Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Bragg under standing order 75, which is also shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why it misled Australians before the election by promising not to increase taxes, only to now pursue higher taxes on superannuation, savings, investments and small businesses, proving that Labor's answer to every problem is more tax, more government and less reward for hard work, enterprise and aspiration.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerk will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain why it misled Australians before the election by promising not to increase taxes, only to now pursue higher taxes on superannuation, savings, investments and small businesses, proving that Labor's answer to every problem is more tax, more government and less reward for hard work, enterprise and aspiration.

The reason this motion is being moved is that this has been an absolute dog's breakfast of a tax policy that we've seen over the last month, and I think people are over this. People are—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Bragg, I don't believe your mike's on.

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

That may be a tragedy for some.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that's better now. Would you mind starting again.

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

I'll wait for the clock to reset—very good. The whole point of this motion is about really making the point that people have had enough of politics as usual, and I think people have had enough of the incompetence as usual as presented by this government.

This treasurer, Dr Chalmers, as he styles himself, has had two tax policies in four years and both have collapsed. His first policy was to tax unrealised gains, and that collapsed last year. His second policy has been to put in place a 30 per cent tax on everything, ostensibly to improve housing affordability. Now, people are not stupid. They can see through this and they can see that putting a tax on everything else in the economy is not going to help housing. People are aware of the Treasury's own admission in the budget papers that the government will supply 35,000 fewer houses. People are not stupid, and people object to being treated as if they are idiots or children. The way that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have sought to address the Australian people over this past month or so has been objectionable at best. People are intelligent. We are living through an age where people have more access to information than they've ever had in human history. So people understand that these taxes are stupid. They understand that more tax is not good for Australia. People know this budget is bad for them and is bad for Australia because it increases the tax burden on working people. It increases the risk that we won't have the houses that we need. This 30 per cent CGT is going to be a jobs killer, an investment killer and a nation killer because it will sink our competitive position relative to other jurisdictions, which will be able to attract capital in an age where, of course, labour and capital are mobile.

The deliberate design feature of 35,000 fewer houses is bizarre, but at least it is consistent with a government that has built 30,000 fewer houses each year—just by an $80 billion investment. Who could believe that a government could increase investment to the tune of $80 billion and get fewer things as a result? When we hear these ridiculous motherhood statements from this shocking government about their investment in housing—what matters is the result. Just because you spend more money doesn't mean you get more stuff. When you lose it in corruption and productivity losses, it's gone. And when you fail to address the core problems of the red tape disaster, the CFMEU running the show, the inflated labour costs, the corruption and the crooks, then you end up with fewer things. So more money doesn't mean more stuff. I don't know what he did his PhD in, but it certainly wasn't in anything practical or anything to do with economics or housing.

Then we have this issue of the arbitrage, where the good doc has found a way to help out his bros, the unions. He's got Wayne Swan and the 40 thieves with their hands in the till. They only pay 10 per cent CGT, but everyone else pays 30 per cent. So if you're Cbus super fund and you go and buy some shares, you only pay 10 per cent capital gains. But if you're a poor old punter living somewhere in Australia and you buy the same shares, you'll pay 30 per cent. This is the system that Labor has put in place to protect its mates. It's got a secret good deal for its mates in the super funds and a similar good deal for foreign fund managers who can invest in housing and pay 15 per cent withholding tax when everyone else will pay 30. So these, at the end of the day—the arbitrage, the 30 per cent capital gains tax and, of course, the higher rents—are the consequences that the Australian people will have to live with because this government doesn't like Australian enterprise. It doesn't like the idea that people should be able to get ahead and invest.

Of course, at its fundamental point, it must be recognised that people have already paid tax on this money. We're living in a country with one of the highest pay-as-you-go systems in the world, probably the highest in the English-speaking world. And now you've got the highest capital gains tax system. So you've got more taxes than you can poke a stick at, and you've got a so-called reform, $77 billion in new taxes, which is not a reform. More tax is not reform. There are more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese because they're helping out their mates while they smash the battlers.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I find Senator Bragg's contribution on this issue somewhat curious. He has what is really an obsession with industry super funds—Cbus in particular—when they're working on delivering decent and fair retirement outcomes for all Australians, and I think it is getting in the way of Senator Bragg being able to have a look at what's really in front of us in terms of these tax reforms.

