up year on year. I think that is a much better option for the Australian public. What Labor are doing with these changes is sending a very clear message to Australians: work harder, save more, invest wisely, build a business, and the government will take a bigger share. That is the message.

These changes are a war on aspiration. They are an attack on aspirational Australians and on small businesses that are the engine room of our country, the engine room of the Gold Coast economy. Family businesses and those who often have mortgages on their homes to pay for their businesses are the people who work hard to employ other people. This is what they don't get on the other side. If you have fewer small businesses because they can't afford the wages, the electricity bill or their insurance bill, for example, what happens? Those businesses—newsflash for the other side—go broke. When they go broke, who misses out? The people who work for those businesses. What happens? Unemployment goes up, and that's what we're seeing happen with the unemployment rate. It's going up. These changes are an attack on small and family businesses. They're an attack on startups, who now have to pay a 30 per cent tax. They are an attack on investors and on first home buyers.

Let's not forget what will happen. Let's go back to the GFC. What happened during the GFC? The equity of millions of Americans' homes went down. The housing market went backwards. As a consequence, those people who didn't have enough equity in their home were in a position where their house was worth less than what they owed on it. This is what this government is risking for the next generation of Australians, those Australians who have recently bought into the property market. The value of their home is now at risk because of terrible management of the economy by this government. We'll see what happens when that is the position that those aspirational Australians, particularly young couples and young Australians new in the market, are going to face under this government's gross mishandling of the economy.

I want to talk about intergenerational fairness. Previous generations, including mine, were told to work hard, save and invest and you'll get ahead, and young Australians deserve the same opportunity. It's their right to have the same opportunity. Instead, Labor has now moved the goalpost. It's now harder to save for a deposit. It's harder to buy a home. It's harder to invest in shares and build wealth and start a business. It's not intergenerational fairness. It's intergenerational betrayal. There are a lot of young people who buy shares to then make a profit in order to save for a deposit for their home. They now have to pay 30 per cent tax on that windfall. There are a lot of young people who buy a home where they don't live so that they can actually have an investment. They pay rent and live close to mum and dad. On the Gold Coast, this is common. They might buy a home in the regions and rent it out, and that is no longer available to young people where they can buy an existing home and rent it out and have that as a tax deduction. We reject these toxic taxes, and what we will do is repeal them.

I want to talk about small business. Labor wants nearly half the reward of their work, despite taking none of the risk. Small business owners are not just building businesses; they're creating jobs, as I was talking about before. If you tax them, they will close. They are at breaking point right now, and they are so important to our national economy and the local economy, certainly on the Gold Coast and around the country. We want to support businesses, so what we will do if we should come to government is increase the instant asset write-off. We'll increase it to $50,000 a year and make it permanent. Under Labor, it's $20,000 a year. As I recall, when we moved an amendment in this place a few months ago to increase it to $30,000, Labor voted against it. So they want to be seen to be supporting small business, but it's not in their DNA like it is on this side of the House, where many of us, including me, had our first job in a small business. We understand how to run a small business. We've run small businesses. I had my own for 12 years, a consultancy. It's true. I worked as a sole trader. I understand what it is to fill in a BAS. I understand what it is to chase the next job. This is what holds our government up.

So what we want to do is make sure that we have tradies who can invest in their tools, farmers who can buy equipment up to $50,000, cafes upgrading their kitchens—if there are any left by the time this government is done—and small businesses who can invest with confidence. Ninety-eight per cent of Australian businesses are small businesses. When small businesses invest, they grow. When small businesses grow, Australia grows. If you tax something more, you'll get less of it, and this Labor government wants less small businesses in our nation.

I want to talk about debt. It's the next generation who are going to inherit this debt. It's heading towards $1.25 trillion, in fact, and, as I said before, that is going to cost you, as a young person, into the next generations $80,000 every minute just in interest alone. Today's debt is indeed tomorrow's taxes. Government spending does not create productivity or economic growth. It creates inflation that we will all, especially young people, have to pay into the future. We here in the coalition want to restore fiscal responsibility and to ensure real intergenerational fairness through our Future Generations Fund. By banking resource revenue, we can pay down debt and build national infrastructure without passing the burden onto future generations.

In terms of housing, Labor's brought in 1.5 million people while failing to build enough homes. Their own budget papers, as I said before, show 35,000 fewer homes under these tax changes—because, if you tax something, you'll get less of it. You take out the determination that people have to get ahead. If you tax it, it takes all the aspiration out of it. Before young Australians can buy a home, they rent, and Labor's own budget papers admit that rents will rise. Labor's making housing less affordable at every single stage.

What the coalition wants to do is restore common sense to housing and migration by making sure Australia only brings in as many people as it can house. It makes sense. It's just a commonsense approach. If we don't have enough houses for the people who are coming into our country—no matter where they're coming from—then it's not a good position for our country to be in. We need to be able to house our own population before we can house those people coming from other countries.

What we want to do is establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes. That's 400,000 homes with infrastructure—pipes, electricity and that sort of thing—so that we have more houses in the supply chain so that we can house more Australians. What that will look like is that the minister for housing will stand up and give a report on exactly how many houses have been built. There will be a tie to migration—immigration—to make sure that we can actually keep up with demand.

In closing, what I will say is that the Prime Minister said that there will be no more wedges when he came to this place. But he's actually a prevaricator, he's a fabricator, he's a fabulist, he's a mythomaniac and he is a gigantic fibber.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this ambitious, responsible and reforming budget. In his second reading speech, the Treasurer described this as 'the most important and ambitious budget in decades', one shaped by global uncertainty but grounded in confidence about Australia's future. That is the right starting point, because this budget is being delivered at a time when the world feels unstable. The global oil shock, rising costs and uncertainty abroad are putting pressure on households here at home. I know, from speaking to people at their doors in my electorate of Hasluck, that people can feel rattled. They are feeling uneasy. Some of them, understandably, are turning to extreme, unhelpful and policy-bereft parties for answers. As the Treasurer made clear, we did not choose these global challenges, but how we respond to them is within our control. This budget chooses to respond with resilience, with reform and, most importantly, with fairness. Nowhere is that more important than in communities all over Australia, like mine in Hasluck. At its heart, this is a Labor budget because it invests in the things that matter most to people's lives, starting with health care.

The Treasurer made clear that there is more Medicare in this budget, alongside record investments in hospitals and cheaper medicines. Behind those national figures are real stories in local communities. In Hasluck, families rely on our public hospital care and on the primary care that is close to home. When a parent in Ellenbrook needs urgent care for a sick child or when an older resident in Bassendean is managing a chronic condition, what matters is not abstract policy but whether they can see a doctor quickly, afford their medication and avoid a trip to an already crowded emergency department.

The continued rollout and permanent funding of Medicare urgent care clinics is making a real difference. I can now stand anywhere in my electorate and be less than half an hour from a Medicare urgent care clinic, with clinics at Rudloc Road in Morley, North Street in Midland and, now, on Coolamon Boulevard in Ellenbrook. These don't just take the pressure off the local emergency department in Midland; they give the people of Hasluck peace of mind and alternatives to assist them, their children and their loved ones quickly and safely.

The fact that the only card you need is your Medicare card means that no-one needs to worry about whether they can afford the health care they or their children need. Medicare is a legacy Labor program, an institution that embodies the Aussies' fair go in health. The Albanese government's investments in Medicare since 2022 have seen bulk-billing rates rise significantly across the country, and Hasluck is no exception. The national bulk-billing rate for the January-May quarter this year was 81.9 per cent, an increase of 4.6 per cent on the same period just a year ago. And what does this mean? It means that accessing the doctor is easier in a cost-of-living crisis, and it means that people in South Guildford and Brabham and Brigadoon who need to see a doctor are seeing a doctor, not putting it off because times are tight. This is not just a statistic. This is a policy success, and I commend the government and Minister Butler for their commitment and their delivery.

Another legacy Labor program is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBS was a child of the Chifley government and part of that government's vision of a fairer society that has become a cornerstone of Australian universal health care. The Albanese government has directly reduced out-of-pocket healthcare costs for tens of thousands of people in Hasluck and for millions of Australians by implementing the largest cuts and reforms in the 78-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When people in my electorate fill a prescription now, they find the maximum cost capped at $25. If they have a concession, then they find the maximum cost capped at $7.70, and that is now locked in until 2030. And most of them don't need to visit the doctor to get a script or the pharmacy to fill it as often as they did before, because we introduced 60-day scripts. My constituents and millions around the country are saving time, energy, money and bother because of that reform, which kicked in in 2023.

