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

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (21:52): Rowan Crosby, in a very thoughtful analysis on the Elite Agent website, under 'Industry News', with the headline 'House prices could flatline for 20 years', belled the cat on this budget. He laid it on the line when it came to the impacts of this budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, schedules 1 and 2, and the associated bill.

Schedule 1 introduces changes to the capital gains tax regime, and the second schedule establishes changes to the negative gearing regime. In this article: A new analysis suggests the structural tailwinds behind Australia's property boom have exhausted, with tax changes adding further pressure to the market outlook. It quotes Macquarie and a new report suggesting that this budget could see the stocks of houses, and the prices of houses, moreover, being severely impacted.

Indeed, this report states: … the recent federal budget changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts could compound existing pressures on the market. Macquarie analysts expect investor flows into established housing to slow materially—potentially by more than 50 per cent. The report suggests that the market could flatline for two decades—20 years.

Australia's wealth is built on the resources industry—and the agriculture sector plays a big part; it recently went over $100 billion, and we pay tribute to our farmers—but also on the investments that people make in the real estate market. When people realise the great Australian dream of owning their own home, it's one of their proudest moments, but imagine having just purchased a property and then finding that the price of that property is not going to increase, or it's only going to go up a little bit, over the next 20 years.

You'd be very, very disappointed. You've worked hard to get that roof over your head and, all of a sudden, your investment is at risk. You've put your life savings in—hopefully, to use in 20 years to go into another house or go on to bigger things—and you find that the property is still only worth about as much as it was when you purchased it back in 2026.

This is not good for the economy. It's not good for the real estate market. Labor suggest by their rhetoric that it's going to get younger people into the market.

It's actually going to disincentivise many young people. In their own budget papers, Labor suggest that there are going to be 35,000 fewer new dwellings over the next 10 years. We've heard a lot about the housing minister and the situation with the granny flat.

We've heard that ministers can't explain the budget and its implications. The devil is always in the detail when it comes to the Labor Party. We often hear about the 2014 budget.

I can well recall that the ink wasn't even dry on that document when the then New South Wales premier, Mike Baird, and his erstwhile treasurer, Andrew Constance, were out on the steps of Macquarie Street criticising and denouncing that particular economic blueprint. We've seen the Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, and, to a lesser degree, the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns—and they are Labor premiers, of course—also having a crack about this particular budget, but Labor, Labor premiers and Labor members will always hold strong to the Labor Party way.

This is a bad budget. This is a budget of broken promises. Generally speaking, after the budget, we always have a week where the government goes and sells the budget and the opposition goes and talks down the budget.

This year, the talking down of the budget has gone on for a lot longer than usual. Often, by this time of year, we've moved on; we're talking about the State of Origin. We're talking about anything other than the economic blueprint for the nation.

But, at the moment, the discussion around the dinner table, the discussion around the bar stools, the discussion wherever you go in Australia is about the budget, and people are very disappointed. They are very let down. People can see their savings diminishing in the blink of an eye because of what this budget introduces.

Certainly, the first two schedules are schedules that did not need to happen. I'll tell you why they did not need to happen: because the Prime Minister, prior to the last election, said they would not happen, and people took him at his word. They gave Labor a thumping majority, more than 50 seats, an advantage in the House of Representatives—the people's house, the house where government is formed.

How must those people be feeling now? They would genuinely have voter regret—buyer regret—because they know that they have helped to elect a Labor government which has gone back on its word, which has breached the faith, which has reneged on its promise not to make changes to the capital gains tax and its pledge not to alter the negative gearing arrangements in this country.

There are people who are running small businesses today who are very disillusioned. They are very upset. There are people who've just entered the housing market, and they can see that the value of their property, which they paid top dollar for just a few short weeks ago, has already gone backwards in price.

Labor is going out saying, 'Yes, but the first home buyers are having success at auction', and they were quoting any number. We heard the Prime Minister in question time this week talking about people who had been successful at auctions in Sydney and elsewhere last weekend. But there are so many other people who won't be named by this Prime Minister and who are so disappointed about this budget and what it entails.

Certainly, we've got more schedules than that, but I can see, Speaker, that you are looking to wind me up, because it is 10 o'clock and at 10 o'clock we do adjourn. The SPEAKER: The member for Riverina is correct. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 2 June 2026, the debate is now adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

House adjourned at 22:00