Budget

Darmanin contended that the reforms were not new taxes but adjustments to a concession that primarily benefited the top 10 per cent of income earners. Darmanin cited evidence showing that 82 per cent of capital gains tax discount benefits flowed to the wealthiest Australians, arguing that preserving these concessions was unfair to working people. Darmanin stated that the changes aimed to create a fairer tax system while retaining small business protections and inflation indexation.

McKim argued that Australia required genuinely progressive tax reform to address wealth inequality, noting that the wealthiest one per cent effectively paid little tax on their assets. McKim criticised all major political parties for failing to ensure the super wealthy and large corporations paid their fair share. McKim asserted that wealth accumulation through capital investment was not the result of hard work alone and that the current system allowed wealth to flow upwards while ordinary workers struggled.

Kovacic argued that the government had deceived voters by changing its position on negative gearing and capital gains tax after the election. Kovacic claimed the reforms would prevent young Australians from building wealth and put those using the five per cent deposit guarantee at risk of negative equity. Kovacic compared Australia's proposed 30 per cent rate unfavourably with lower rates in other jurisdictions and argued the policy favoured foreign investment over domestic savers.

Ananda-Rajah highlighted the disparity in housing affordability between states, noting that Melbourne was significantly cheaper than Sydney due to higher construction volumes. Ananda-Rajah stated that the government's $47 billion housing package aimed to deliver 100,000 homes for first buyers and 55,000 social and affordable homes. Ananda-Rajah cited polling indicating majority support for the reforms, arguing they were necessary to cool the property market and help younger Australians enter the housing market.

Hanson described the budget as a $77 billion tax grab that would kill investment and drive up rents and mortgages. Hanson argued that the government was breaking promises and creating intergenerational poverty by attacking hardworking Australians who saved and invested. Hanson stated that One Nation would reverse the capital gains tax changes and restrict negative gearing to two properties to protect small businesses and farmers.

Blyth argued that the government had failed to control spending and was increasing taxes despite pre-election promises of relief. Blyth claimed the reforms would remove incentives for saving and investing, harming young people's ability to buy homes and small businesses' capacity to grow. Blyth asserted that the budget exacerbated economic challenges such as high energy prices and weak productivity, arguing that governments should balance their budgets like families.