But remember the palaver from those opposite over that change. The coalition had been advised to bring in 60-day scripts in 2018, but the pharmacy industry got in their ear, and they folded. When we took up the recommendation, the Liberals and the Nationals saw an opportunity to score a few points. They wheeled out all sorts of reasons why the sun wouldn't shine in the morning if we made that change. They played to the gallery and they were wrong. Life went on, and, for millions of Australians—including, no doubt, some members opposite—life was changed for the better.

Cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and Medicare urgent care clinics—all reducing costs, reducing stress and making people healthier right across Hasluck.

If there's one issue raised with me more than any other, it's housing. My electorate is quite unusual. I have one of the growth corridors that are really driving new investments in housing. People in Brabham, in Dayton and all the way through to Ellenbrook are generally in a lot of new housing estates, but there are a lot of other suburbs surrounding them—Aranda, Caversham and Beechboro—where there are more established homes, and people are struggling to afford to buy into those suburbs. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home in the communities that they grew up in.

The Treasurer did not shy away from this challenge. He described Australia's housing challenge as longstanding and acknowledged the pressures it is placing on young workers and families, and this budget responds with seriousness. It lifts total investment in housing to record levels, and focuses on increasing supply, because, without more homes, the problem does not get easier. This investment is enabling infrastructure. The roads, the power and the essential services are the very things that have enabled the growth corridor in my electorate of Hasluck to be so successful, particularly for the growing areas around Ellenbrook and the Swan valley, where new housing developments are dependent upon the infrastructure being put in place. The reforms to support first home buyers matter deeply because, for many people in Hasluck, the issue's not just saving the deposit; it is competing in a market that's been stacked against them. This budget begins to rebalance that. It does not promise an overnight fix, but it does take responsible steps to make housing more accessible, more affordable and more attainable over time.

Of course, the Liberals caused the unsustainable problems with capital gains tax and negative gearing, and there's no way in the world they were ever going to fix them. In the tradition of 'I'm alright, Jack', they would have let the situation continue until it broke irrevocably. But the Labor Party knows that good policy doesn't just happen. Good policy is built on principles, and it builds on its own success. When we on this side talk about a fair go, we mean a fair go for everyone, not just those born with a silver spoon in their mouths or those who manage to become best buddies with a billionaire. Because if we look at what we've achieved so far, which is a better deal for ordinary Australians in housing and health care, jobs and wages, and education, it is well worth while to ask how much of it would simply not exist under a coalition government run by the member for Hume and Senator Hanson, both of whom have opposed all of these policies and continue to oppose them. The Liberal-National-One Nation three-headed dog is no friend of Australian workers.

There's much more to talk about on education, jobs and skills, and training, because we've made so many more investments in fields where we've got pathways for paid placements through university. We've got free TAFE. We know that that is taking the pressure off homes where people are looking to upskill, re-skill or gain an education beyond school, which is now also fully resource funded. But I want to bring my thoughts to a conclusion around this. This is a budget that is shaped by difficult global circumstances but guided by clear values. It is about resilience in the face of uncertainty. It is about reform where reform is needed and it is about ensuring that fairness remains at the centre of our economic choices. For Hasluck, that means practical outcomes, better access to health care for families in Midland, Lockridge and Ellenbrook, stronger educational opportunities for students in our local schools, secure jobs and growing businesses in Hazelmere and Bayswater, and a more realistic pathway to homeownership for the next generation.

This is not a budget that chooses the easy path. As the Treasurer put it, it is about choosing the hard road of reforms while supporting Australians through difficult times. I commend the bill to the House.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start out by shouting out some school students we have here watching. It's always exciting to see them here, because the decisions we make in this place very much impact the prospects and opportunities they will have in their life as they grow up. And while many young people too often think they're not interested in politics, I always remind them: if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. Decisions will be made that impact your life, and whether you like politics or not, it is in your life. We make the decisions and the laws that, ultimately, will shape their opportunities, and that is very relevant for the debate we have today in relation to these bills to give effect to the government's budget.

Some aspects I support, but for some I am really deeply frustrated that we are in the situation we're in. Australia needs serious tax reform. We need a system that is fairer and more efficient, that rewards work, that improves housing affordability, and that also supports productivity and ensures the burden of fiscal repair is shared fairly. But good reform is not just about the policy objective; it is also about the process, about how you get there and how you bring the community along, the consultation that you engage in with communities, with business, with all the sectors. Unfortunately, the process the government has followed here in this instance is just not good enough.

This is a substantial bill. It contains really important and significant reforms, some very much needed, but it also bundles together several very different measures, and measures that do not have social and social licence or support at this stage. Some have broad community support and clear policy rationales; others are complex, contentious and far-reaching, and the government still cannot articulate exactly what will be the unintended consequences, what will be the scale or the reach of these measures, who will be caught by them, where the carve-out will be, or what the definitions of who this applies to will be.

The government is asking this parliament to pass major economic reform without providing the modelling, the evidence, the consultation needed to understand its full impact, or the clear information about how small business will be defined, what carve-outs are going to be negotiated or who will be impacted in the end. That is not how you make significant tax reform that lasts or that has social licence and consensus. That's why it is so incredibly frustrating when I look at the debate in relation to this reform. I know major tax reform requires transparency and scrutiny. It requires courage and it requires bringing the community along. Instead, what the government has chosen to do is package housing reform, cost-of-living measures, capital gains tax changes, trust taxation and small-business impacts into one omnibus bill. From many members of government, we're hearing that the justifications for this are fairness and affordability of property. But this bill goes way beyond that, and the public isn't buying it. They're not accepting that this is just about making property and homeownership more achievable. That's why the course the government has chosen to take in relation to this is so incredibly frustrating.

In particular, as members in this place, we can't really do our job of scrutinising this legislation properly. The time for the debate in relation to this bill has been inadequate. The consultation and the refusal to have it properly investigated at committee are all major issues. There are some parts I very much support and welcome. Prior to the last election I went to my community supporting winding back capital gains when it came to property and investors. There was a strong case there. I was frustrated when the government and in fact the Prime Minister made repeated promises it wouldn't touch it, because ultimately these are areas that need changing. We have to pull the demand-side levers as well as the supply levers when it comes to property pricing.

Again, it just goes to show the political manoeuvring and the disappointment; you're bundling together all the various aspects of this legislation and these reforms on a vague promise: 'She'll be right. We will work out the details later; just trust us.' That's just not good enough for the majority of the Australian people. And it's not good enough for me, because I take seriously my responsibility to the people of Warringah to ensure that the legislation has the detail and that I have the details before me when I make a decision to support legislation or not.

So let's unpack what is in this legislation and why it's so frustrating, because there are clear groups that are frustrating. As I said, the detail we have so far is not good enough for me, but it's also not good enough for the majority of the people from Warringah who have contacted my office. There are clear groups of people really frustrated and disappointed with the government. They want change to capital gains tax in relation to property investors. They want affordability, so first home owners can have a fair shot and not compete with investors.

But they also want to have an opportunity for aspiration. They want an opportunity, after they have worked their day job, been paid their wages and contributed. If they are going to take risks, invest, try and raise our productivity and build a buffer through investment, shares, a small business or a startup, they want to know that those risks that they are prepared to take can be rewarded. Essentially what the government is saying is: 'We will put everyone on an equal par. It doesn't matter if you're just prepared to shop for a job or take risks and not be paid for years as you invest into an opportunity; you will all be treated the same way.' That is not how we grow productivity. That is not how we encourage investment. It is not how we are going to make the best of Australia going forward.

In relation to what the bill actually does, it has the four key elements of the government's tax reform package. Schedule 1, which is the most contentious, makes significant changes to capital gains tax arrangements. It replaces the existing 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with a return to cost-base indexation and introduces a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on real capital gains from 1 July 2027. I have serious concerns about the breadth of schedule 1, and I'll return to that. But I have to say up front that the whole indexation model is confusing. The public does not understand it, and you are not taking the community on board with you on that.

