Question Time AU

Matter of Public Importance

Budget

House of Representatives · Thursday 4 June 2026

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

At a glance

The debate centred on the government's budget, with opposition members criticising tax changes to capital gains, negative gearing, and trusts as broken election promises that harm farmers and small businesses. Government members defended the budget as necessary reform to address cost-of-living pressures, highlighting exemptions for agricultural trusts and small business concessions. Speakers discussed the economic impact of these policies, with the opposition arguing they tax aspiration and the government asserting they support resilience and fairness. The debate concluded without a vote, as is standard for Matters of Public Importance.

Outcome

The debate concluded without a vote, as no motion was put to the House.

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

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Chester argued that the government had broken numerous election promises regarding tax policy, specifically concerning negative gearing, capital gains tax, and trusts. Chester claimed these changes unfairly targeted small business owners, farmers, and retirees, describing the government's approach as deceptive. Chester asserted that the Prime Minister lacked a mandate for these measures and that the budget reflected a lack of accountability. Chester contended that the opposition would restore trust by supporting enterprise and opposing what he termed toxic taxes.

Government response

McBain defended the budget, stating that capital gains tax changes apply only to gains after 1 July 2027 and that existing exemptions protect most small businesses and farms. McBain highlighted that farm income earned through trusts is exempt from the new legislation. McBain cited record investments in rural support, including over $1.3 billion in resilience funding and the establishment of a Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility. McBain argued that the government's policies support small businesses through permanent instant asset write-offs and tax cuts for workers.

Opposition response

Webster characterised the budget as a betrayal of election commitments, arguing it imposed socialist policies on small businesses and farmers. Webster criticised the government's handling of renewable energy projects, claiming they increased costs and were poorly planned. Webster asserted that the government's relationship with unions disadvantaged small businesses and that the budget's tax increases were unnecessary given rising revenue from bracket creep. Webster pledged to reduce red tape and repeal the new taxes if elected.