Budget

Campbell argued that the opposition had abandoned their previous criticisms of the tax system, noting that the shadow treasurer had previously stated the system favoured asset holders over workers. Campbell highlighted the budget's investment of over $47 billion in housing and the introduction of a $250 tax offset for workers. Campbell claimed the reforms would support 75,000 new homebuyers and improve intergenerational equality, contrasting this with the opposition's lack of vision.

Thompson argued that the budget punished aspiration and small investors, who he described as nurses, tradies, and retirees rather than wealthy monopolists. Thompson claimed the tax changes would reduce housing supply and increase costs for families already struggling with inflation and high interest rates. Thompson also criticised cuts to veteran services, including a $5,000 cap on allied health and defunding of Invictus Australia, arguing these measures were shameful and detrimental to wounded veterans.

Payne defended the budget as a plan to increase housing affordability and fairness, noting that negative gearing reforms were grandfathered for existing investors. Payne highlighted tax cuts for 13 million workers, including a $250 offset and a $1,000 instant deduction for ACT workers. Payne emphasised the government's investment in Canberra, including rail upgrades and funding for the CSIRO, arguing that the budget delivered for hardworking Australians and addressed long-standing housing issues.

Wallace argued that the government had misled the public by not taking these policies to an election, implying they knew they would lose. Wallace criticised the removal of private health insurance concessions for those over 65, stating this would cost pensioners an additional $1,600 annually. Wallace claimed the budget represented a significant redistribution of wealth and punished older Australians who had followed government advice to purchase private health insurance.

Smith argued that the budget addressed the crisis in housing affordability, which had made homeownership unattainable for many young Australians. Smith claimed the reforms would boost supply by incentivising investment in new homes rather than existing stock. Smith emphasised the importance of homeownership for family security and stability, stating that the government was acting courageously to restore the Australian dream for future generations.

Venning argued that the budget failed to deliver on key promises and left Australians worse off through higher taxes and increased debt. Venning claimed the government had overshot immigration targets by 90,000 people, putting pressure on infrastructure, while simultaneously reducing housing supply by 35,000 homes. Venning also highlighted cuts to agricultural support, including the Future Drought Fund and trust tax changes, arguing these measures threatened the viability of family farms and regional industries.

Burns argued that the government had transformed the housing sector through initiatives like the five per cent deposit scheme and Help to Buy, which had helped over 200,000 Australians. Burns highlighted the largest investment in social housing in decades, including 55,000 new homes for key workers and those in need. Burns claimed the budget provided stability and security for renters and buyers alike, contrasting this with the opposition's lack of priority on housing and homelessness.