Schedule 2 limits negative gearing for residential property investments to new builds. This reform, I would argue, has broad community support. Under the current system, investors can deduct losses from property investments against their income while later benefiting from discounted capital gains. That combination has helped push prices up, and it made it harder for first home buyers to compete against property investors. Although, people who bought properties before May 2026 will keep the existing rules. It's been really clear with the community that they can essentially bank those profits, the gains they have made. It is simply setting a line in the sand to say that, moving forward, the opportunity for property investment will be and those advantages will be around new builds, which will then help boost supply. These are good things.

This part of the bill is targeted, as it applies to residential property. It maintains incentives for new housing supply, and, importantly, existing investment decisions are protected through those transitional arrangements. In simple terms, this does not abolish negative gearing entirely, it just redirects it away from established homes towards new housing supply. Schedule 3 introduces the working Australians tax offset, providing $250 for working Australian taxpayers. At a time when households are under enormous cost-of-living pressure, any additional support is welcome, but let's be honest: $250 a year, in a year's time, will not make a meaningful difference to many households facing rising mortgage repayments, rents, insurance, groceries, energy and healthcare costs right now.

Schedule 4 introduces a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work related expenses. This is a practical measure that will simplify tax time for some Australians, but, again, let's be clear: if you're already claiming deductions greater than $1,000, it's business as usual and the situation hasn't changed. This instant tax deduction allows eligible taxpayers to claim up to $1,000 of work related expenses without itemising and substantiating every claim, so, yes, this will reduce complexity. It's welcome. Workers with straightforward deductions should not have to navigate unnecessary administration, but, again, this has been packaged as some phenomenal cost-of-living relief, when, for many people, it will have little or no financial impact because this will all be in 12 months time.

More importantly, this bill provides no meaningful relief for those in our communities doing it the toughest. ACOSS has highlighted that more than four million people on the lowest incomes, including people receiving JobSeeker, pensioners and single parents without paid work, will not benefit from these tax measures. JobSeeker remains around $409 per week—less than half the minimum wage—while housing, food and essential costs continue to rise. I've raised this with the Treasurer.

The irony is that we are in the second year of the second term of a Labor government. The government has only raised JobSeeker once, in 2023. It was a minimal change with a promise of more to come, and, yet, here we are, three years later, with nothing in this budget for the most vulnerable. This is not just a welfare issue. It's a dignity issue and it's also a workforce participation issue. When people cannot afford to secure housing, transport, health care or basic necessities, it becomes harder, not easier, to get back into employment. A strong economy is one where everyone has the opportunity to participate. This bill does not meet that test.

The most significant part of this bill is schedule 1, which makes broad changes to capital gains tax arrangements. Currently, individuals, trusts and partnerships usually receive a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount if they hold an asset for more than 12 months. With this change, the discount would be replaced with a minimum 30 per cent tax rate indexed to inflation. The family home remains exempt from these changes, and so will new builds. I want to be very clear: I support reforming capital gains tax settings when it comes to investment property. For too long, Australia's housing system has been distorted by tax settings that favour those who already own assets over those trying to buy their first home.

In Warringah, I hear about it every day. Young people who grew up locally are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford to live in the community they call home. Parents and grandparents tell me they have benefited from rising property values, but they are deeply concerned about what this means for their children and grandchildren. Many people who have done well from the current system recognise it is no longer delivering fairness. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions has encouraged investment in existing housing rather than the new supply Australia desperately needs. Housing should ultimately be about creating a home, not simply a vehicle for investment or tax advantage.

I commend the government for being willing to tackle an area of reform that has been politically difficult for decades, but what you've done is bundle this with other issues that you don't have social licence for. Schedule 1 goes much further than just property, and that's where it falls apart. Schedule 1 extends these changes across shares, managed funds, ETFs, business equity, trusts and other capital assets. I've heard from young professionals, small-business owners, startups, founders and families who feel completely blindsided by these changes. One constituent told me she and her partner have done everything they were told to do. They've studied. They've worked hard. They've got big HECS debts. They've built careers. They've borrowed responsibility within their means. They have good incomes. But, between high housing costs, bills and everyday expenses, they still feel like they are barely getting ahead. That is their aspiration, which the government is whacking with this bill. They're not wealthy investors living off passive income; they're working Australians trying to build some financial security, a buffer. For many young Australians who cannot get into the property market, investing in shares, ETFs or startups has become one of the few pathways available to them to build that nest egg, that economic buffer.

The government says this is about intergenerational fairness. Well, intergenerational fairness is not achieved by making housing slightly fairer while reducing other pathways for young Australians to save, invest, build businesses and create financial security. We must be careful that, in trying to fix one unfairness, we're not creating another. If the target is speculative investment in existing housing, then target that. Do not drag productive investment, modest savings, employee equity and startup capital into the same net without clear evidence and information and modelling around unintended consequences. That is the central problem with this bill.

Small and medium businesses in Warringah have raised similar concerns. Shares, startups and business equity are not the same as passive property investment. For many entrepreneurs, early employees and investors, capital gains are the reward for taking risk, building a business, accepting lower wages and backing innovation. There can be years of no dividend from an investment, and the government now, by saying that it should all be treated in a flat way, is not recognising the risk and the years of delay that go into being an entrepreneur. These are not multinational corporations with large balance sheets. They are often local employers and family businesses who have spent decades building something. COSBOA have raised their concern around the definition of 'small business', and I hear from the government that there are negotiations. But, again, here we are being asked to vote on legislation when we don't know where it's actually going to land, who is going to be carved out or where the definition of 'small business' will be. There are so many issues, and then we have the impact on trusts. Some 370,000 small and family businesses operate through trusts, yet we don't have clear visibility.

There is not enough time to raise all the concerns with this bill, but I move the amendment as circulated in my name so that more investigation into this legislation can occur:

That all words after "but" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"notes that:

(1) the Government's capital gains tax reforms should be limited to investment property;

(2) proposed changes affecting business assets, shares, exchange traded funds and trusts should be referred to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny before proceeding;

(3) an inquiry should examine the potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes, including impacts on small business, young investors, productivity, risk-taking and household financial resilience; and

(4) the Government should consider targeted exemptions or thresholds for modest share investors, so younger Australians are not penalised for using shares and exchange traded funds to build financial security outside the property market".

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):  Is the amendment seconded?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

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

Today I want to talk about ambition. I want to talk about the ambition of young people and of families not only in my electorate but across this nation. When you talk to young people and families—Australians—what they will tell you is that they are ambitious to own a home. What they will tell you is that they are ambitious to open the front door to that first house where they can plan their family, raise their young ones and set up for their future. What they are ambitious for is that great Australian dream of having the keys to a place that they can call their own, and can I say that on this side of the House we are ambitious for them and for that dream.

It's no secret that young people are facing many interconnected challenges as they build their careers, as they build their families and as they build their lives, from insecurity surrounding the rapidly changing job market to anxiety about climate change. Many young people describe their prospects as less certain and less secure—certainly in comparison to their parents at the same age. Young people aren't immune from cost-of-living pressures. They're forking out more for groceries, fuel and bills, making it harder to save for those big life steps like buying a home.

As we know, one of the biggest challenges facing this group is housing, whether it's renting or wanting to buy a home. Accessing a rental property can be tough, with high demand, low vacancy rates and increasing rental payments. But buying a home often isn't an option—often isn't seen as a possibility—and many young people end up staying at home with mum and dad for much longer. That's why this isn't a challenge just for young people; it's one for mums and dads who are worried that their kids will never achieve what they were able to.

House prices have risen so much faster than wages over recent years. Since 1999, house prices have grown at more than twice the pace of average full-time wages, and homeownership among those aged 25 to 34 dropped by seven percentage points in the first 20 years of this century. The Reserve Bank recently released research which indicated that, 25 years ago, people younger than 40 made up 35 per cent of property investors, and, by 2023, this had fallen by about 20 per cent, while investors over the age of 60 had increased dramatically, from 12 per cent in 2000 to 28 per cent by 2023.

These figures highlight that, for many young people, that great Australian dream of owning your own home feels exactly like that—a dream; a fantasy; something intangible. For many, it's certainly not a goal that's achievable in the short term, and, for many, not in the long term either. That is something that, in this country, must change. And that is what this bill is all about.

