Bill Debate · Second Reading
House of Representatives · Tuesday 2 June 2026
Continued from Thursday 28 May 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The debate centered on the government's tax reform package, which included changes to capital gains tax, negative gearing, and new tax offsets for workers. Labor members argued the reforms promoted fairness and assisted first-home buyers, while opposition and independent members contended the measures breached election promises and would harm housing supply and small businesses. Independent member Kate Chaney moved an amendment to restrict capital gains tax reforms to property only, but it was not carried. The discussion highlighted deep divisions over economic management and political commitments before the House adjourned.
The amendment moved by Kate Chaney was not carried, and the debate was adjourned with the House adjourning at 22:00.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Briskey argued that the government was fulfilling its promise to restore fairness and opportunity for hardworking Australians. Briskey stated that the reforms addressed long-standing issues that previous governments had avoided. Briskey emphasised that the legislation would help people achieve security and improve their lives through practical policy changes.
Opposition response
Hamilton opposed the bills, arguing that the taxation changes would disincentivise investment and reduce housing supply. Hamilton cited Budget Paper No. 1, which estimated that 35,000 fewer homes would be built by the private sector as a direct result of the reforms. Hamilton claimed that reducing supply while maintaining demand would drive up house prices, contradicting the government's goal of improving affordability. Hamilton suggested that the government would need to fund social housing to offset this shortfall, diverting resources from other public services. Hamilton compared the situation to New Zealand, where similar measures led to reduced investment in the housing sector.
Wilson argued that the government had broken numerous promises regarding capital gains tax and negative gearing. Wilson claimed the reforms would increase rents, reduce housing supply, and harm small businesses and self-starters. Wilson asserted that the budget was built on deceit and would crash the economy through higher taxes and inflation.
Neumann supported the reforms as a significant step towards intergenerational equity and housing affordability. Neumann highlighted the introduction of a $250 working Australians tax offset and a $1,000 instant deduction. Neumann argued that the changes would help 75,000 Australians into homeownership and correct distortions in the tax system that favoured asset owners over workers.
Violi argued that the legislation was built on broken promises and would raise $77 billion in revenue through increased taxes. Violi claimed the reforms would result in 35,000 fewer houses being built and harm startups and small businesses. Violi proposed alternative measures, including indexing tax brackets and establishing a future generations fund.
French argued that the bill backed workers, first home buyers, and productive investment by creating a fairer tax system. French explained that the reforms would simplify tax time and direct negative gearing towards new housing supply. French maintained that existing small business concessions were preserved and that the changes addressed long-standing distortions.
Kennedy argued that the bill represented a betrayal of election promises and would impose higher taxes on retirees and savers. Kennedy claimed the reforms would drive investors out of the rental market, increasing rents and making it harder for young people to save for deposits. Kennedy asserted that the government was targeting those who had worked hard and saved responsibly.
Payne supported the legislation as a transformative overhaul of the tax system that benefits working Australians. Payne highlighted the permanent tax offset for 13 million workers and the instant deduction for work-related expenses. Payne argued that the reforms would help young people enter the housing market by redirecting incentives towards new supply.
Webster argued the bills broke election promises regarding capital gains tax, negative gearing, and trusts, calling the changes undemocratic and economically destructive. Webster claimed the reforms targeted self-funded retirees and family businesses, particularly through taxes on testamentary discretionary trusts, and granted excessive discretionary powers to the Treasurer. Webster stated the coalition would repeal these changes if elected.
Berry supported the bills as the first stage of significant tax reform aimed at cutting taxes for workers and improving housing affordability. Berry detailed measures including a $250 working Australians tax offset, a $1,000 instant deduction, and changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing to favour new builds. Berry argued these reforms would help 75,000 more homeowners enter the market and reduce compliance costs.
Boele commended the government's attempt at reform but opposed the bills due to concerns about extending capital gains tax changes to all asset classes, including shares and startups. Boele argued the process was rushed and lacked sufficient consultation, potentially harming venture capital and climate tech sectors. Boele stated she would support reforms if they were ring-fenced to residential property and properly scrutinised.
Chesters argued the reforms corrected distortions introduced in 1999 that favoured property investment over productive assets, contributing to unaffordable housing. Chesters highlighted that the changes included grandfathering provisions for existing investors and aimed to level the playing field for first-home buyers. Chesters emphasised the benefits of the working Australians tax offset and instant deduction for low-income earners.
