Allegra Spender
Wentworth · Independent · Australia
“Estimates are between 0.5 per cent and two per cent of all abortions over 20 weeks. They are generally because of late diagnosed anomalies, genetic syndromes or severe fetal growth problems.”
“The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this.”
“Across Australia, we're seeing rising threats to women's access to abortion care. We see it in bills in state parliaments. We see it in the way some politicians talk about this issue, using misinformation and scare tactics to drive divisions, tools straight out of the Trump playbook.”
“They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away. We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people.”
“I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making.”
“I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.”
The complete record
Every one of 907 lines we hold for Allegra Spender, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 19.
“Spending concerns are compounded by an inability to show what it has bought. A recurring finding from the audit office is that agencies cannot demonstrate effectiveness, because evaluation was never built in. Programs run for years, get extended, get increased budgets and never face a rigorous test of whether they work. Productivity growth has averaged 0.2 per cent for seven years against 2.2 per cent in the 1990s. Addressing this decline is essential and urgent for our future prosperity. I welcome the productivity package in this budget on the performance tests, venture capital, loss refundability and carry back. The deregulation agenda is also welcome, but it is devoid of clear timeframes and metrics, and it is promised by every government. Like the NDIS savings, there is still a long road to the bank.”
“Beyond that, I don't believe the hard calls in this budget were made enough in spending, particularly in things like infrastructure and the EV discount. Why is this? Because the Budget Process Operational Rules make restraint structurally difficult. The offset rule sounds like a discipline; in practice it encourages ministers to hoard savings until they can be recycled into new programs. Combined with broad exemptions for election commitments and ERC discretion, programs only ever grow. Demand driven spending compounds this, with costs routinely exceeding budgets. In place of restraint, considerable spending has been pushed off-budget, where public scrutiny is weaker. This amounts to an extra percentage point of GDP. Next year, $7 billion of that is too commercially sensitive to even itemise. This is not transparency; it is the opposite.”
“Government spending sits at 26.8 per cent of GDP against a 50-year average of 24.5 per cent, and it is forecast to remain elevated across the entire forward estimates. New policy decisions in this budget added $12 billion of payments over two years. Off budget, there's a record $32.5 billion in net cash flows from investments in financial assets next year alone. This was an expansionary budget delivered in an inflationary environment. The savings the government has relied on rely heavily on restructuring the NDIS, which I wholeheartedly support, but it is one of the most politically and administratively challenging reforms in recent memory. I support the intent, but these savings can't be banked until they're delivered.”
“Here's what I find so remarkable about this initiative. Students came to us and told us about the challenges they were facing and what they thought could help. Principals listened and committed to a year 8 social cohesion program across our schools, and then students—some returning and some new—came back to help shape the program and trained as peer facilitators to help deliver it. Young people identified the problem and shaped the solution, and they are now leading the way forward. While they were doing that, the educators who accompanied them were doing their own work, with the Brave Conversations Project. The students said it best. One told us that being vulnerable is key to understanding each other and building connections, and another said it broke down the public and private school stigma.”
“It was a beautiful reminder of what community looks like when people show up for each other. To every volunteer across Wentworth: thank you. You are the heart of this community, and it is a privilege to represent you. Volunteering in Wentworth is not only about practical support. Sometimes it's about something harder—building understanding across difference. Last Wednesday, we held the final session of the Wentworth student-led social cohesion initiative at Ascham, and I want to thank Ascham for hosting us so generously. Seventeen schools have been part of this journey: Ascham, Centennial Park, Cranbrook, Kambala, Kesser Torah, Kincoppal - Rose Bay, Moriah, Reddam, Rose Bay Secondary, St Catherine's, St Clare's, SCEGGS, Scots, Sydney Grammar, the Emanuel School, Waverley College and WAYS Secondary.”
“What moves me is the sheer diversity of communities being served. Volunteers in Wentworth show up for people of every background, every faith, every age and every walk of life, making sure that no-one is left behind. I'm also really proud that my own team, including our volunteers, are part of this spirit. Members of my team have been lending a hand to support the Woolloomooloo community for some time now, and earlier this month I had the joy of joining the many volunteers from my community and the people who've supported me, alongside Alex Greenwich and so many other wonderful locals, at the fourth annual Woolloomooloo Parade. Watching Forbes Street come alive with costumes, music, handmade floats and the legendary showdown between Bruce the Giant Brush Turkey and the Rubbish Monster was just a delight.”
