Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026
Ms CLUTTERHAM (Sturt) (10:58): I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. The most common refrain that I have heard in my 13 months of being the member for Sturt and engaging my community is this. People say: 'Claire, you've got a majority.
When are you going to do something with it?' And, by 'something', people don't mean just delivering the government's agenda. They mean doing something bold, like designing and implementing big and overdue reform. They say to me, 'If you won't do it now, you'll never do it.' They repeatedly ask, 'When are you going to do something?' Well, the answer is now.
We are doing something now. And the measures in this budget represent bold reform. Pursuing bold reform and making tough decisions is what you get from the progressive side of politics.
This government is not afraid to make tough decisions, even when it knows that some Australians won't forgive us for it. Some people can't move past goalposts being changed. But, on the progressive side of politics, we recognise that sometimes they need to shift.
When nurses, teachers, social workers and early childhood education workers can't afford to buy a house reasonably close to where they live, the goalposts need to shift. When first homebuyers are locked out of the housing market, over and over and over, the goalposts need to shift, because secure housing, for everyone, is everything. Now, changes and big reform do stir emotions.
They bring up genuine human concerns, like a fear of loss or a desire for fairness. And there are, of course, different and divergent beliefs about what fairness actually means and what makes a good and prosperous society. These are perfectly rational questions, and, with the handing down of this budget, we've seen different answers and different approaches to what fairness is and to what makes a good and prosperous society.
On the conservative side, the underlying concern is maintaining the status quo—the belief that sudden change and bold reform carry risks that are easy to underestimate and too hard to undo. Individuality forms the backbone of conservatism, and there are reasons why this must sometimes be prioritised. I believe in the rights of the individual and in personal accountability, and in the right of the individual to aspire to whatever it is they want to aspire to.
But I also believe that progressive politics and progressive policy have a different and important perspective to offer. Those on the conservative side consider that existing structures are always worth preserving, because they've worked for some in the past. Progressivism, on the other hand, examines existing structures and then reforms them—moves them forward.
It recognises that what worked in the past does not necessarily work right now and will not necessarily work into the future. So, in examining and reforming pre-existing structures, progressivism has the following at the front of its mind: justice; the belief in a level playing field; the recognition that inherited disadvantages are not a fiction—they are real—and that there is a responsibility to address them if a just society is to be achieved.
Access to quality health care, quality education and secure long-term housing are rights, rather than privileges, for progressives; they are rights for everyone, not just for some. Cohesion, solidarity, fellowship, harmony—this is the underlying claim to progressivism: that we live in a community together and that we are therefore responsible, in a sense, for one another.
This means an understanding that, when only some people have the opportunity to embrace aspiration, when only some people have the agency to pursue their aspirations as individuals, and when some people lose the birth lottery and are born into poverty, or sickness, or disability, or something else that prevents them not only from achieving their aspirations but even from starting, this does not reflect a good and prosperous society.
Now, by 'aspiration', I do not mean just becoming wealthy—although that is a perfectly legitimate aspiration. I'm referring to people who aspire to pay for health care; people who aspire to be able to afford to go to university or TAFE; people who aspire to get out of the cycle of renting and who aspire to buy a home. There are, of course, people in Australia who aspire to, and can, buy a third or fourth investment property—and more power to them; that is great.
If you can do that, and become self-sufficient, then that is a good thing. But others can't even get off the ground. So, for my country, I have many different aspirations.
I aspire for people to get ahead, to buy property, to build and grow their superannuation, and to set up and then grow and sell businesses. I aspire for Australians who can become wealthy to become wealthy. But my aspiration in this sense is balanced against my aspiration for all Australians to be able to afford to see a doctor; to be able to afford to get a quality education that will set them up; to be able to buy a home of their own—not to create wealth, but to create security for themselves and their families.
So this budget is not a war on aspiration; it is an acknowledgement that aspiration takes many forms and that, in a good and prosperous society, everyone is entitled to aspiration and everyone must contribute to it. That's what this budget seeks to do, and I ask you, Deputy Speaker: Who will do this if this government doesn't? Who will bake in urgent care clinics and make them permanent if we don't?
Who, if we don't, will invest in more bulk-billing so Australians who aspire to be able to afford to see a doctor can see a doctor? Who, if we don't, will recognise that housing is unaffordable for first home buyers and implement schemes like the five per cent deposit scheme at the same time as investing $2 billion in enabling works to facilitate the building of more houses?
Who, if we don't, will implement free TAFE so Australians can obtain a qualification in a critical trade or area where there are skill shortages? Who will back low-paid workers again and again if we don't? Who, if we don't, will improve the tax incentives for venture capital investors to encourage more investment in Australian startups with growth potential and the flow of more capital into this country?
Who, if we don't, will create a framework where 90 per cent of Australian small businesses qualify for an exemption from the capital gains tax? We know the only people who will pursue a just and fair transition to renewable energy and provide opportunities for individual households to obtain the benefit of this through the Cheaper Home Batteries Program are those in this government.
Who will do it if we don't? The budget facilitates these aspirations because it is bold. It is progressive.
So, to those in my community who ask me, 'When is your government going to do something?' the answer is, 'Right now.' Examining existing structures and reforming them is what we are doing, and, in doing so, we understand that reforming pre-existing structures requires genuine and meaningful consultation with the business community, which is what we are doing.
I again thank those small businesses that I represent in my community of Sturt, who engage with me so constructively on this issue. Being progressive means not standing still or staying the same. So when is this government going to do something?
Now. I commend the bill to the House.