Question Time AU

Matter of Public Importance

Budget

House of Representatives · Tuesday 23 June 2026

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

At a glance

The debate centred on the government's budget reforms, with the opposition arguing that tax increases and policy changes harmed economic confidence, retirees, and small businesses. Government members countered that the reforms delivered significant tax cuts for 13.3 million workers, supported first-home buyers, and provided relief for small businesses through instant asset write-offs and loss carry-back provisions. The opposition criticised the government for breaking election promises and negotiating with the Greens, while the government accused the opposition of voting against tax relief and supporting a status quo that favoured investors over workers. The matter concluded without a vote, as is standard for Matters of Public Importance.

Outcome

The matter was debated without a vote being taken.

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

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Wilson argued that the budget represented an assault on Australian aspiration, citing record low consumer and small-business confidence alongside rising insolvencies. Wilson claimed the government targeted retirees and young savers through tax hikes and failed to address housing supply despite overshooting migration targets. Wilson criticised the consultation process for small business tax reforms as inadequate and argued that the government mocked incremental innovation. Wilson promoted the Coalition's Tax Back Guarantee and a permanent $50,000 instant asset write-off as superior alternatives that would allow Australians to keep more of their earnings.

Government response

Khalil refuted claims of economic harm by detailing specific tax relief measures, including cuts for 13.3 million workers and support for 75,000 first-home buyers. Khalil highlighted $3.8 billion in new business tax relief, including permanent instant asset write-offs for 20,000 businesses and a two-year loss carry-back for companies with turnover up to $1 billion. Khalil noted that 98 per cent of active businesses would remain eligible for capital gains tax concessions. Khalil argued that the opposition's real harm lay in their intention to vote against these tax cuts in the Senate.

Opposition response

Webster argued that increasing the tax pool by $77 billion contradicted claims of lowering taxes, citing concerns from self-funded retirees about changes to trusts and capital gains tax. Webster highlighted the impact on young people saving for deposits and criticised the government for spending $430 million on water purchases rather than supporting agriculture. Webster contended that the budget acted as an aspiration drainpipe, punishing those who saved and invested while failing to address regional needs.