“I often say that this job brings me joy, and a big part of that joy is getting to see up close just how much volunteers do for our community. Last week was volunteer appreciation week, and I want to take a moment to recognise the incredible breadth of volunteer effort that makes Wentworth the community that it is. Volunteers keep our beaches safe, running patrols and teaching our kids in Nippers. They keep our sporting clubs going, not just on the fields but all through the admin, the organising, the early mornings and the fundraising that nobody sees. They run community centres and neighbourhood services, preparing meals and supporting people doing it tough. They tend community gardens, growing food and building connections, and they support our most vulnerable residents, through housing services, mental health programs and aged care.”
“This budget has some extremely positive measures: the ending of negative gearing, a standard deduction, income tax relief, loss refundability and carry back, research development tax incentive reform, the permanency of the instant asset write-off and a commitment to reforming the performance test among others. I'm genuinely sympathetic to the government that these measures, many of which I have called for, have been overshadowed by the proposed CGT regime. The piece that I would like to finish on is this: let's get this right. Tax reform really matters. This is not the only tax reform this country needs. There are many areas that need substantial reform, but, if we get this wrong, if we rush it, if we make mistakes, it will make future reforms much harder. It is time to get this right, and that is what I urge the government to do.”
“That shows that a dialogue on these bills is really necessary. I do believe that the amendments would be an improvement, but I don't believe that they would replace genuine interrogation and scrutiny, which is what these bills deserve. I cannot stress that enough. To the government: take a breath, consult broadly and address the genuine concerns raised by stakeholders. I support the government's aim, the intentions and most of the measures, but a CGT indexation mechanism has both known and unknown flaws. Instead of being a political liability, there should be a natural process of getting this complex issue right and making sure that the reforms do address the issues that have been raised in thoughtful ways—or, at least, that the risks are properly understood by the broader population.”
“That is why I'm putting forward three substantive amendments to the Treasury laws amendment bill—firstly, to remove the 30 per cent minimum rate on tax with instead income averaging over the previous 10 years of the asset or the life of the asset, whichever is lower; secondly, for to allow for real losses to be indexed the same as real gains; and, finally, to remove active businesses from the new CGT indexation regime. These amendments mitigate some of the most serious concerns that have been identified to date, but, honestly, I don't know if they are the perfect amendments. The truth is that we have not explored these bills and the changes that they create in our system enough. There are issues that are emerging in the papers most days, but there are also counterarguments emerging.”
“I honestly believe that reducing the flat discount to 35 or 40 per cent, rather than the indexation approach, would narrow the gap between the taxation of labour and capital, produce a model that is comparable with other countries—at a 40 per cent discount, you'd be talking about a top capital tax rate of 28 per cent, which would be well within the bounds of most OECD countries—and raise similar, more stable revenue while still rewarding high-growth businesses and high-growth investments and not having the issues with startups that we are concerned about. That is what I believe the government should do. Failing that, I think the indexation method must deal with at least the known problems of the model and give time to explore some of the risks that are not yet fully understood or are still being explored.”
“Being told that how much tax they will pay 'depends' is a difficult answer for many Australians when they are trying to plan their investments and retirement, and it is hard for them to know what this means for them. This uncertainty is bad for individuals planning their finances or business. The model has also greater uncertainty for government as to how much money will be raised. Now, as I said, I do believe there are some advantages in the government's model and I do believe some of the issues I have raised can be overcome. But it is not yet clear to me that the advantages that the model promotes compensate for the risks that it creates, and certainly not as it is currently written. A simpler path exists.”
“While I think that the government is absolutely right to reduce the gap between the taxation of labour and the taxation of capital, I do believe that there is a difference between receiving a secure wage today and building, investing in or working on a project based on the prospect of a future upside but also on the prospect of capital losses or wages unearned that cannot be offset against current or past labour income. The tax system can't fix every issue, and other policies are important, but in practice the tax system has the ability to weaken those other mechanisms. Finally, there is a more practical problem. Many Australians do not understand the model.”
“But I am concerned that there will be real impacts, not on all businesses but on some—on some founders of high-growth companies who already have strong incentives and pressures to move offshore; on some workers who already struggle to give up secure jobs for uncertain outcomes; and on some investors, where the returns on risk are significantly diminished. That makes me nervous. At a time when we are struggling to build prosperity, to increase our productivity, we should be very cautious about changes that could affect productive risk taking and we should weigh the costs and benefits thoughtfully and ask if there is a better way to do it.”
