Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (18:13): I have about three or four questions to the government and to the minister, and the first one is: why did you deceive the Australian public? There's an issue of integrity that's really important here. I understand that people might have opinions on certain policies and might want to do stuff.

I even understand that you might say, 'Well, we came to this conclusion because of whatever reason.' When you do something that you didn't say you were going to do is one thing. If you just said, 'Well, we didn't say we—' there's so much deceit here, I'm not even sure how to frame this. At the election campaign, you said you weren't going to do it.

So there's a different level you've gone to in the deceit of the Australian public. There's a different level of deceit you've gone to with your communities, and you should hang your heads in shame. I know you're all looking at your phones, but hang your heads in shame at the same time, because what you went to the Australian public with 12 months ago was that you weren't going to do this.

Not only did you not announce it—a lot a lot of governments haven't announced things that they then went and did after the election; I get that—but you actually said you wouldn't do it. So there's a level of deceit there. There's a level of dishonesty there.

There's a level of a lack of integrity there. There's a level of arrogance there. There's a level of hubris there that I really think you should all have a long, hard look at, because what's happened is the Australian public now don't believe you.

Anything that especially your leader and your Treasurer say no-one believes any more. The Prime Minister has got a bit of a record of it: 'No, we're not going to make changes to super. No, we're not going to make changes to tax cuts, and we're going to promise you $275.' There's a long list now of deception and deceit.

I think they've now finally worked it out. So my question is: why did you deceive the Australian public 12 months ago? My next question is: why do you think one of the highest capital gains levels in the world is good for business and private enterprise in this country?

We have countries like New Zealand and Singapore. I mention them because they're sort of our closest neighbours and two comparisons which are moving capital gains taxes in the exact opposite direction because they realise to attract investment, to attract capital, you've got to be competitive. So why are you making us one of the countries in the world with the highest level of capital gains tax?

The thing that people now tell me—small businesses, medium-sized businesses and big businesses now say: 'This is the rule in Australia. This is how Australia now works. We have to take the risk, and the Albanese Labor government take the reward.' That's what they're saying to me.

Why do you think one of the highest levels of capital gains taxes in the world is good for our economy? I'd like to know your answer for that. I do have a little bit of a theory behind it, which I'm happy to share.

I think it's because both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have never worked in private enterprise. They wouldn't know what it's like to make money and don't know what it takes to make money in a private enterprise because they've never had any experience in private enterprise. They've been bubble boys in the sense that all they've ever done is work in politics, whether it be in federal or state politics as a staffer.

So neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister has had a real job. That's one of my theories. If I'm wrong, please tell me why they understand private capital and how the world works at that front.

So I have two questions so far: why did you deceive the Australian public last year, and why do you think some of the highest capital gains levels in the world are going to help our economy? I do have a theory, though, for that one. I was actually in the budget lock-up.

This is not me saying this; this is actually in the budget paper, so I assume it's Treasury saying this. Why do you think it's a good idea, when we don't have enough housing stock, that tax proposals you announced on budget night will mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next 10 years? You might say, 'You're just saying that because you're the other side of politics.' No, I'm not.

I'm quoting Treasury. I'm very interested in the answer to this one as well: why do you think we don't have enough homes being built? We all acknowledge that.

It's something we both agree on in politics. So I'd love to know the answer to the question: why have you introduced tax policies that will mean 35,000 fewer homes will be built over the next 10 years? That's in quotation marks from Treasury.

So could you explain that to me and to Treasury. I think Treasury probably may be interested as well in why you want to build fewer houses. I do want to bring up trusts as well.

I've got a couple of good examples here that I'll let go. So just remember: Why did you deceive the Australian public? Why do you think the highest capital gains taxes in the world are going to be good for our economy?

And why do you want fewer homes to be built?