Wallace claimed the bills would cause economic disaster, citing historical precedents where similar reforms led to skyrocketing rents. Wallace argued the government had misled voters by promising no changes to housing taxes and superannuation before the election. Wallace opposed the removal of private health insurance concessions for those over 65 and stated the coalition would fight the tax increases.
Cook argued the bills delivered fairness by rewarding work and making homeownership accessible, contrasting this with opposition plans to reverse housing support measures. Cook detailed the benefits of the working Australians tax offset and instant deduction for workers, particularly women and young people. Cook also noted the government's support for wage increases and business tax relief.
Leeser argued the government had deceived voters by breaking repeated promises not to change tax laws, describing the reforms as a death tax on family savings and small business. Leeser cited community surveys indicating widespread concern over the impact on trusts, retirees, and investment pathways. Leeser claimed the reforms would reduce housing supply and damage business confidence, stating the coalition would repeal them.
Smith argued that the reforms level the playing field for homeownership, citing infrastructure investment for 13,000 homes near Cairns. Smith stated that previous systems locked out younger generations, with deposits taking up to 20 years to save. Smith highlighted that the government is reducing the tax burden for 13 million workers through five tax cuts, aiming to restore hope and opportunity for families to build memories in their own homes.
Landry opposed the bill, arguing it punishes hard work and savings through bracket creep and higher taxes on investment. Landry supported the working Australians tax offset and standard deduction but rejected the broader agenda as an assault on aspiration. Landry claimed the reforms would reduce housing supply and confidence, stating the Coalition would repeal the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes if elected.
Cook supported the legislation as a significant reform package that reduces taxes for 13 million workers and supports 75,000 new homeowners. Cook explained that limiting negative gearing to new builds and replacing the capital gains tax discount with indexation corrects market distortions. Cook noted the reforms include a permanent working Australians tax offset and a $1,000 instant deduction, simplifying the system while ensuring budget sustainability.
Chaney supported the negative gearing and working Australians tax offset measures but opposed extending capital gains tax reforms beyond property. Chaney argued that applying indexation to all assets risks penalising productive investment in startups and shares without sufficient consultation. Chaney moved an amendment to restrict capital gains tax changes to housing or mandate a comprehensive inquiry, stating the current process lacked public legitimacy and ignored design flaws for early-stage businesses.
Jarrett argued the reforms address intergenerational inequality by rewarding work over wealth accumulation. Jarrett highlighted that house prices have risen significantly while ownership rates for young people have fallen. Jarrett stated the changes redirect investment to new housing supply and fund tax cuts for workers, asserting that the current system unfairly favours those with existing assets over everyday workers.
O'Brien claimed the budget breaks faith with voters by increasing taxes and debt, exacerbating the cost-of-living crisis. O'Brien argued the reforms punish older Australians saving for retirement and small businesses, citing Treasury modelling that predicted 35,000 fewer homes built. O'Brien criticised the government's spending and immigration policies, stating the tax cuts were eroded by inflation and bracket creep.
Holzberger supported the bills as part of a broader strategy to fix the broken housing and tax systems. Holzberger linked the reforms to public housing investment and wage increases, arguing they address the disconnect between house prices and median incomes. Holzberger urged the opposition to support the measures, suggesting their previous promise to repeal tax cuts was a political mistake that cost them votes.
Price opposed the bills, describing them as toxic taxes that attack regional Australians, small businesses, and farmers. Price argued the reforms would reduce housing supply and increase costs for renters and first home buyers. Price highlighted the Coalition's alternative plan to index tax thresholds and cap migration based on housing supply, stating they would repeal the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes.
lead
Miller-Frost argued that the bills restore the Australian dream by making the tax system fairer for low- and middle-income earners. Miller-Frost highlighted four main components: a working Australians tax offset, an instant $1,000 tax deduction, capital gains tax reforms bringing back cost base indexation alongside a 30 per cent minimum tax, and limiting negative gearing to new builds. Miller-Frost contended that previous policies had distorted the housing market, driving up prices and disadvantaging first-home buyers. Miller-Frost stated that the reforms would increase housing supply by 30,000 homes over a decade and help 75,000 more people enter the market. Miller-Frost also noted that over 13 million workers would benefit from tax cuts, with significant advantages for younger Australians.