Let's be very frank: the current situation is a bleak outlook for many young Australians. But that's one of the reasons why I am so incredibly proud of this 2026-27 budget. This budget says: enough is enough. This budget says: enough of the intergenerational unfairness making it difficult for young people to get ahead financially and to get into the housing market.

I know it's resonating with young people on the south side of Brisbane in my electorate. Will, from Coopers Plains, told us:

I'm happy about the changes because it means that I will be competing less with investors when I buy my first home.

It means I'm able to get into the market sooner and have the same opportunities that my parents had …

Amity, from Moorooka, agreed. They said:

As a young person who is worried about affording to move out of my parents' house, affording rent let alone buying a house is a big worry for me. The changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will make owning my own home a possibility.

And Will and Amity are not alone. There are so many Wills and so many Amitys who are relying on these bills to make sure that that dream can be realised once again.

So let's talk a little bit more about these changes and how they're not only giving young people hope, but will lead to more homeownership. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 implement part of what is the most significant housing reform and investment in Australia in more than 25 years. Schedules 1 and 2 concern negative gearing and capital gains tax changes, and the reforms go to improving homeownership prospects for our young Australians. A key aspect is limiting negative gearing—a tax benefit that allows investors to offset property losses against their income—by making it apply to newly-built homes only. This change is intended to shift investor demand away from existing homes and towards new housing supply, increasing the number of dwellings available.

We've talked a lot about 40 years of not building enough supply. We've talked a lot about making sure that we're getting more tradespeople into trades: more chippies, more sparkies—more people who can build the homes of the future. We're investing in an ambitious target to build more homes and to build more social and affordable homes. This is another arrow in the quiver to make sure that we are driving supply in the housing market, because it means that, if you're trying to invest in yourself, when it comes to negative gearing, you're also investing in us: you're investing in your neighbours; you're investing in Will and Amity; you're investing in our nation—and that's what is important when it comes to supply.

The change is intended to shift that domestic demand away, and, by encouraging construction, the policy aims to ease competition between investors and first home buyers in the established housing market. We've already heard the stories. We've heard the stories of young people going to auctions. We've heard the stories of people being able to bid on their first home and get a bid through. It's got a real face, it's got a real impact, and it's already happening. Importantly, these changes are grandfathered, meaning that current investors can continue their existing arrangements, reducing disruption. The government is also reforming CGT by replacing that flat 50 per cent discount with a system based on indexing gains to inflation, alongside the minimum tax rate. This ensures that investors are taxed only in their real inflation adjusted gains, rather than paper profits. The reform is intended to return CGT to its original purpose and remove distortions that have encouraged speculative investment in property over assets.

By reducing those tax incentives that favour speculation and increasing incentives to build, the reforms are expected to improve housing supply and to improve affordability. Over time this is expected to support around 75,000 additional Australians entering homeownership. That's 75,000 real, everyday people who can get into that first home. Overall, the combined effect of these policies is to create a fairer and more balanced housing market, where investment contributes to increasing supply rather than making existing homes less affordable.

These bills also implement the working Australians tax offset and an instant $1,000 standard tax deduction through schedules 3 and 4. The WATO for individuals earning income from work will begin in the 2027-28 financial year. This offset will deliver a tax reduction to around 13.3 million working Australians, and it's a measure designed to help workers retain more earnings, to provide targeted cost-of-living relief and to encourage greater participation in our workforce. The $250 offset effectively increases the tax-free threshold for workers to $19,985, or up to $24,985 for those eligible for the low-income tax offset. Millennials and gen Z are expected to make up around two-thirds of those who benefit, making this a targeted initiative to support younger generations in getting ahead. Importantly, this is a permanent structural reform, not a temporary measure.

These reforms are designed to create a tax system that is more efficient, more equitable and easier to navigate, because, when a taxation system means that a nurse working shift work, a copper on the beat or a person looking after our youngest or our oldest Australians is paying more tax on their wages earned than someone earning from assets, it means the system is broken. This government and these bills are here to fix it.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one voted for these taxes. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised more than 50 times he would not introduce them, yet here we are. The Albanese Labor government's budget changes to the capital gains tax and negative gearing demonstrate their inclination to tax ambition first and justify later. This is a budget of broken promises that takes a wrecking ball to the Australian dream and pulls the ladder of opportunity up on the next generation. Labor is reaching deeper into the pockets of millions of hardworking Australians because it cannot manage the nation's finances. The Albanese Labor government has won an award for something, though. It is now the highest taxing government in Australian history. Well done!

The budget locks in $50 billion in higher taxes, and the Prime Minister has now confirmed $273 billion in taxes Australians never voted for. Debt is heading towards $1.25 trillion. The interest bill is running at around $80,000 a minute, and today's debt is tomorrow's tax bill, a bill handed to the next generation.

The Albanese Labor government is selling this as 'intergenerational fairness', as if it is something to be proud of. It's not intergenerational fairness; it is intergenerational fraud. There is nothing fair about making young Australians pay for the consequences of government failure. Every element of this package targets aspiration It targets Australians trying to get ahead—the self-starters, the risk-takers and the people building businesses, saving deposits and investing for the future. It's as if Labor thinks that we just forget.

In 2019, Labor went to the Australian people with sweeping tax changes, slashing the capital gains tax discount and abolishing negative gearing. They expected applause. But Australians overwhelmingly rejected that and they were not elected. At the 2022 election they stayed quiet. The Prime Minister preached to all Australians that he was a man of his word, that his word was 'his bond' and that there were 'no taxes to see here'. At the 2025 election the Prime Minister repeated this promise more than 50 times and said that an Albanese Labor government would not impose changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Fast forward to 2026 and the Prime Minister has done the unthinkable: he has gone back on his word. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that times have changed and they need to respond to a changing environment. That's wrong, Prime Minister. You were elected on a promise of no changes to CGT and no changes to negative gearing. Australians will not forget and they will take this as a stark reminder that your word and your bond mean absolutely nothing.

Australians instinctively understand something this government still refuses to learn. If you punish aspiration, people stop aspiring. And when you punish the people who build things—the people who wire our homes, pour our slabs, fix our pipes and train the next generation—you don't hurt the rich. You hollow out the backbone of communities like mine in Lindsay.

As of 30 June 2025 there were more than 2.7 million actively trading businesses in Australia. This budget practically taunts them— work harder, risk more, build something extraordinary then pay for daring to dream. What does that do to confidence? What does that do to the apprentice told to dream big only to learn the system punishes dreamers. What does that do to the tradie who's put in a lifetime of work, ready to pass the tools on, only to find the finish line has been pushed further away? Australians aren't asking for special treatment; they're asking for a fair go.

Nowhere is Labor's assault on aspiration more obvious than in housing. The government's own budget papers show 35,000 fewer homes will be built. The Real Estate Institute of Australia's modelling lands in the same place: 33,000 fewer new builds. These two different sources tell one story—fewer homes, higher rents, deeper pain.

The Real Estate Institute of Australia has warned that Labor's CGT changes will worsen housing shortages and push rents even higher. New modelling from the REIA, Master Builders Australia and the Property Council shows the budget's housing measures would push rents up by $9 a week, a 350 per cent increase on the budget's own forecasts; reduce new housing supply by 8,700 homes; cut GDP by $864 million; and cost more than 3,800 construction jobs. When you tax something, you get less of it. That's Economics 101.

In Penrith city, 30.2 per cent of rental households were already paying $450 or more per week at the last census. The average rent is now $600. Regentville had 45 per cent of households paying more than a third of their income on rent. These aren't just numbers; they're people—the single mum working two jobs and watching half her pay disappear on her rent, the young couple delaying having a baby because they can't afford a bigger place, the pensioner skipping heat in winter to keep a roof overhead.

Mortgage stress is rising too. If the Reserve Bank were to lift the cash rate next week, 1.57 million mortgage holders would be pushed into the danger zone, an increase of 104,000. The share of mortgage holders at risk of mortgage stress would rise to 30.7 per cent, edging close to the GFC peak of 35.6 per cent. Casula in Western Sydney has the highest arrears. One in 40 mortgaged homeowners is falling behind. Cambridge Gardens in my electorate is not far behind that.