While Senator Bragg has been feeling quite eager to comment on some of those matters and these reforms here in the Senate chamber, he certainly didn't take up the full opportunity to do so during the important inquiry last week, having not attended at least half of it. Senator Bragg was notably absent for much of the detailed scrutiny undertaken by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during the inquiry and the meetings in the lead-up. It's always easier to complain at the fringes than actually engage with the evidence, but, unsurprisingly, the evidence does really matter.

The first thing the evidence tells us is that Senator Bragg's motion rests on a false premise, because here's the thing: what is before the Senate is not a new tax. What the government is proposing is a reform to the capital gains tax discount, and that distinction matters. For 26 years, Australia has provided a 50 per cent discount on capital gains for assets held for more than 12 months. That concession has become increasingly expensive, increasingly poorly targeted and increasingly difficult to justify. As I mentioned just earlier today, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that more than $38 billion in revenue has been forgone through capital gains tax concessions since 2010. Evidence before the inquiry last week estimated the annual revenue cost of existing concessions has been more than $21 billion. Governments must act and respond to impacts on the Australian people, not stand still and wring our hands because it might be too hard to undertake important reform, because Australians deserve better. We are talking about whether taxpayers should continue to subsidise one of the most generous discounts in the tax system, regardless of whether that concession is delivering public benefit.

The evidence before the inquiry was overwhelming. Who is really benefiting? Evidence presented to the committee showed that 82 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount flow to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Three-quarters flow to the top five per cent. Nearly 60 per cent flow to the top one per cent. That is not a concession primarily helping ordinary working Australians; it is a concession overwhelmingly benefiting those who already hold substantial assets, and it comes at a substantial cost. Billions of dollars in revenue are forgone every year through these arrangements. The alternative being put by Senator Bragg is to preserve billions of dollars in tax concessions flowing overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Australians while opposing tax relief for 13 million working Australians. Labor makes no apology for supporting working people over tax concessions for the already wealthy.

At a time when younger Australians are finding it harder than ever to purchase a home, when wealth inequality is growing and when income from work is often taxed more heavily than income derived from appreciating assets, it is entirely reasonable for governments to ask whether these settings remain fit for purpose. That is exactly what these reforms do. They retain recognition of inflation through indexation, they retain important small-business concessions and they retain incentives for genuine product investment. But they also recognise a simple principle: that a fair tax system should not provide the largest benefits to those who need them least.

Senator Bragg claims Australians are being misled. What is misleading is how Senator Bragg and the rest of those opposite arguing against these reforms have characterised them. Cherrypicking aspects of the reform and manipulating the data just spreads concern and anxiety, which is just incorrect. What is before the Senate is an ambitious reform agenda, and Labor makes no apology for that. We are proud to be putting forward reforms that take on structural inequities in the system—reforms that ask whether longstanding concessions are still delivering in the national interest. It should not mean preserving tax concessions that overwhelmingly benefit those who are already at the top of the income and wealth distribution. These reforms are about fairness, they are about integrity, and they are about ensuring that the Australian tax system delivers for working Australians.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia desperately needs genuinely progressive tax reform. I say to the Australian people: if you are working harder and harder and falling further and further behind, if you're struggling to pay the rent, if you're struggling to pay the mortgage, if you're struggling to get in to the housing market, if you're struggling to see a doctor, if you're struggling to pay your kids' school fees, and you are wondering where all the money's gone, check the bank balances of the billionaires. Check the bank balances of the one per cent because that is where your money is going. While you work harder and harder and pay decent amounts of tax on your income, the wealthiest one per cent of Australians are effectively paying no tax at all as their bank balances go through the roof.

