Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) | Hansard source

So far, we've had three iterations of this terrible budget. We had the first iteration on 12 May, where we first saw the 30 per cent tax. We had the second iteration of this terrible budget on 18 June, when the Prime Minister humiliated the Treasurer by announcing on his own letterhead a slew of changes to this budget on his own website, which also gutted this legislation that we'll be dealing with tomorrow and promised a future tranche of legislation would deal with the key definitions including what a new build would be. Then we had the third iteration of this budget on 23 June, when the Prime Minister announced that he'd been able to cobble together a deal with the Australian Greens on the passage of his budget bills.

Now, this third iteration, of course, has been conducted without any consultation with anyone and is another element of arbitrage that we're going to see in this market. But a precursor to all this was the knowledge in the Prime Minister's mind that he was going to change negative gearing and capital gains tax. The question is: when did he first make that judgement in his own mind that he was going to? Of course, in the past few years, the Prime Minister has sold a number of investment properties and has made a gain of at least $200,000. That wouldn't have been possible if the changes had been made. So the question is: when did the Prime Minister know he was going to make the changes? Has he engaged in insider trading of the sort where we've seen a person benefit from inside knowledge, make transactions, sell properties and then make changes later? I think the publications in today's press raised this spectre, that the Prime Minister has conducted himself in an improper way by engaging in insider trading in relation to his own personal property transactions.

But that is just one of the many issues with this budget. And, as I say, this third tranche of the budget, which was announced this week in the deal with the Greens, does raise the spectre of a new system in superannuation where some super funds will be able to go around and buy properties and buy houses but others will not be able to because they are, of course, self-managed super funds and Labor wants to punish individuals and families but protect their favourite vested interests. This is the golden thread of Australian Labor for these past four years, a constant commitment to look after the people that run their campaigns and that give them donations, their fellow travellers. That is what they've done, and this is just more evidence today that the government is more interested in protecting the profits and the interests of their friends than doing the right thing for the Australian people.

Of course, when you've announced three budgets or three versions of the same budget in a month, there are going to be wrinkles. We've seen today more evidence of these wrinkles in the form of death and divorce. When these things happen—and they happen to people—people will lose the benefits of negative gearing and the grandfathering that goes with them just because a spouse has died or there's been a divorce. Now how can that possibly be fair? The answers we heard in question time today from Minister Wong were totally inadequate, because the answer is they don't have any idea. They have no idea about the consequences of this budget, and that's because, when they did the regulatory impact analysis for these budget bills they were conducted on the basis of the Greens inquiry, not on the basis of the legislation presented to this parliament. The Greens model for capital gains tax and CGT reform was fundamentally different to the model that had been presented in the budget and is before this parliament today. The government has no idea of the impact. We do know that it will collapse supply, we do know that it will damage confidence and we do know that it will damage the ability of Australians to invest into their businesses and invest in their futures.

The other wrinkles we will have to sort out in future sittings of this parliament, because it can't be sustained that because a spouse has died or there's been a divorce someone should have a tax penalty. Surely that's not fair. I mean, even in the doctor evil brains that sometimes exist on the other side of this chamber, that can't be a fair and just outcome for Australian families.

I understand the real agenda here is to enrich vested interests. But surely, it can't be an agenda which hurts people because a family member has died or because there's been a divorce. There have been three iterations of this budget so far. They want to rush this bill through tomorrow. It's a disgrace, but I'm sure this won't be the last word.