“That is a problem in a world of high labour and capital mobility. Now, I do believe that some of the concern about some of these risks is overstated. Most businesses will not be taxed at close to 47 per cent. There still remain significant CGT concessions for small businesses, and I believe that these should be maintained and, frankly, should grow. The government has committed to engage with the tech sector on these issues, and the feedback I've received is that that engagement by government is really genuine.”
“I am also concerned that this model is hard for many people to understand and to predict, and that simplicity is genuinely a virtue in tax, where people are concerned and don't feel very confident. Firstly, investors choosing between safer and risky investments will find that the returns on risk are considerably less attractive under this indexation model versus previous models, and also compared with most international tax regimes. That effect is compounded by a fundamental asymmetry in the model itself, which taxes real gains but only allows the deduction of nominal losses. The businesses we most want to encourage—high-risk, high-growth, capital-light, genuinely innovative businesses—are taxed at a much higher rate under this model and, in many cases, at an internationally uncompetitive rate.”
“I don't think there is a perfect CGT regime, and there is a lot of variation around the world. It must strive to carefully balance building prosperity and ensuring fairness, and I am concerned that the approach doesn't get the balance right. There are strengths in what the government is proposing. It has a strong intellectual basis—having a system that taxes real gains consistently. There are significant advantages for fairness, and those play out particularly in the housing market. But my concern about this methodology is how this system works in a world where almost all countries tax at lower and flatter rates and where capital and labour are mobile, and where no other country taxes real gains in this way except Israel, which has a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent, versus Australia's of 47 per cent, on capital.”
“I believe that Australia's current CGT regime is overly generous and is not fit for purpose. I have made the case many times that the current discount of 50 per cent means that someone on a wage of 100K pays $26,000 in tax, versus someone who earns that income from property investment, who pays only $7,000 worth of tax. I think it is very hard to justify the extent of that difference. I particularly support ceasing the concessions on pre-CGT assets. There is no justifiable reason that they are still treated like this 40 years on. I will pay more tax under the government's arrangements, and I support that. If done right, CGT reform can preserve strong incentives to take risks and build businesses, all while ensuring that more Australians can build wealth through lower marginal tax rates. But the methodology is important.”
“A package of this size could support a version of the coalition's plan to index tax brackets to stop bracket creep in the first place, a policy I was pushing for long before the opposition came onboard. But we fundamentally need to reduce marginal tax rates, including the top marginal tax rate. The government has done half the reform with these measures, but with a very serious omission on the other side of the ledger. That is a decision of expediency. I'm sure there are some tax cuts coming closer to an election, but I think it is a missed opportunity to build trust within the community and, frankly, to make sure these tax changes are in a direction that Australians understand and can support. But my primary concern with this bill and the biggest risk to the reform is the CGT package. Let me be clear.”
“I appreciate that the transition arrangements mean that revenue takes a long time to come in, but that doesn't excuse holding on for a pre-election sweetener or to prop up historically high levels of government spending. I want to make the point that, unlike some other speakers in this debate, I strongly support the government's endeavour to broaden Australia's income tax base—not just on property assets—if it means we can reduce our reliance on income taxes from wages. Let's look at the facts. Just eight per cent of the capital gains tax discount goes to people under the age of 40. If you want to help people under the age of 40 build wealth and financial security, you can make much more of a difference by reducing their marginal tax rates than through CGT discounts.”
“Second, it will restrict negative gearing on housing investment for sales after budget night to only new builds. Third, it will introduce a $1,000 standard deduction. Finally, it will introduce a $250 Working Australians Tax Offset each year, starting from 2027-28. Most of these changes I support. Restricting negative gearing to new builds is sensible, although I would urge the government to also phase out negative gearing on existing properties over seven years rather than grandfathering it indefinitely. A standard deduction is long overdue, and the WATO introduces tax relief, which I welcome, particularly relief that targets work. But the fundamental problem with this component of the package is that it leaves far too much on the table—$77 billion, in fact.”
