Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027

Mr CALDWELL (Fadden—Opposition Chief Whip) (18:43): The budget each year is probably the most important set piece that a government will engage in. An important part of that process is this consideration in detail on which we're embarking this evening. It's quite concerning to me that we don't have the Treasurer here and we don't have the Minister for Housing here.

We've just heard the member talk extensively about housing, but the people who don't seem keen to come up here and defend the budget are the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing. Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr CALDWELL: Chirping away over on the other side there, we've got the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, which is wonderful.

He probably knows a thing or two about the tax changes that were in this budget, because he was the assistant shadow treasurer between 2013 and 2019, the period in which I might say these taxes were born under the leadership of the then shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen. All these great changes to CGT and negative gearing were put out there at the 2019 election—in an honest fashion, I might say.

They were wholeheartedly rejected by the Australian people. As a result, the assistant minister opposite spent another three years in opposition licking his wounds, lost the job of being the shadow assistant treasurer, and now finds himself here tonight trying to defend the indefensible broken promises in this Labor budget. It really deserves to be asked: if the members are so deadset keen on this being the great solution for housing, why, on page 158 of the budget papers, does it disclose that there will actually be 35,000 fewer homes constructed as a direct result of the taxation changes that are proposed in this budget?

If one of these senior ministers were here, I would like them to acknowledge whether or not they know that, in fact, just not introducing these new taxes would lead to more homes. Imagine that: if they had just decided not to introduce all of these big new property taxes, we would actually be 35,000 properties ahead of where we are now. All of this—with the objective, I might say, of throwing out a taxation system that has been well settled—is for an objective of 7,500 additional first home buyers each year.

If you take that down to the electorate level, like the member was just talking about, that's 50 new first home buyers in her electorate and in each and every electorate across Australia. That is a massive risk for this government to take—to tip over the taxation system that has served Australian first home buyers and families well, over many, many years—for that outcome.

We know that this government, over the course of the last four years, has let 1.4 million new Australians into this country through net overseas migration. They're now on track for two million people. I would like to know, from the housing minister or the Treasurer: Do they agree that this migration intake has put pressure on housing?

Do the ministers agree that tying migration to housing completions would actually help? We think it would. It would assist in reducing this incredible demand that's been created through what has been going on with net overseas migration over the last four years.

I've got to say that I'm not surprised that the housing minister is not here. She's had a rough day, because she woke up to news on the front page of the Australian today talking about her answer—her words—in question time yesterday, when she responded to a question from the member for Capricornia about a granny flat and said: A new dwelling is one that genuinely adds new to housing supply.

We also know that the budget explainer states that a granny flat adjacent to an established property is ineligible for negative gearing. So, Minister, explain. If you can't understand your own policy, how on earth are Australians supposed to understand it?

Will a granny flat be negatively geared or not? Proposed expenditure agreed to.