For young Australians trying to save a deposit, the picture is even bleaker. Labor's five per cent deposit scheme is supposed to help young people into homes sooner, yet families now fear that a single rate rise or even a modest downturn could push them into negative equity. With analysts warning of property dips of up to 10 per cent under this budget, that fear isn't hypothetical; it is a red flag waving furiously. According to the first home buyers dashboard, 2,912 homes have been purchased under the scheme. In my electorate, that's hundreds of families—many of them young, many of them first generation homeowners—now lying awake at night wondering whether the home they fought so hard to buy could be worth less than the debt attached to it.

For many Australians, property is their single biggest financial asset, and most investors are not wealthy—71 per cent own just one investment property; 19 per cent own two. They're everyday Australians trying to build a nest egg, so they don't end up on welfare in retirement, because not everyone understands crypto, not everyone plays the stock market. Many put their faith in something they do understand—bricks and mortar. A small unit in St Marys, an old townhouse in Emu Plains, a modest investment property in Werrington Downs is something solid, something they can touch. In Lindsay the latest available ATO data showed 5,511 people made a net rent profit, which is just 13.1 per cent of taxpayers in Lindsay, and almost 60 per cent made a net rent loss. In other words, 7.8 per cent of all taxpayers in Lindsay negatively geared a property. They are Australians who saved, sacrificed and planned for their future, and right now they feel like the one thing they built is being taken away from them.

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, one-third of family businesses will pass to the next generation in the next five years, but Labor's CGT changes threaten to turn that handover into a financial ambush. The government insists small business is protected, but business groups warn 200,000 growing businesses could lose access to key concessions. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has urged the government to rethink its approach, arguing investment in business should never be penalised. At a recent small-business roundtable in Lindsay I heard the frustration and the anger firsthand. There was a real sense of deflation in the room, a feeling that, no matter how hard people work, the goalposts just keep being moved. A theme emerged: what's the point?

CGT was the proverbial bull in the China shop. Australians are being punished for inflation they did not create. Every time prices rise, the government takes a little more. Every time wages merely keep pace with inflation, the taxman reaches in as if Australians are suddenly richer, and they're not. Under Labor, bracket creep has become a stealth tax on aspiration—a quiet, relentless stealing of household budgets year after year without a single vote being cast.

The coalition will end it. We will introduce a tax-back guarantee, a safeguard to ensure Australians are never taxed more simply because prices have gone up. Under our plan, when inflation rises, tax thresholds will rise with it. Your pay packet will no longer be raided just because of the cost of living. From 2028 to 2029, we will index the bottom two income tax thresholds to inflation, protecting 85 per cent of income earners and delivering around $250 in the first year, growing to more than $1,000 by year four. From 2031 to 2032, we will index the top two thresholds as well, delivering immediate relief of $1,250 to $1,600. This is not a temporary fix. This is structural reform—true generational reform—that restores honesty to the tax system and fairness to the Australian worker. It is because Australians should not be punished for keeping up; they should be rewarded for getting ahead.

As if taxing aspiration in life weren't enough, Labor is now taxing aspiration in death too. The Albanese government hid a 30 per cent death tax in their budget papers like an Easter egg, deliberately buried, hoping no-one would find it. When the Prime Minister was asked in question time to rule out a death tax, he just wouldn't. We know why he couldn't rule it out—because he had already introduced one buried in the fine print he hoped Australians wouldn't read

This is a government that lied more than 50 times before the election about not introducing new taxes on homes, rentals, investments and family savings, and now it's been caught trying to sneak a death tax through on top of it all. The deception is breathtaking. The government calls this intergenerational fairness, but taxing what families pass on to the next generation is not fairness. This is a government inserting itself between grandparents and grandchildren and claiming a cut of a lifetime's worth of sacrifice and saving. The targets are not the wealthy with complex structures and expensive accountants. The targets are the families who saved and sacrificed to have something to pass on, not as a luxury but as an expression of what it means to love your kids. The Prime Minister is fuelling fights over Sunday roasts all over Australia between generations about what will be left and what the taxman has taken. That is not the Australia we want to build. That is the politics of resentment applied to the family dinner table.

Young Australians are already being kneecapped on their rent, on their deposit and on their investment returns, and they now face the prospect of getting nothing at the end of the family line either because the government will take its cut from trusts and estates. A government that taxes aspiration in life and taxes aspiration in death is not a government for the future.

The housing crisis cannot be separated from migration, because supply and demand cannot be separated from reality. Under Labor, Australia has taken 1.4 million people, the population of Adelaide, far more than the homes we have built. With 90,000 more people than planned arriving over the next two years, the government is stoking demand while choking supply. This is not sustainable. This is not responsible. This is certainly not fair on young Australians already struggling to find a place to live. Labor's approach is simple: bring in more people than we can house and then tax away the investment that builds homes.

The coalition will restore common sense. A coalition government will cap net overseas migration each year based on the number of new homes completed. Never again will a government be able to bring in more people than a housing market can support. In the early years, migration will need to be significantly below the cap to allow the housing market to catch up after Labor's record migration wave. We will also establish a $5 billion housing infrastructure fund to unlock up to 400,000 homes by funding essential last-mile infrastructure like water, sewerage, power and access roads, and we will simplify the National Construction Code to cut up to $70,000 off the cost of a new home. This is how you fix a housing crisis. You build more homes, you match migration to capacity and you stop punishing the people who invest in supply.

A country cannot thrive when its government treats aspiration like a taxable offence. A nation cannot grow when its workers are punished for keeping up and when its dreamers are punished for daring to get ahead. Australians deserve a government that backs them, not one that punishes them for just doing their best and for having a dream and aspiration. I'm happy to promise that 50 times because, unlike the Prime Minister, I intend to keep my promise.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

If you think about the times in your life that can be milestones for leaping into homeownership, it's getting a full-time job, partnering, starting a family. It's just not possible for the same decisions to be made by today's younger people as it was for my generation. Saving for a deposit takes longer, and we've seen that the price rises in housing mean that, in spite of hard work and saving, homeownership remains out of reach for so many. The data shows us that the likelihood of owning your own home in your 20s or 30s has fallen for each successive generation, and we on this side of the parliament don't believe that that is good enough.

The most recent data shows that just 55 per cent of millennials were homeowners compared with 62 per cent of gen X at the same age in 2006 and 66 per cent of boomers at the same age in 1991. The trajectory of renters is rising, and through the 2030s and 2050s that will continue unless something changes. Australia is moving from the norm of most people owning their own home by the time they retire to one where many will still have a mortgage or not have bought a home ever by that stage of life. That's the scale of the problem that we have in Australia. It's the problem we've been tackling ever since we came to government, after a decade of no action by those opposite.

We've recognised that in the first instance we needed to get supply happening. That meant training workers, and I'm so pleased to see the figures today showing that more than 25,000 Australians have already started an apprenticeship in housing construction in just 10 months, thanks to the Albanese Labor government's $10,000 Key Apprenticeship Program, which provides $10,000 in incentives to new tradies. That program is helping to build a pipeline of skilled tradies in the critically important housing construction sector, ensuring that there are more Australians building more homes in communities across the country, including mine. It's also tackling critical skills shortages that we were left with after the former coalition government left office with shortages at a 50-year high. We've also helped first home buyers with five per cent deposits and Help to Buy, and that has helped more than 1,350 people in Macquarie move from being a renter into their own home.

But what we've done so far is not enough, and I know my community expects me to keep finding solutions for the problems that we face. One of our stated aims in the budget we just brought down was to make it easier for you to buy your first home, and that's what this bill is: a recognition that, as a government, we will continue to do what's best to provide opportunities for secure housing for people. Secure housing is something I was able to do as a matter of course in my 20s, and I think younger generations deserve to be able to make the same choices.

We're reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions so that we level the playing field for first home buyers but grandfathering arrangements for some of the measures, to respect decisions that current investors have made. If you've already negatively geared or own an investment property, you can continue to do so. If investors still want to use negative gearing on additional property in the future, they can do so on new builds, so that their investment goes towards creating more housing supply—more homes for more people. We're replacing the 50 per cent discount with cost-base indexation for gains accrued after 1 July, with a 30 per cent minimum tax.

These changes fix the tax treatment of capital gains so that the system operates as originally intended and helps direct investment to where it's most productive. These changes mean that, in the future, investors aren't taxed on inflationary gains, only their real gains. This is about returning the capital gains tax discount to its original purpose and removing that big distortion introduced by Howard and Costello in 1999—interestingly, the point at which housing took off and housing prices rose dramatically, much faster than people's incomes rose. That was the root of the problem. That distortion, which coincided with house prices increasing much faster than wages, was because the playing field was changed. It was unlevelled, and our job is to level it back.