“In a generation it will be fewer than three. Yet only 17 per cent of older Australians pay income tax today, compared with 27 per cent in the past. We are asking a shrinking pool of younger working people to fund a growing bill. With the disruption that AI will bring to entry-level employment, that reliance becomes more precarious still. Australia's tax base must be broadened. That is an inescapable conclusion. But it matters enormously that we get that broadening right. This bill introduces four changes that attempt to address that. First, it will introduce a new method for calculating the capital gains discount based on indexing an asset's cost base to the annual rate of inflation. This will include a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent on real gains.”
“A younger household pays, on average, twice the tax of an older household on 100 grand of income, despite being, on average, four times less wealthy and being more likely to be carrying a HECS debt, saving for a deposit, paying rent or raising dependent kids. These households are failing to build wealth at the same rate as their parents. The result is most visibly stark in housing. The combination of negative gearing and capital gains discount has tilted the balance decisively towards investors rather than first home buyers. That is not an accident. It is a consequence of deliberate tax settings, and it must change. At the same time, our demographics are shifting in ways that make our tax system unsustainable. We used to have six workers for every Australian aged over 65. Now it is fewer than four.”
“This bill is rushed. The proposed inquiry is unacceptably superficial. The government has admitted problems with the bill without fixing them. The government can't seek credit for the most significant tax reform in a generation and then push it through the House with only a week to review the detail. That is treating this parliament and the genuine issues of this bill with enormous disrespect. So I continue to urge the government to pause, rigorously test its assumptions and model, and, as uncomfortable as it is, bring the bill back to parliament when the reform is robust and it will stick. Let me start with why I believe we need genuine reform, why this debate matters so much and why I support the direction of travel. Our tax system places the greatest burden on people at the time of greatest stress.”
“It is not because I don't support the intent. The government has correctly diagnosed significant problems in Australia's tax system. It's not because I don't support the broad direction of the measures. I believe that, alongside greater spending restraint, we need to reduce our reliance on tax from wages, and this should be paid for by reducing tax concessions on assets. I'm concerned because there are still substantial issues with the government's CGT model which are not resolved and not necessarily understood, and because the government has not yet committed to giving all the money raised back as income tax cuts. I know many will say that I'm allowing perfect to be the enemy of better, but I would argue that my community asked me to put reform on the table but also to make sure that the government gets the reform right.”
“For a long time, I have campaigned hard for the day when this House would be debating the substantive details of tax reform instead of talking about it in the abstract. Since 2022, I've held roundtables with experts, hosted events in my electorate, attended the Treasurer's own roundtable, written two substantial policy papers, made further submissions to inquiries and made the case time and time again, publicly and in the media. After 25 years of timidity, we are finally having that debate. That in itself is an enormous leap forward from even just a few months ago. It takes real guts to put a package like this into the world, and for that I commend the government and particularly the Treasurer. But I will be honest: I have concerns with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 in its current form.”
“But, given the real risks to the delivery timescales, as well as the delivery costs, of this program, it is up to the Australian government to be transparent and honest about this. This is why you are seeing people like the former head of the Australian Defence Force, former Admiral Barrie, get behind a public inquiry into AUKUS, because there is so little faith amongst the public about AUKUS, on its original strategic intent but, absolutely, right now, on whether it can be delivered. It is up to the government to be transparent to the Australian people. There are problems there—we know that; we can read the news. It is time for the government to be honest about that and how it is going to keep Australians safe into the future.”
“Thirdly, let's move to the SSN-AUKUS boats. A recent UK parliamentary committee has warned that Britain risks being unable to meet its obligations under AUKUS because of the risk to the SSN-AUKUS boats. The real question is on this. We have all the elements of the Australian submarine strategy at risk right now—all of them. We have had reassurances from the government, and from previous governments, that this is in Australia's interests and is setting us up for the future. All three elements are under significant strain right now. It is time for the government to be honest about that—to be transparent about the risks and clear on how it is going to mitigate those risks. There are other options as to submarines. They are not that great that it is better to have them as submarines.”
“Now—just over the weekend—the government has agreed with the US that we're not going to get one new Virginia class submarine; we're actually going to get three second-hand submarines. My question to the government is: if that was such a great idea and if that was such an important strategic pivot, why didn't you work this out three years ago? It's hard to believe that this is actually what Australia wants. It feels very much like we are being dictated terms by the US. The US has undertaken the Colby review of the AUKUS arrangement. Apparently there are recommendations in the Colby review which do our alter our arrangements with the US. But we don't know, and the Australian parliament doesn't know, and certainly the Australian people don't know, what those recommendations are and how they affect AUKUS in this country.”