Let's be really clear about something: you cannot work your way to $1 billion, let alone $2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion or $20 billion. You can't work your way to that kind of money. The only way you can make that kind of money is if you've got a massive amount of capital to start with and you invest that capital—you buy things, you buy property portfolios, you buy shares and you put your money in tax advantaged trusts. Your wealth goes up, and the government doesn't make you pay your fair share of tax on your wealth. Unlike if you go to work as a cleaner, if you go to work in hospitality, if you go to work as a nurse or if you go to work as a carpenter—you are paying your fair share of tax.

Why shouldn't the billionaires pay their fair share of tax? Why shouldn't the one per cent pay their fair share of tax? Why shouldn't the big, price-gouging, polluting corporations pay their fair share of tax? The question actually is: why don't they pay their fair share of tax? I'll tell you why: it's because they've captured the political class in this country from the Liberal Party and the National Party to the Labor Party and now to One Nation. Every single one of you is in the pockets of the one per cent and the big, polluting, price-gouging corporations and is in cahoots with each other to make sure the super wealthy don't pay their fair share of tax and to make sure the big corporations don't pay their fair share of tax. The result is an economy where wealth flows upwards into the pockets of the few while the many work harder and harder and fall further and further behind. Shame on the lot of you!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those contributions from the Greens and from the government have actually made my blood boil. How about being in the pocket of the CFMEU, with their corrupt and criminal conduct, which time after time after time you refuse to support an inquiry into because your pockets are full of their money? How about that?

Can I tell you right now that I could not believe what the government was saying in relation to this. They said, 'We make no apology about the tax concessions for the already wealthy.' Can I give you a newsflash? You're letting the allegedly already wealthy keep the tax concessions, but young Australians that have never had the opportunity to negative gear and that have never had the opportunity for a capital gains tax concession can never have one. You've taken it away from them. If they've been saving their money in shares or building a small business, you're taking those concessions away from them. You're saying: 'No, it was good enough for us to create our wealth, but it's not for you. To make it fairer for you, we're not going to let you do what we did to create wealth.' I'm sick of hearing it.

Australians aren't stupid, as Senator Bragg said. They actually know what is going on here, and the Albanese government has to explain why they misled Australians before the last election. The Prime Minister, in his own words, said, 'Fifty times, I've said no changes to negative gearing and CGT.' Guess what he does after the election in this year's budget. He changes both those things. He had an interview with Andrew Clennell where he said, 'Our position changed, and no-one else has had the ticker to make these changes.' Guess what? This prime minister didn't have the ticker to take the changes to an election, because he knew that he couldn't sell them, he knew that they were fundamentally unfair and he knew that they would not change the ability of young people who currently do not own a house to actually have a house.

The other interesting thing is, if we wind back to last year, they introduced their five per cent deposit guarantee and encouraged young people to use that to actually enter the market with the support of the government. Now guess who is at the greatest risk of negative equity based on this current policy from the Albanese Labor government? It's those very people who took up the five per cent deposit guarantee. The lack of understanding of the impacts of this policy is extraordinary. They point to a two-day inquiry and call it evidence and say that evidence matters. If evidence does actually matter, I say to the government: why was your inquiry two days? What a sham. These are some of the biggest tax changes this country has seen, and less than 48 hours is what you allot to it. You're not interested in consultation. You're not interested in the evidence. You're interested in ensuring that the vested interests of this government are advanced. That is it.

Australians were told that these taxes were not coming. They were told that they were not on the table. The Prime Minister said over and over and over that they were not on the table. His deception is of the highest order. This government is taking our country in the wrong direction. This is the highest taxing government in our history, with higher taxes, more complexity, less certainty and fewer opportunities for Australians to get ahead. That is the legacy of this government. In Hong Kong, Singapore and the UAE, CGT is zero per cent. In the US it's between zero and 20 per cent. In the UK it's between 10 and 24 per cent. And in Communist China it's 20 per cent. Under the Albanese Labor government in Australia, it is 30 per cent. Have a think about that for a minute. That's for individual Australians.