Property investors who buy new builds will be able to choose either the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount or indexation and the minimum tax when they sell the property. We're applying these changes to capital gains arrangements to all assets to ensure we're not introducing new distortions into the system. This is about reducing distortions, encouraging people to invest in the best possible place for them, and that is not just investing in the housing market through old houses but by building new ones.

If the opposition really cared about this issue, we would have seen it when they were in government, and, clearly, we didn't. But what I've heard in their speeches is very disturbing. They seem to pretend that there is no problem. But listen to the abject despair you hear from people in their 20s, 30s and even 40s, who are saying they do not feel they will ever have the chance to own their own home in spite of holding down good, full-time jobs and having saved. If they haven't heard that message then they are just not listening to young people. What's interesting is that I don't hear it just from young people. I hear it from their mums and dads. I hear it from their grandparents. That is our objective: to address a really fundamental issue and, over time, make it much easier for people to buy their own home.

There's been some comment about the data showing the numbers of people in various electorates who negative gear. I want to give a shout-out to people who have looked at the situation and said that, on balance, what we're doing is the right way ahead. There's Michelle and Andrew, who say: 'We don't have children ourselves, but we worry about all young people struggling to afford life, given the housing crisis, amongst other things. We'd like to say an enormous thankyou for the fantastic changes the Albanese government has made to ending the unfairness of capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing that favours investors over first home buyers.'

Amanda wrote to me that it's unfair to see our children unable to buy a house and watch the wealthy getting wealthier. She said: 'The government's doing the right thing. I'll forever blame John Howard for the mess he made of real estate in Australia.' And Kyle says: 'I'm writing to commend the government's steps in the federal budget to address longstanding distortions in the housing market. These policies have contributed to housing affordability challenges by disproportionately favouring speculative investment over access to secure housing.' This is the playing field that we are levelling.

If the opposition votes against this bill, that's what they're voting against: allowing more young people to get into housing at a reasonable age so that they have a chance of having it paid off by retirement. They're also voting against a tax cut for every working Australian, because the other key feature of this bill is its tax cut. From this next financial year, there's the new instant tax deduction of up to $1,000 every year, which will simplify work related expense deductions, delivering 6.2 million workers an average benefit of an extra $205 in that year. And I should point out that if you want to claim charitable donations, union and professional association membership fees, or other deductions they can still be claimed on top of the instant tax deduction. That's about making things simpler and fairer.

The following year we're introducing the Working Australians Tax Offset, the WATO, providing another ongoing annual tax cut for more than 13 million Australian workers. This measure comes in from 1 July next year and it will be paid automatically in workers' tax returns. The tax cut is on top of the three tax cuts that the government has already legislated. These flow through every tax bracket, meaning that every taxpayer receives these tax cuts. The measure recognises that for most Australians, particularly young people, income comes from work, and the tax system should reflect that. It's deliberately designed to support younger Australians and millennials, with gen Z expected to make up about two-thirds of the beneficiaries, and it is a really practical way to support that generation. This tax package is, across the board, pro-aspiration, pro-worker and pro-investment, and it means we are building a better, fairer, simpler tax system.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the all-time classic novels is by HG Wells. It's The Time Machine. He wrote it back in 1895. And I must say, too, that I love the movie, with Rod Taylor, of 1960, and I encourage all government members to watch it. It's got this classic scene. Obviously he's gone forward in time and the world is a different place, with all these humans dressed in white dresses—and the guys all looking great too!—and they're picking up fruit, and it looks like the most amazing utopian place ever.

Then all of a sudden he hears sirens coming from two large doors. The doors open up into a cave underground, and he's trying to stop all the humans from going in there, because obviously he's travelled in time and doesn't know what they're doing. This actually reminds me of Labor's caucus, when they're all just going in there aimlessly. What happens to the humans in the time machine is that they end up being taken prisoner and held as slaves by these underground creatures. Worse still, they end up getting eaten and destroyed. Can I just make the point to the Labor MPs that this is what you are doing now when you're following your prime minister into supporting all these changes, in particular when it comes to trusts and capital gains tax. You are just blindly following the leader, and your seats will be at risk because the devastation is so much so.

I've been here before in my own government side with a budget the community didn't like. Can I just say we spoke up at the time, and the budget was changed. The Labor members will not do that. If you're just going to blindly follow your leader and not listen to your business community and especially all those people who have set up trusts—in every single phone call, I speak to a business person. I ask, 'Have you got to trust?', and they say, 'Yes, I set up the trust was advised by my accountant.' I go back to my time as the minister when it came to multicultural affairs and the shadow minister. Every Indian accountant and every multicultural accountant I know always tells their clients, who, obviously normally due to language barriers, go to their person can also speak the mother tongue, especially if you've got connections overseas—they've advised them to set up trusts. If one of the family members is not working, you can divert the income to them.

Labor, as we know, has changed that, and it's been absolutely rushed through this week. They're going to be hit with a 30 per cent tax, and that is absolutely devastating. When it comes to the capital gains taxes too, no longer are you going to get the 50 per cent discount. I'm speaking to young—I listened to the Labor member before me saying how amazing it is and how it's going to help young people. Can I tell you now the young people I speak to who are trying to get in front have been investing in shares and using that as their home deposit. They're going to be hit in the future, and they're not going to get the same benefit as obviously the Prime Minister and people like myself have received. I've done negative gearing in the past. They're not actually giving the young people a break. You're actually giving them a huge burden, and it's going to really hurt them. The people who benefit the most from Labor's changes when it comes to the negative gearing—it's not going to be mum and dad who's going to say, 'Why don't we actually subdivide our little block and put a couple of townhouses on it?' In my electorate of La Trobe, it's the big land developers who may own 30 or 40 hectares. When they develop those, they're going to be selling those to two groups. It's going to be the investors in there fighting with the first home owners.

The other issue is areas—I've mentioned this before in the Dandenong Ranges—such as Cockatoo, Gembrook and Emerald, there are not many places for rent up there, and there's not much land for redevelopment. There's hardly a block up there that you can actually redevelop. We have green wedge zones, so the land's not there. All those young kids leaving school et cetera and who want to stay close to the parents—there are going to be no places to rent. They have to go down like 30 or 40 minutes away. That will be the closest we're going to actually see.

When we look at this budget, the projected decade of deficits is about $150 billion and gross debt $1.25 trillion. I was first elected under John Howard, and we actually had a final budget with Peter Costello. I think the surplus was like $97 billion. That's completely gone. Annual interest is over $42 billion each year, roughly $80,000 per minute. Higher taxes announced are about $50 billion in total, including $15 billion personal income tax. Government spending is the highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic.

Again, this is putting huge pressure on inflation, with everything going up. I know the Labor treasurer. I like the Treasurer, but he's got this wrong. He and the Prime Minister talk about it being because of the war in Iran and the fuel going up. Well, hang on. We had the highest inflation rates out of any Western economy even before that. The reason is that the government has spent so much money. This has put so much pressure on interest rates, and the Reserve Bank governor has had no discretion but to raise the rates. Also, in the government's own budget papers, it says there will be 35,000 fewer homes built.

And then I come to another one. This has really betrayed our seniors, who over the years have paid for their health insurance. You get the warning—'If you don't get health insurance, you'll be paying extra for your Medicare, and you'll be paying more for it.' So people have chosen to do the right thing. Labor has betrayed Australians that are 65-plus, who after a lifetime of paying health insurance premiums are being hit with major changes in Labor's budget. Labor is removing the private health rebate for people over 65, cutting support purely based on age and not their income. So you get to retirement, and you've been planning this for many years, and they just hit you in the guts. Scrapping the private health rebate means up to $807 extra a year for singles and $1,600 for couples. That's a lot of money if you're a pensioner or retired. Seniors already struggling with rising bills now face another financial hit. Thousands may drop their insurance entirely. Again, what does that mean? It means that for the younger generation their premiums go up. It's as simple as that. More seniors relying on public care means longer waits and more pressure on hospitals, as we know. Again, this hasn't been thought out.

