Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

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

House of Representatives · Thursday 28 May 2026

Continued from Wednesday 27 May 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centered on the 2026-2027 budget appropriations, with significant disagreement over tax reforms regarding negative gearing and capital gains tax. The National Party criticized the government for breaking election promises and cutting regional services, while the Assistant Minister defended the budget as fiscally responsible and beneficial for housing supply. Members also discussed broader issues including health care, infrastructure, and migration policy, with opponents arguing the reforms lacked a democratic mandate. The proceedings concluded with the adjournment of the debate.

Outcome

The debate was adjourned.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Kennedy argued that the budget represented an assault on aspiration, unfairly taxing younger Australians and retirees who had saved and invested responsibly. Kennedy cited constituent stories to illustrate the negative impact of doubling capital gains tax and removing negative gearing benefits, claiming these measures would reduce housing supply by 35,000 homes. Kennedy contended that the government was breaking election promises and using tax hikes to fund record spending, creating intergenerational unfairness. Kennedy characterised the reforms as punitive towards hard work and investment, asserting that the government lacked integrity for not seeking a mandate for these changes at the election.

Government response

Hill described the budget as responsible, focusing on cost-of-living relief through tax cuts and housing supply initiatives. Hill noted that net overseas migration had fallen by more than 45 per cent since its peak and defended the government's fiscal management, stating the bottom line was $45 billion better than the mid-year update. Hill strongly opposed the Coalition's proposal to restrict welfare payments for permanent residents, arguing it would push families into poverty and was a political dog whistle. Hill encouraged eligible permanent residents to apply for citizenship to secure their benefits, noting the Home Affairs department was prepared for a surge in applications.

Opposition response

Hogan characterised the budget as deceitful, arguing that radical tax reforms should have been put to an election rather than introduced via appropriation bills. Hogan claimed the Prime Minister had repeatedly denied plans to change negative gearing, capital gains tax, and trust rules before the last election. Hogan criticised the Prime Minister and Treasurer for lacking private sector experience and argued the policies would crush ambition and harm small businesses. Hogan challenged the Greens to consider whether they would support legislation based on what he described as deceptive pre-election conduct.