“The recent ANAO report was scathing about the current ability of the Collins class submarines extension-of-life program. There are real concerns about what we're going to get and our ability to deliver it and the costs of these. Secondly, let's look at the Virginia class submarines. The USA is continuing to deliver submarines at around half the rate that is required for the President to be able to sign off that submarines given to Australia are not a reduction in the USA's own capabilities. The President has the ability not to fulfil the commitment to the Australian government, on the basis of that issue. But the USA is not producing submarines at the rate that means that the President can, in good faith, sign off on assigning Virginia class submarines to Australia.”
“But it seems that there is a significant danger that we will not have the submarines that we need, in terms of both the Virginia class submarines and the AUKUS class submarines, as well as capability gaps emerging in our Collins class submarines, which means that we may be significantly underprepared in this area. This is no way to run a defence force. Let's look at the evidence. There are three key elements of the Australian submarine program: firstly, continuing the Collins class submarines over a period of time to bridge gaps; secondly, the purchasing of Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines before we get the AUKUS submarines; and, thirdly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines. Each of those three elements is currently experiencing significant problems. Firstly, let's look at the Collins class submarines.”
“Australians are losing faith in AUKUS, if they ever had it. It is time for the government to be transparent on the risks to the delivery of AUKUS, how they are going to address them and how they're going to keep Australians safe. The government's first duty is to protect its people. Defence is one of the most important issues facing our country in this ever-changing world. The cornerstone of the Morrison government's, and now the Albanese government's, future defence strategy has been AUKUS. I have real questions about whether the AUKUS nuclear submarine program is really, truly what Australia needs for its future, but, putting those concerns aside, having some submarines is better than having no submarines.”
“My question is for the Minister for Communications. The Reverend Tim Costello today described gambling company inducements, such as bonus bets and boosted odds, as 'the most evil, predatory feature of the gambling industry'. The Murphy review recommended the immediate banning of all inducements and inducement advertising, but these recommendations are not included in your exposure draft bill. Will the Albanese government act to outlaw these inducements that drive problem gambling?”
“We need to get this right because, if we don't get this reform right, then we will see issues in future reforms as well. It will be harder to do this in the future. The government needs to wear the pain and the discomfort of doing something that people don't understand, get it right, do it right, and make sure you commit to giving the money back as reductions through tax cuts over time. That will make this reform stick, and it will better for the fairness and prosperity we need in this country in the long term.”
“The way to do that is not to push through a tax bill that is not well understood in the community where issues are still being played out in the media as people try and get their heads around it. I spent the last four years working on tax; I'm still trying to get my head around this because it is complicated and it is important. Government, please slow it down. The community doesn't understand it. It is too important for the economy to get it wrong. We do not want to see tax reform as we have seen in the past decades which gets in and goes out again. That is wrong for the country, that is wrong for where we need to go—particularly on capital because we need stable treatment of capital over time so that people have confidence.”
“It is possible to make this stuff better and deal with those issues and make sure we get the right balance between fairness and prosperity, but we are not going to do that if you rush this bill through the House and Senate without inquiry in other areas. Finally, my plea to the government on this is really to take a breath. Reform really matters. The government has shown the courage to put this on the table; that is the right decision. The rhetoric that no change is needed is wrong. We do need change in the system, we do need to get this right, and we do need a tax system that allows people, regardless of who their parents are, to be able to build wealth and prosperity, frankly, just to be able to build financial security for themselves and their kids.”
“That was really important, and, even if you brought that in, you could actually, potentially, take out the 30 per cent minimum tax rate, which the government has put in and which is very badly understood because it's meant to be on real rates but nobody really understands that. Those are some of the areas that we can work on. Those are some of the issues that I have with the tax bill right now, and I believe that you can resolve these issues. It may need a different model, it may need some different changes, but it is possible to make this work. There are issues with the negative gearing grandfathering.”
“Finally, there's an issue that, if you put your money into risk taking and you lose all your money, you don't get income tax relief; you only get capital tax relief. Again, there is a risk that goes with putting capital in that is different to earning a wage. You can't, at the end of one year of wages, get it all taken away again. I think we've got to get this balance right. I want to align the tax system better to reward young people trying to get ahead, people who earn their income via wages, but I am not yet convinced that where the government has gone is right. Certainly, I think that the government needs to look at the income smoothing that the original Keating model included.”