'My word is my bond'—I'll challenge any Labor MP to put that on their next brochure going out to their electorate. I just can't see it happening. That is a slogan that is never going to be used again in Australian history by any member of parliament or by any businessperson. There won't be anyone standing up and going, 'You know what? I promise you—my word is my bond,' because the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has completely destroyed that slogan.

The old rule was a 50 per cent discount on capital gains assets held for 12 months or more. The new rule is that those 50 per cent discounts will be replaced by inflation indexation plus 30 per cent minimum tax on gains applied from 2027. Again, for everyone who has been seeing their accountants for years and taken all this into account, it's going to change. This policy will raise taxes on ordinary Australians and reduce rental supply. Sellers will pay more tax under the new rules than under the old 50 per cent discount, obviously. Not just big investors but small landlords, retirees and long-term owners face higher tax bills. Some investors may sell or drop off buying established homes. I know this is what the government's tactic is. We want the investors to get out of the market, so in actual fact it actually allows the first home buyers to get in. But at the same time too, when it comes to rentals, you need the investors to be there. Most investors in this space are actually mum and dad investors. We're going to talk about the multicultural communities. A lot of these guys have negatively geared properties, and in the future they're not going to be going and buying another one.

At the same time, think about this. If I owned—which I don't—three or four negatively geared properties, even two negatively geared properties, do you think I'll be selling those at the moment? They're like gold dust now because they're going to get the benefit. So people will hold onto those existing ones, and they're not going to go and sell one to go and take the risk of buying an off-the-plan where potentially things can go wrong with builders. If they've got an existing dwelling which is doing well, why would you sell it to go invest elsewhere? So a lot of the investors are going to hold onto those properties. This is what's been told to me by people in the property industry.

Again, when it comes to the capital gains tax, I make the point that for young people in particular it's going to be tough on them when they've been putting money into shares and planning for their future. As I said, Labor is hitting those with deposits when it comes to home deposits and when it comes to shares. I know my electorate has taken up, like many around Australia, the five per cent deposit scheme. What I'm hearing now is that the house value has actually dropped. You can have a bank loan larger than the value of your property. Obviously, in ten years, property prices will increase. But what if that young person in five years time wants to move out and start a family et cetera? The Labor government is hoping that everything lines up for that young person. And if it goes wrong—and I think it's going to go terribly wrong—it's going to put a great burden on them financially.

The other thing which I and so many people are really annoyed about is the trust situation. I mentioned this before. When people go and see their accountant, they're advised, 'You know what, it could be a good idea, for younger people too, for one of the family members—it could be the husband, wife, partner or whoever—if you're not working, to set up a trust where you can distribute any gains.' And yes, of course, it's a way of—how should I say—not paying the tax you normally would. But now, as that money goes into the trust, they're going to be hit by a 30 per cent tax.

What I'm hearing at the moment is that everyone who's got these trusts is going to the accountant and asking what they need to do. And the accountants are at the moment saying, 'Hey, hopefully they will make some changes.' Obviously, it doesn't sound like they're going to. So they're paying the accountant a fee at the moment to get some advice to basically do nothing. Then, after this week, they're going to be paying the accountant for advice on: 'What do I need to do next? Do I need to set up a company? Do I need to get out of the trust?' Like 800,000 people's tax arrangements must change because of this measure. That's 800,000 people in Australia who, at the very worst, on advice from the accountant, will be changing plans which they've put into effect possibly 10 years ago, and they're leading up to retirement, and all these things are going to change.

And this budget is bad for young people. Young people don't feel helped by the budget. Many think they'll be worse off. Labor's changes close the pathway to buying a home and building wealth. Gen X and millennials feel forgotten too. New taxes and housing rules make buying and renting harder and more expensive. More homes won't appear as quickly as the government estimates. In actual fact—I'll go back to the budget papers—that reduction of 35,000 is promised by the government in its own budget papers. Small landlords will exit the system, and it's going to be a devastating time for investment.

An amount of times, the Prime Minister, prior to last election, said, 'My word is my bond.' But, again, on 9 April, when asked about changes to negative gearing and CGT—'How hard is it?' Condescendingly, that's what he says for the 50th time. Again, on 22 April, he said, 'I rule it out. There are no plans.' It was live TV. 'We won't cut the CGT.' In August 2025 he said, 'The only tax policy we implement is the one that we took to the election.' Well, obviously that hasn't happened.

I just finish off by saying, no-one will ever use 'my word is my bond' ever again in Australia, whether in politics or business. I challenge all the Labor members—I see the member for Bruce—to put that on your next brochure: 'My word is my bond.'

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. The most common refrain that I have heard in my 13 months of being the member for Sturt and engaging my community is this. People say: 'Claire, you've got a majority. When are you going to do something with it?' And, by 'something', people don't mean just delivering the government's agenda. They mean doing something bold, like designing and implementing big and overdue reform. They say to me, 'If you won't do it now, you'll never do it.' They repeatedly ask, 'When are you going to do something?'

Well, the answer is now. We are doing something now. And the measures in this budget represent bold reform. Pursuing bold reform and making tough decisions is what you get from the progressive side of politics. This government is not afraid to make tough decisions, even when it knows that some Australians won't forgive us for it. Some people can't move past goalposts being changed. But, on the progressive side of politics, we recognise that sometimes they need to shift. When nurses, teachers, social workers and early childhood education workers can't afford to buy a house reasonably close to where they live, the goalposts need to shift. When first homebuyers are locked out of the housing market, over and over and over, the goalposts need to shift, because secure housing, for everyone, is everything.

Now, changes and big reform do stir emotions. They bring up genuine human concerns, like a fear of loss or a desire for fairness. And there are, of course, different and divergent beliefs about what fairness actually means and what makes a good and prosperous society. These are perfectly rational questions, and, with the handing down of this budget, we've seen different answers and different approaches to what fairness is and to what makes a good and prosperous society.

On the conservative side, the underlying concern is maintaining the status quo—the belief that sudden change and bold reform carry risks that are easy to underestimate and too hard to undo. Individuality forms the backbone of conservatism, and there are reasons why this must sometimes be prioritised. I believe in the rights of the individual and in personal accountability, and in the right of the individual to aspire to whatever it is they want to aspire to.

But I also believe that progressive politics and progressive policy have a different and important perspective to offer. Those on the conservative side consider that existing structures are always worth preserving, because they've worked for some in the past. Progressivism, on the other hand, examines existing structures and then reforms them—moves them forward. It recognises that what worked in the past does not necessarily work right now and will not necessarily work into the future.

So, in examining and reforming pre-existing structures, progressivism has the following at the front of its mind: justice; the belief in a level playing field; the recognition that inherited disadvantages are not a fiction—they are real—and that there is a responsibility to address them if a just society is to be achieved. Access to quality health care, quality education and secure long-term housing are rights, rather than privileges, for progressives; they are rights for everyone, not just for some. Cohesion, solidarity, fellowship, harmony—this is the underlying claim to progressivism: that we live in a community together and that we are therefore responsible, in a sense, for one another. This means an understanding that, when only some people have the opportunity to embrace aspiration, when only some people have the agency to pursue their aspirations as individuals, and when some people lose the birth lottery and are born into poverty, or sickness, or disability, or something else that prevents them not only from achieving their aspirations but even from starting, this does not reflect a good and prosperous society.

Now, by 'aspiration', I do not mean just becoming wealthy—although that is a perfectly legitimate aspiration. I'm referring to people who aspire to pay for health care; people who aspire to be able to afford to go to university or TAFE; people who aspire to get out of the cycle of renting and who aspire to buy a home. There are, of course, people in Australia who aspire to, and can, buy a third or fourth investment property—and more power to them; that is great. If you can do that, and become self-sufficient, then that is a good thing. But others can't even get off the ground.

So, for my country, I have many different aspirations. I aspire for people to get ahead, to buy property, to build and grow their superannuation, and to set up and then grow and sell businesses. I aspire for Australians who can become wealthy to become wealthy. But my aspiration in this sense is balanced against my aspiration for all Australians to be able to afford to see a doctor; to be able to afford to get a quality education that will set them up; to be able to buy a home of their own—not to create wealth, but to create security for themselves and their families.

