Portfolio — 13 May 2026

Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh used a House debate on 13 May to lay out the distributional case for the government's negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms, framing them explicitly as a housing affordability intervention backed by budget revenue [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s053]. The centrepiece of his contribution was the announcement that the budget will retain negative gearing for newly built homes while removing it for existing homes purchased after the reforms take effect — a structural split designed to redirect investor incentives toward new supply rather than competition over existing stock [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s053].

Leigh anchored the policy rationale in a falling homeownership rate, which he described as having reached a 60-year low with many Australians unable to afford a house [TA-260513-house-ee1b85aea947:s053].

The distributional argument carried significant weight in his parliamentary contribution. Leigh cited analysis showing the top 10 per cent of income earners receive three-quarters of CGT discount benefits and around 40 per cent of negative gearing benefits. He put a dollar figure on the disparity: a typical earner has gained roughly $12,000 from these concessions since 2000, while the top 1 per cent has gained approximately $700,000.

The revenue freed by narrowing these concessions will fund a universal Working Australian tax offset, extending a direct benefit to all salary earners — a framing that allows the government to present the reform package as both fiscally responsible and progressively redistributive.

Leigh opened with a personal account of his grandfather purchasing a home in Seaholme, near Williamstown, after World War II, situating the current affordability crisis against a longer arc of rising and now declining homeownership. The rhetorical device grounds a technically complex tax argument in lived experience, a consistent feature of the government's public messaging on housing.

This Note covers parliamentary debate only. No ministerial media releases were included in the source window for this date. The record does not indicate whether Opposition members responded directly to Leigh's contribution in the same session; that context would require additional Hansard material to establish.