Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2026-2027, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027; Second Reading

Laxale supported the bills, framing the budget as a response to the cost-of-living crisis and housing unaffordability. Laxale highlighted investments in Medicare urgent care clinics, cheaper medicines, and tax cuts including a $1,000 instant deduction and a working Australian tax offset. Laxale defended reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax as necessary to target investment towards new housing supply and correct market distortions. Laxale argued the opposition was defending a status quo that failed working people and young homebuyers.

Sharkie opposed the bills, stating she received overwhelming negative feedback from constituents regarding changes to private health insurance, veterans' allied health caps, trusts, and capital gains tax. Sharkie argued the government broke election promises and should have taken these controversial measures to a vote. Sharkie suggested reducing immigration levels, citing Canada's approach, to alleviate housing demand rather than taxing Australians. Sharkie concluded she could not support a budget built on broken trust rather than delivered promises.

Holzberger supported the bills, arguing the government was challenging a status quo of privatisation and economic rationalism that had decimated working-class communities. Holzberger defended capital gains tax indexation, explaining it would moderate housing capital growth and align prices with inflation. Holzberger stated the reforms aimed to help first-home buyers compete against investors and address the decline in homeownership rates. Holzberger commended the bill as part of a broader strategy to fix housing, health, and industry issues.

Violi opposed the bills, claiming the budget offered zero immediate cost-of-living relief and increased taxes by $50 billion. Violi argued the government's spending exacerbated inflation and that tax changes would reduce housing supply by 35,000 homes. Violi highlighted the removal of private health insurance rebates for older Australians and cited local infrastructure failures in his electorate. Violi promoted the Coalition's tax-back guarantee as a superior alternative to protect workers from bracket creep.

France supported the bills, detailing significant funding for Queensland infrastructure, hospitals, and education. France defended tax reforms as measures to ensure fairness, noting that negative gearing would remain for new builds and existing investments. France highlighted the introduction of a permanent working Australian tax offset and cheaper medicines as key cost-of-living supports. France argued the budget addressed intergenerational inequality and built resilience against global economic shocks through fuel security measures.

Leeser opposed the bills, citing survey results showing strong community opposition to trust taxes and capital gains tax changes. Leeser argued the reforms created sovereign risk by changing rules without grandfathering or transition periods, particularly affecting small businesses and families using testamentary trusts. Leeser claimed the budget would worsen the economy, increase rents, and punish responsible financial planning. Leeser reiterated the Coalition's commitment to repealing these taxes and implementing a tax-back guarantee.