The Australian mum and dad and the Australian worker, who those opposite always talk about, are treated as the enemy while foreign backed build-to-rent capital can receive concessional treatment. We can have expensive concessions for them, just not expensive concessions for the actual Australians who are paying the tax. Why does that count? Why does that matter? Even the super funds are getting concessions. But everyday Australians? No. If you want to build wealth, you're a bad capitalist. We want you to sit in your wage cage, pay your tax, sit down and be good, and speak when you're spoken to.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank Senator Bragg for this motion and for the opportunity to discuss the important relationship between taxation and housing. Here we are, two senators—one from New South Wales and one from Victoria, the two largest states in this nation—in a State of Origin on housing. Housing affordability is the battleground, and in the stands are young people—there they are, all the way up there—some of whom will be locked out of housing, but not on our watch; older people of limited means; and then everyone in between who does not have that default option of the bank of mum and dad.

But, before we kick off, the outcome has already been settled. I turn to a publication by the Fairfax papers that came out on the weekend, on 19 June. It declares that Melbourne is poised to become the biggest, most liveable city. It says, 'Just ask the growing wave of Sydneysiders moving to Melbourne.' A former Sydneysider, now homeowner in Melbourne, in the suburb of Clifton Hill—it's got beautiful terraces, leafy streets and lots of parkland and it's near trams and amenities—said: 'I rented the whole time I lived in Sydney. The idea of buying a house in Sydney seemed completely unattainable. There's no way we'd be able to own a house like this in a comparable suburb in Sydney.'

According to Domain, there is a $700,000 price difference between houses in Sydney and houses in Melbourne. The median price of a house in Sydney as of March was $1.79 million. In Brisbane it was $1.21 million and in Melbourne it was $1.08 million. Across all types of dwellings, whether they be units or houses, Melbourne is nearly 40 per cent cheaper than Sydney, according to CommBank. Why? Because Melbourne is actually better at building homes than just about any other state in this country.

According to the State of the housing system report that was released in April of this year, Victoria built the most homes out of all the states in the period from 2019 to 2024, at 306,000—this compares to 251,000 in New South Wales—and Victoria is on track to meet its target goal according to the housing accord. This is clear evidence that increasing supply actually improves housing affordability. It decreases—it puts downward pressure on—prices. We are certainly backing this in with a $47 billion housing package, which is designed to deliver an additional 100,000 homes for first home buyers, to ring fence these from everyone else; $2 billion for enabling infrastructure like payments, powerlines and pipes, of which $500 million will go towards regional Australia; and, of course, we are intending through the Housing Australia Future Fund to build 55,000 social and affordable homes. But we know that this is not enough. It is not enough.

In 1999, a home cost about four times your median income. It's now around eight times. If you were in Sydney, however, it would cost 10 times your median income, and in Melbourne it's seven times. That is clearly unattainable for most working people. The average age of a first home buyer in 1999 was late 20s. It is now 34 to 36. One in five first home buyer loans by Westpac are given to people over the age of 40. In other words, people are ageing into first home ownership. That has knock-on effects on everything else, including relationships, having children, settling down and so on.

We are not standing back to admire this problem any longer. We are acting. The changes to capital gains and negative gearing are having an immediate effect. They haven't been legislated yet, but they are already cooling the property market. They are giving this $12 trillion housing market a bit of a haircut. It turns out that most people do support it. Polling by Resolve out today shows that 54 per cent of Australians support this, and 60 per cent of 18-to-34-year-olds support it. Support is seen right across all income brackets: high income, medium income and low income. The support is there because people intuitively understand that we need to give first home buyers a foot in the door, and we need to enable them to compete against property investors. This is why we're doing it.

Those opposite can berate us, but they, along with the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, all voted against every single one of our measures to increase housing supply and to make homes more affordable.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government's latest budget has gone down like a lead balloon. It's a $77 billion tax grab. It's a litany of broken promises. It's going to kill investment, innovation and aspiration. It's going to hurt farmers. It's going to destroy small businesses already doing it tough. It's going to drive rents higher as investors pull out of housing. It's going to drive mortgages higher. Despite Labor's promise to reduce immigration, this budget projects an increase. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis created by Labor's obsession with net zero and renewables, it's going to drive inflation higher.

