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

Ms WATSON-BROWN (Ryan) (09:56): This bill, seemingly, has no friends. On one hand, the Greens have been campaigning for property tax concession reform for a long time. It's clearly necessary to wind back these concessions if we are going to fix the housing crisis, but we also need investment in public housing and renters' rights reform.

However, the reforms that we've been presented clearly have many loopholes that advantage existing property owners over young people trying to enter the property market. Why should these tax concessions be grandparented for people with five, 15 or 50 properties? If this reform is actually going to have an impact on the housing crisis, those people cannot be encouraged to hold on to their dozens of properties.

But that's what these reforms as drafted will incentivise. Young Australians are not cheering for this package of reforms, because they've watched the property ladder being pulled up before their eyes. Another really serious concern is the broad, sweeping ministerial powers that this legislation gives the Treasurer.

Then there are the changes to tax concessions for non-housing assets. The government has failed to communicate with the public about these changes, leaving the door open—as we've seen—for a massive campaign against them by big business, start-up founders and people invested in shares—people earning a passive income from simply owning assets shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than people earning an income from working.

I don't think that that should be controversial to say. What gets a little more complex is the situation where people who might be earning an income from work are supplementing that with earnings from non-housing assets. Many people doing this are quite wealthy, but certainly not everyone.

I can totally understand why young people who feel locked out of the housing market and may have resorted to assets like shares to save up for a deposit would feel that they're getting the rug pulled out from under them. I do think that that's understandable. I've also been hearing from many of my constituents—some retirees, some small-business owners, and many others concerned about potential unintended consequences—that the government simply has not been able to explain or to justify its proposed changes to these concerned people.

So where are we left on this bill? It's going to a Senate inquiry where these issues will be examined, as they should be. It's important we let that process play out.

What we ultimately want to see is the billionaires, the ultrawealthy and the one per cent who are earning a huge amount from simply watching assets grow paying their fair share, but let's make sure that is actually what this bill will achieve. The Greens will be supporting this bill in the House. The government has the numbers, and the bill's clearly going to pass.

But I want to make very clear that we will be reserving our position in the Senate.