So this budget is not a war on aspiration; it is an acknowledgement that aspiration takes many forms and that, in a good and prosperous society, everyone is entitled to aspiration and everyone must contribute to it. That's what this budget seeks to do, and I ask you, Deputy Speaker: Who will do this if this government doesn't? Who will bake in urgent care clinics and make them permanent if we don't? Who, if we don't, will invest in more bulk-billing so Australians who aspire to be able to afford to see a doctor can see a doctor? Who, if we don't, will recognise that housing is unaffordable for first home buyers and implement schemes like the five per cent deposit scheme at the same time as investing $2 billion in enabling works to facilitate the building of more houses? Who, if we don't, will implement free TAFE so Australians can obtain a qualification in a critical trade or area where there are skill shortages? Who will back low-paid workers again and again if we don't? Who, if we don't, will improve the tax incentives for venture capital investors to encourage more investment in Australian startups with growth potential and the flow of more capital into this country? Who, if we don't, will create a framework where 90 per cent of Australian small businesses qualify for an exemption from the capital gains tax? We know the only people who will pursue a just and fair transition to renewable energy and provide opportunities for individual households to obtain the benefit of this through the Cheaper Home Batteries Program are those in this government. Who will do it if we don't?

The budget facilitates these aspirations because it is bold. It is progressive. So, to those in my community who ask me, 'When is your government going to do something?' the answer is, 'Right now.' Examining existing structures and reforming them is what we are doing, and, in doing so, we understand that reforming pre-existing structures requires genuine and meaningful consultation with the business community, which is what we are doing. I again thank those small businesses that I represent in my community of Sturt, who engage with me so constructively on this issue. Being progressive means not standing still or staying the same. So when is this government going to do something? Now. I commend the bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) | Link to this | Hansard source

The four measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 prove that Labor is the party of aspiration. They prove that Labor is the party of fairness. Importantly, Labor is the party of homeownership and Labor is the party of lower income taxes for every working Australian. This bill, which every single Labor member of the House of Representatives is looking forward to voting for tomorrow, delivers a new $250 working Australians tax offset to over 13 million working Australians; a $1,000 instant tax deduction that will benefit around six million low- and middle-income Australians; and reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax that will rebalance the tax system and finally give young people a fair crack at homeownership.

This legislation also demonstrates that Labor is the party of reform. We're not in government just to occupy the space; we're here to get the big things done. At a time when Australians feel like the economy isn't working for them, our government is not going to waste a single moment defending a system that everyone knows is broken, nor are we going to sit back and wring our hands and hope that something will turn up. Instead, we take responsibility. We take action. We are delivering real change that makes a real difference, and that is what is at the centre of this legislation.

Four weeks from now, on 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. That will be the second round of tax cuts delivered by our Labor government, with a third round on the way for every taxpayer on 1 July next year. And we're not stopping there. This legislation delivers two more reductions in income tax—a total of five tax cuts for working Australians under our government, delivering a total saving of over $2,800 for average workers. It's fitting that we're legislating for these new tax cuts in a week that confirmed five consecutive increases in the minimum wage, every single one of them backed by our government with submissions to the Fair Work Commission.

Now, those things also have something in common, which is that all of our tax cuts have been opposed by those opposite—all five—and on no occasion in the history of the Liberal and National parties have they ever made a submission to the Fair Work Commission saying that real wages should be maintained, let alone increased—not once, not ever. We on this side of the House want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Those on the opposite side of the House now, with the three right-wing parties and their allies—we saw some of the commentary of the allies this morning—want people to earn less, and they oppose income tax cuts. Five tax cuts plus five wage increases equal millions of Australians benefiting directly from the policies that our government has put in place.

Our new $1,000 instant tax deduction is cost-of-living relief, but it's also economic reform because it means that everyone can opt for an automatic tax deduction of $1,000 on their work expenses—no research needed, no scrolling back through your online banking. Just tick the box and your tax return is ready to go, and you'll receive that deduction. This is a productivity measure that takes away the hassle of tracking your expenses, and it will mean that millions of people who work part time or work from home or don't have their own accountant don't pay more tax than they should. No-one will be worse off under this reform, but nearly six million taxpayers, overwhelmingly low- and middle-income earners and young Australians, will be better off.

The $250 working Australians tax offset is the first important step in rebalancing the tax system to better reward hard work. For too long, Australia has taxed income earnt through wages and work too heavily because we haven't had the balance right with income derived from assets. This legislation recognises a very simple fact—that the overwhelming majority of Australians earn their living by going to work. That's where the income comes from—teachers and nurses and cleaners, police officers, people in retail and hospitality. Millions of Australians who work their guts out to make ends meet and provide for their families have probably never even heard of a discretionary trust, and they will never have the means or the opportunity to use one to minimise the tax that they pay. This legislation makes our tax system work better for these 13 million Australians by returning more of the money that they earn.

At our campaign launch in Perth last year, I quoted from a report that the great Ben Chifley had commissioned as Minister for Post-War Reconstruction. That report said that housing was 'not only the need but the right of every citizen'. Eight decades separate our government from that one, but we are still the party of homeownership. Those values that led the Curtin and Chifley governments in postwar reconstruction—the values of resilience, of making things here in Australia, of aspiration for Australians, going forward—are very much what drive our Labor government. We also understand that when it comes to homeownership a secure roof over your head is a foundation—for better education for your children, for better health for yourself and your family, and for that security that comes from knowing you can have that certainty going forward.

It is also critical for the people we've met already who've benefited from our range of programs—$47 billion under the Homes for Australia Plan—whether it's those who've benefited from the Housing Australia Fund for social housing, those who've benefited from the Build to Rent scheme or Help to Buy, the shared equity scheme, or those who've benefited from our five per cent deposits, which is more than 250,000 Australians. Having that secure roof is also how they can plan to have a family, how couples can plan to get ahead in life.

We understand that our focus has been very much on boosting housing supply. That's why we've spent the past four years working to build more homes, and we've thrown everything at it. We're also throwing everything at the labour market, with free TAFE and $10,000 construction or electrical apprenticeships—all opposed by those opposite—and 100,000 new homes being set aside for first home buyers, the Housing Australia Future Fund. Not only have all these measures been opposed and delayed when they've been introduced into this parliament but also the current parliamentary opposition leader committed, in the budget reply, to getting rid of all those programs. Again, the party that didn't bother to have a housing minister for most of their time in government also still want to get rid of programs that are proving to be very successful.

We know that thousands of Australians have benefited from these programs, but we knew we needed to do more. Despite all those programs, we still were not doing enough, because too many young people will tell the story of turning up to an auction on a Saturday and simply being outbid by an investor, someone who has a partner at that auction—and that partner is every Australian taxpayer, because if an investor is in a bidding war at an auction they know that if they go the $20,000 more then that's money off their tax, if they're going to negatively gear that property. It's something that's not available to the first home buyer.

That's why the system has simply been working against them. The changes the Howard government made to capital gains tax in 1999 were meant to boost investment in the share market. Instead, they turbocharged property investment. Year after year, more and more young Australians were being locked out of the market by tax breaks that favoured property investors, widening the gap between the generations and eating away at aspiration. Since 1999, house prices have risen by more than 400 per cent, more than two times as fast as average incomes. In the same period, the rate of homeownership among Australians aged 25 to 34 has fallen by seven per cent.

We owe the next generation better than this, and that's what these reforms are about. These reforms are for young people who are working hard, are making sacrifices, are doing everything right but have spent years missing out at auctions. These changes are for young Australians who are this close to just giving up on buying a home altogether. We say to those young Australians: my government has got your back. We are on your side and we're going to bring the great Australian dream back within reach. Importantly, when it comes to negative gearing, that concession will still be available for new homes. So, if people want to invest in a property and negatively gear it, good on them. But, from now on, as well as building their own wealth and assets, they'll also be building the wealth and assets of our nation.

Part of what makes Australia the best country on earth is that, in Australia, aspiration isn't exclusive or narrow. It's not just people who are born wealthy. Every Australian aspires to a better life for themselves and importantly a better life for their children and grandchildren. It is not something you can only inherit; it is an opportunity that you can earn, a dream you can achieve with hard work and sacrifice. That is the Australian aspiration we're proud to be backing with these reforms—aspiration for all Australians, not just for some; a society and economy that's stronger and fairer, stronger because it is fairer; and a nation that is more resilient—because more Australians have a stake in the economy and a stake in the future. That's what drives our Labor government. That's the real change that we are delivering. That's why I'm proud to join with every single member of the Labor government in commending these bills to the House.

Debate interrupted.