Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Hansard source

No. They're cabinet documents. To be clear, I did say in my earlier answer that, if you look at Schedule 1, which is CGT—and I specifically read out the relevant paragraph—the proposal would improve gender equality by reducing the relative generosity of the current CGT discount, which primarily benefits older and higher-income taxpayers. We know that men are overrepresented at higher income levels and report a larger share of net capital gains.

I'm not tabling the document—it's a cabinet document; it's a budget document—but that's essentially summarising the analysis. We did it for the other schedules as well. On negative gearing, the proposal would support gender equality by reducing a concession that currently provides a greater benefit to higher-income taxpayers, of which the majority are likely to be men. On our support for the first home buyers component, if we're reducing investor demand for particular types of housing, that could support more women to enter the housing market. When we look at the Working Australians Tax Offset, that's fairly evenly spread across genders; it has a neutral impact there. On the instant tax deduction, women are expected to receive slightly more than half of the total tax relief provided by that measure.