The budget doesn't create intergenerational equity; it creates intergenerational poverty. They got to the top; now Labor is pulling up the ladder on younger generations of Australians. This budget attacks hardworking Australians who have sacrificed to save and invest. Labor doesn't want Australians to be able to pull themselves up or invest their hard earned savings so they can be independent. Labor wants Australians to become more dependent on handouts and government services.

This is the most dishonest, secretive, unaccountable government in Australian history, and increasing numbers of Australian voters know it. They're not buying the lies any more. They're mad as hell about this budget. With this budget they see a government, and a political system, which no longer listens to them and no longer cares. One Nation will reverse the capital gains tax and restrict negative gearing to two houses. We will not disadvantage businesses. They will not be faced with any capital gains tax changes. They invested their hard earned tax money, mortgaged their assets and worked long, hard hours with no help. One Nation will not allow an out-of-control government who cannot stop spending— (Time expired)

Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget has fallen very flat with the Australian people. As Senator Bragg said, they smell this a mile away. They know when they're being sold a lie, and that's exactly what Labor is trying to do here. Before the election, Labor promised that there would be no changes to CGT in Australia, and it promised this dozens of times. Australians were promised that they would see relief if they elected a Labor government. Instead what they've got is a Labor government that is now the highest-taxing government in Australian history. Rather than control spending and live within its means, as it demands the Australian people to do, Labor continues to spend more and grab more tax.

Let's remember, everyone out there, that government has no money of its own. The only money it has is the dollar that hardworking, everyday Australians earn, which the government takes. While families are struggling with mortgage repayments, rent, grocery bills, insurance premiums and energy costs, this Labor government is continuing to hurtle towards its net zero and renewables fantasy, and Australians are still asking where that relief is in their electricity bill. Well, it is not coming under this Labor government. Labor's policies are increasing costs and reducing confidence in Australia. The CGT is taking away young people's ability to buy a home. At my eldest daughter's age, I was able to save a deposit and buy my first home. I fear that she is never going to be able to do that, because under this Labor government the settings are not there in the economy.

We've then got this Labor government looking at vehicle emissions standards, which is pushing up the cost of everyday household vehicles and farming vehicles. This is going to hit regional Australians and families the hardest. Millions of Australians made financial decisions based on the rules that government put in place. Australians have been encouraged for decades to save for their retirement and plan for their future. Millions of Australians are now finding themselves retrospectively caught up in Labor changing the goalposts and the rules. If governments are able to change the rules at any point in time, where is the incentive for Australians to work hard and save for their futures?

This is not the time to be questioning whether Australia is a good place to invest, but we have to remember that it is the small businesses and the hardworking Australians—it is those families who drive our economy. While they struggle with all sorts of headwinds, this Labor government has delivered them a budget that is like a kick in the guts, when they are already struggling to pay their electricity bills, struggling with higher insurance costs and struggling to be able to afford the personnel that they need. This is an insult to all hardworking Australians.

This budget will see the end of aspiration in our country. Instead of Labor's instinct to try and control its spending, they are going to come after Australians' hard earned dollars. Families can't continually spend more than what they earn. If the family budget doesn't balance, then you spend less. Businesses also cannot continually spend more than they earn, and governments should be held to the same standard. But under this Labor government we continue to see higher spending, higher debt and higher taxes. This is when Australia is already facing significant economic challenges. We have weak productivity growth, housing affordability is non-existent for young people, there are high energy prices, and there is global uncertainty. We should be encouraging enterprise, rewarding hard work, attracting investment and growing the economy, and, above all else, we should be honest with the Australian people. If taxes are going to increase, Australians should be told before an election not after it. Ultimately, this motion is about trust, and Australians deserve a government that keeps its promises. Australia cannot afford another Labor government.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Bragg be agreed to.