Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Lawrence supported the budget and tax reforms, emphasising their role in addressing global uncertainty and domestic challenges. Lawrence highlighted investments in healthcare, including Medicare urgent care clinics and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme reforms, as key benefits for her electorate. Lawrence argued that the tax changes were necessary to address housing affordability and ensure fairness for young people and families.

Steggall expressed frustration with the legislative process, arguing that the bill bundled complex reforms without adequate consultation or modelling. Steggall supported changes to negative gearing for residential property but opposed the broader application of capital gains tax reforms to shares, trusts, and small businesses. Steggall moved an amendment to refer non-property aspects of the bill to a parliamentary committee for further scrutiny, citing concerns about unintended consequences on productivity and financial security.

Campbell supported the bills, arguing they would improve homeownership prospects for young Australians by shifting investor demand towards new builds. Campbell highlighted the negative impact of rising house prices on young people's ability to save for deposits and enter the housing market. Campbell emphasised that the reforms would create a fairer tax system and provide targeted cost-of-living relief through the working Australian tax offset and instant tax deduction.

McIntosh opposed the bills, claiming they would punish aspiration and damage small businesses. McIntosh argued that the government had broken election promises and that the reforms would lead to fewer homes being built and higher rents. McIntosh highlighted concerns about the impact on family businesses and the introduction of a 'death tax' through changes to trust taxation. McIntosh proposed alternative measures, including capping migration based on housing supply and establishing a housing infrastructure fund.

Templeman supported the bills, arguing they would address the housing crisis and make homeownership more accessible for younger generations. Templeman highlighted the government's efforts to increase housing supply through apprenticeship programs and first home buyer assistance. Templeman emphasised that the tax reforms would level the playing field for first home buyers and provide tax cuts for working Australians through the instant tax deduction and working Australian tax offset.

lead

Wood opposed the bill, arguing that changes to trusts and capital gains tax would devastate ordinary Australians and young investors. Wood claimed the reforms would reduce rental supply and increase costs for seniors by removing private health insurance rebates. Wood asserted that the government had broken election promises and that the budget would lead to higher inflation and a decade of deficits. Wood warned that investors would hold onto existing properties rather than sell, further constraining housing availability.

shadow minister

Buchholz outlined the Coalition's position, stating they would support the working Australians tax offset and the instant work-related expense deduction but oppose the capital gains and negative gearing changes. Buchholz criticised the government for not road-testing these measures with the public before the election and accused them of deceit. Buchholz announced the Coalition would move to separate the bill into schedules to allow for distinct votes on the supported and opposed measures. Buchholz warned that the reforms would cause political collateral damage for government members.

Clutterham supported the bill as bold reform necessary to address housing affordability and fairness. Clutterham argued that progressive politics requires shifting goalposts to ensure access to healthcare, education, and housing for all Australians, not just those with inherited advantages. Clutterham highlighted government investments in bulk-billing, free TAFE, and housing infrastructure as part of a broader agenda to support aspiration.

Albanese commended the bills, stating they deliver tax cuts for working Australians and rebalance the tax system to favour homeownership. Albanese highlighted the $250 working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 instant deduction as benefits for low- and middle-income earners. Albanese argued that previous capital gains tax changes had turbocharged property investment, locking out young people, and that the reforms would restore fairness and aspiration for the next generation.

Venning opposed the bill, claiming the government was breaking the economy and introducing hidden taxes on family savings and small businesses. Venning cited budget papers predicting 30,000 fewer homes would be built due to the tax changes, arguing this would worsen housing affordability. Venning promised that a Coalition government would repeal the capital gains and trust tax changes and instead index income tax thresholds to inflation.

Gregg supported the reforms, arguing they address structural challenges such as weak productivity and housing affordability. Gregg stated that the changes would help 75,000 Australians into homeownership and complement broader housing investments. Gregg emphasised that the tax offset and instant deduction reward hard work and simplify the tax system for millions of Australians.

Pike opposed the bill, citing concerns from local business owners about the impact of capital gains and trust tax changes. Pike argued the reforms would reduce housing supply and increase rents, contradicting the government's fairness narrative. Pike highlighted industry modelling predicting a fall in new home construction and construction jobs, and criticised the government's migration and debt management.

lead

Coker supported the bill as a measure to ensure fairness and reward hard work. Coker highlighted the introduction of a permanent working Australians tax offset of up to $250 for over 13 million workers and an immediate $1,000 deduction for job-related costs to simplify the system. Coker argued that limiting negative gearing to new builds would help approximately 75,000 additional Australians purchase homes by directing investment toward increasing housing supply rather than competing for existing stock. Coker also defended the capital gains tax reforms, stating they would index the cost base to inflation so investors pay tax on real gains, while noting that existing small business concessions and family home exemptions remain intact.

shadow minister

Small opposed the bill, arguing it contained hidden taxes that contradicted the Prime Minister's pre-election promises. Small claimed the budget would result in 35,000 fewer dwellings being built and criticised the government for failing to manage migration and construction regulation. Small advocated for the Coalition's alternative plan to index income tax thresholds to inflation, which he stated would provide permanent protection against bracket creep. Small also supported capping net overseas migration based on housing completions and creating a $5 billion fund for housing infrastructure to release new homes.

