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

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (13:12): In the interest of time and given that the minister wants to make political speeches, I'll note a few things for the record, because I think this is an important process of our parliament. What we don't have as it stands, given you want to pass this bill today, is any sense of what the definition of a 'new build' would be.

I know you've flagged it'll be in future legislation, but I would've thought, if you were going to crow about some sort of a tax reform on housing, that the housing tax reform—noting the bunny ears here, as an indication of my view that it's not really reform, because $77 billion in new taxes is not tax reform when you leave the country with the highest 'pay as you go' system and the highest 'capital gains tax' system in the English-speaking world.

But I note that we have no sense of what the definition of a 'new build' would be, which I would've thought would've been pretty germane to this endeavour, but apparently it's not. The other thing that we don't have is any explanation as to the question I asked before, when I received a political torrent, in relation to the regulatory impact analysis and which version of this budget was actually put through the analysis.

We also don't have any sense of why there's been a distinction in this new reform, as you said, between a new build and an existing home in relation to your principle reforms. But, then, when you come to your reforms to prevent certain funds from investing in houses, we have no sense of why you have not chosen to make a distinction there. As far as we can see, you're wanting to stop all SMSFs from borrowing to invest in housing, irrespective of whether that is an existing house or a new house.

We also have no explanation as to the government's response to the many esteemed economists that have predicted significant increases in rents. As Senator Chandler canvassed before, we have no real understanding of the modelling done on the 35,000 fewer houses. Every time we've sought to ask detailed questions about how you have modelled these 35,000 fewer houses, all we've been able to hear is political responses that this has been offset with infrastructure funding.

I think it is a reasonable line of inquiry for us to understand exactly how you can justify, and how you have modelled in detail, those 35,000 fewer houses. Most typical people would look at it and say, 'Why would any government want to reduce any supply endeavour at the moment?' But this fourth iteration of this budget reduces supply in two areas; it reduces supply by 35,000—that is the Treasury's own number—and then it will also reduce supply by preventing certain investors from investing into houses, including new houses.

Those are the main questions I have. I'd put them separately, but, given the propensity for lengthy political speeches, I thought, for the efficiency of the chamber, I'd put them all at the same time.