Soon supported the legislation as part of an ambitious tax reform package aimed at cutting taxes for workers and aligning the treatment of labour and asset income. Soon detailed that the bill includes a $250 working Australians tax offset and a $1,000 instant deduction, which he said would save individuals $380 million in compliance costs. Soon argued that limiting negative gearing to new builds would help 75,000 first-home buyers enter the market over the next decade, addressing the challenge of an ageing population and rising demand for government services.

Rebello opposed the bill, arguing that the government had bundled modest tax relief with punitive taxes on businesses and investors. Rebello claimed that restricting negative gearing would reduce rental supply and increase rents, thereby hurting young Australians before they could buy their first home. Rebello also criticised the capital gains tax changes, stating they would penalise self-starters and small business owners who take significant risks. Rebello highlighted a letter from a local brewery owner warning that the reforms would discourage long-term capital commitment in capital-intensive businesses.

Ambihaipahar supported the reforms, arguing they address distortions that have locked younger Australians out of the housing market. Ambihaipahar noted that house prices have risen over 400 per cent since 1999, far outpacing income growth, and that the new rules would direct investment toward productive uses rather than speculative assets. Ambihaipahar emphasised that the working Australians tax offset and instant deduction would provide practical support to workers, simplifying tax time and reducing bureaucracy. Ambihaipahar framed the reforms as necessary leadership to tackle intergenerational fairness and housing affordability.

McKenzie opposed the bill, arguing it punished small business owners, tradies, and self-funded retirees in her electorate. McKenzie cited data showing that residents of Flinders receive significant capital gains tax discounts and that the reforms would dramatically increase tax bills for those selling assets or businesses. McKenzie also criticised the abolition of the additional private health insurance rebate for seniors, warning it would push older Australians toward the public hospital system. McKenzie supported the Coalition's alternative of indexing tax thresholds to inflation to prevent bracket creep without penalising investors.

Claydon strongly supported the bill, highlighting the $250 working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 instant deduction as measures that simplify tax time and reward workers. Claydon argued that reforming negative gearing to focus on new builds would help first-home buyers who are currently outbid by investors at auctions. Claydon shared constituent feedback indicating support for the reforms, particularly from younger Australians who feel the current system is unfair. Claydon commended the bill as a step toward restoring the Australian dream of homeownership and ensuring a fairer tax system.

Chester argued the government had deceived voters by implementing tax changes it had previously ruled out during the election campaign. Chester claimed the reforms would increase costs for mortgage holders and farmers, particularly regarding succession planning and capital gains tax. Chester advocated for the coalition's alternative plan to index tax thresholds to inflation to combat bracket creep.

Laxale contended that the current tax system distorts the housing market by rewarding speculation over new supply, locking out younger Australians from homeownership. Laxale explained that limiting negative gearing to new builds and replacing the capital gains discount with indexation would correct these distortions. Laxale highlighted government investments in housing infrastructure and social housing as part of a broader strategy to address affordability.

Chaffey criticised the bill as a breach of trust and an attack on hard work and integrity, citing concerns from farmers about increased tax liabilities on farm transfers. Chaffey supported the working Australians tax offset and the standard deduction for work-related expenses but opposed the capital gains and negative gearing changes. Chaffey argued the reforms would discourage investment and force some families to consider leaving the country.

Burnell described the reforms as the most significant tax package in over twenty-five years, aimed at ensuring the economy benefits a greater number of Australians. Burnell emphasised that the changes would direct investment towards productive outcomes and new housing supply while protecting existing investors through grandfathering arrangements. Burnell noted that the reforms would help approximately 75,000 extra Australians purchase homes in the coming ten years.

Birrell labelled the tax changes as a massive tax grab that would raise $77 billion over ten years and damage aspiration for entrepreneurs and farmers. Birrell supported the working Australians tax offset and the $1,000 standard deduction but opposed the capital gains and negative gearing reforms due to their stealth introduction and potential negative impacts. Birrell argued that increasing housing supply through infrastructure funding was a better solution than altering tax settings.

Mascarenhas argued the bill rebalances the tax system to favour workers and first home buyers over asset holders. Mascarenhas highlighted the introduction of the working Australians tax offset and the instant tax deduction as measures to put money back into pockets. Mascarenhas stated the reforms aim to reverse the decline in homeownership rates and ensure housing affordability is not a privilege for the few.

Wilkie supported the bill to address housing affordability but criticised the government for not taking such significant reforms to the election or conducting proper consultation. Wilkie warned that the minimum capital gains tax rate could unfairly impact some investors and expressed strong opposition to proposed changes regarding testamentary trusts in subsequent legislation. Wilkie argued that proper process, including exposure drafts and parliamentary inquiry, was essential for complex tax reforms.

Jordan-Baird argued the reforms were necessary to fix a broken housing market where young people are outbid by investors. Jordan-Baird detailed the benefits of the working Australians tax offset and the instant asset write-off for small businesses. Jordan-Baird emphasised that the changes would support generational fairness by helping first home buyers and directing investment towards new housing supply.

Spender supported the direction of tax reform and measures restricting negative gearing to new builds but opposed the capital gains tax indexation model due to concerns about complexity and impacts on risk-taking. Spender argued the bill was rushed and moved three amendments to remove the minimum tax rate, allow indexed losses, and exclude active businesses from the new regime. Spender urged the government to pause and consult further to ensure the reforms were robust.

Ng supported the bills, arguing they restored fairness by reducing the tax burden on workers and addressing housing unaffordability. Ng highlighted the introduction of a $1,000 instant tax deduction and a $250 working Australians tax offset, stating these measures would benefit over 13 million workers. Ng defended the capital gains tax reforms as necessary to correct distortions that favoured investors over first-home buyers.

Ryan supported reforms to housing-related tax settings but opposed the extension of capital gains tax changes to all asset classes, citing lack of consultation and community concern. Ryan moved an amendment to increase small business capital gains tax concession thresholds and index them to inflation. Ryan called for greater scrutiny of the legislation, particularly regarding its impact on startups, testamentary trusts, and non-property investments.

Leigh supported the bills, framing them as part of a Labor legacy of making hard policy choices to improve equity and productivity. Leigh argued that negative gearing and the capital gains discount had skewed benefits towards the wealthy and hindered homeownership. Leigh defended the shift to inflation indexation as a return to a system that better rewarded long-term investment in productive assets rather than speculation.

Hawke opposed the bills, characterising them as a revenue grab that would damage productivity and private savings. Hawke argued the $250 tax offset was insufficient to offset the increased tax burden and claimed the reforms would deter investment and increase insolvencies. Hawke supported only the schedules introducing the tax offset and standard deduction, urging the defeat of the capital gains and negative gearing changes.

Hogan opposed the bills, arguing they reflected a big-government ideology that would discourage business risk-taking and reduce housing supply. Hogan cited Treasury analysis suggesting the reforms would result in fewer homes being built and criticised the government for contradicting pre-election promises. Hogan advocated for the Coalition's tax-back guarantee policy instead, claiming it would better support private enterprise.

Scamps supported the reforms to housing tax settings but expressed concern about the application of capital gains tax changes to all asset classes, particularly regarding startups and small businesses. Scamps argued the $250 tax offset was too small to meaningfully assist households and called for more scrutiny and consultation. Scamps urged the government to slow down the process to address unintended consequences on investment and productivity.

minister

Mulino argued the bills delivered a once-in-a-generation reform to ease cost pressures and make the tax system fairer. Mulino stated the measures would provide tax cuts for over 13 million workers and help Australians achieve homeownership by limiting negative gearing to new builds and reintroducing indexation to capital gains tax. Mulino claimed the reforms were prospective and measured, with existing investments grandfathered, and projected to assist approximately 75,000 more people in buying homes during the coming ten years. Mulino commended the bill to the House.

shadow minister

Tehan opposed the bills, arguing they represented a budget of broken promises and deceit, noting the Prime Minister had previously pledged not to change these tax settings. Tehan claimed the reforms would increase taxes by $77 billion and kill enterprise by penalising those who take financial risks. Tehan criticised the government for bundling the bills together and for lacking detailed knowledge of their own policy, urging the Senate to reject the legislation.

Le moved an amendment to delay the tax changes until May 2028 or after the next federal election, arguing the reforms would harm low-income communities and young savers. Le cited constituents who relied on share investments to build deposits and feared the removal of the capital gains discount would discourage risk-taking and small business growth. Le contended that the bill did not address the housing supply crisis and urged the government to consult properly and seek a mandate before proceeding.

Gee seconded the amendment, opposing the legislation on the grounds that the government failed to seek a mandate for such sweeping changes. Gee argued the reforms penalised young Australians using various investment vehicles to save for deposits and discouraged enterprise by imposing high tax rates on business returns. Gee urged the government to rethink the measures, citing confusion and anger within the community and among its own backbenchers.

Batt opposed schedules 1 and 2, arguing the changes would reduce housing supply and increase rents, thereby harming first-home buyers. Batt cited budget papers predicting 35,000 fewer homes would be built and warned that the reforms would disincentivise investment and small business activity. Batt supported schedules 3 and 4, which introduced tax offsets and deductions, but condemned the broader package as a breach of election promises.

McCormack criticised the bill, citing analysis suggesting house prices could flatline for two decades due to the tax changes. McCormack argued the reforms would disincentivise young people from entering the housing market and reduce the number of new dwellings built. McCormack stated the budget breached faith with voters who supported the government based on promises not to alter capital gains tax and negative gearing.