“The second question is about international comparison. My concern is that there's an intellectual's elegance where the government has put this bill, but the truth is that there's no other economy in the world that currently manages indexation in terms of capital except Israel, but their top marginal rate is 30 per cent, so this is quite different to Australia. That international competitiveness is important. It is not potentially unresolvable with the government's indexation system, but we need to take a breath on this because it really matters. The other issues are in relation to ones like taxation of nominal gains. The government's current bill puts forward that you pay tax on real gains, but you only get tax relief on nominal gains. This is a real asymmetry in what the government has put forward.”
“They are trying to consult business, staff and the small-business community. It's not good enough to try and pass a bill on that without actually getting those changes right as well. Again, I take the government on their word on this, but, at the same time, I just think they should not be trying to pass this bill or put through this bill without actually deciding what is actually going to be done for those types of businesses. It's not just start-ups; it is all types of small and medium businesses. If you're a service business, if you're a knowledge business or if you're a brand business, you often have very little capital that you invest in the start. Therefore, the new way that the government has changed the tax system in is really going to penalise you compared to compared to other things.”
“If we don't build businesses, if we don't reward risk and if we become too much out of step with the rest of the world in terms of how we tax capital, then we have the danger that people leave. People that we want to build the businesses of the future won't stay in this country. There may not be a lot of sympathy for people who are really successful in terms of building businesses, but I think there is a lot of sympathy for anyone who has started and tried to drive a business. It is bloody hard. It is extremely difficult. You often don't pay yourself, you often put your own money in and you often are not sure if you're ever going to get it out. It can destroy your confidence if it doesn't work. You give up years of good earning as well to do that. We do need to make sure that risk is rewarded. The government, I think, is sincere.”
“They have raised spending at a level that is certainly out of step with previous spending and previous governments, so people have a genuine concern that the increase in taxes raised by the government is not going to go back into income taxes. They're not cuts. They're not going to go back into the pockets of younger people. They may go back into more spending. I think that is a bad outcome for people and I think that reduces trust. So that is my first concern with what the government has put forward. The second concern is about prosperity. The government has said and has recognised, and I think is genuinely engaging with, small and medium businesses and the startup sector about how these tax changes work for these businesses, because it is important that we get this right.”
“I don't think that's a good idea for reform and I don't think that's a good idea for people's trust in the system. I think that is a purely political decision rather than a decision to try to drive good reform. If you look at Hawke-Keating or if you look at Howard and Costello and how they changed and drove tax reform, they made it revenue neutral. That was the way that they got the community on board. Right now, people in my community are going: 'I don't understand how this benefits me. I am a young person. I'm trying to save. I'm being told I'm going to get a $250 tax benefit at some point, but the government is taking a bunch more money.' People are genuinely concerned that this government has raised spending in a way that they—I certainly believe it's not sustainable.”
“These are economic concerns, concerns from a fairness point of view and concerns from a prosperity point of view. The first point I want to make on this is if you're trying to help young people get ahead then you can change how other people are taxed so that they are taxed more, but you actually need to give that money back to young people. That should be a principle here, and I think this is one of the most significant principles the government has ignored in this. They have made these tax changes neutral over the forward estimates, over the next four years, but they have not told the country where they are trying to take the tax system. They are holding the $77 billion worth of increased tax receipts that this package puts forward in their pocket, and I think they're hoping to give them back at an election.”
“I don't think those numbers work, but I also don't necessarily think where the government is going is right, because they've got a bunch of problems in their bill too. I think this is the debate we need to have. This is why this bill needs to be referred to the Standing Committee on Economics. We need a tax system that balances fairness and prosperity. We need a tax system that incentivises innovation and rewards risk taking and we need a tax system that is fair, where people can get ahead regardless of who your parents are. That is the balance that I believe this parliament needs to strike. This is a balance that I don't think the government has got right, and this is the reason why we need to look at this carefully and get it right this time. I want to go now to the reasons why I have concerns with the government's current bill.”
“There are a lot of issues in housing that are not due to the tax system. But we cannot pretend that the tax system doesn't play into housing. We cannot pretend that negative gearing has helped drive equity into the housing system. I don't believe that, and I don't think the statistics back that either. So we do have issues to face. Genuinely, from an equity point of view, when people say, 'Why should we change a tax system at all?' I ask, and I've asked this really strongly—if you earn a hundred grand in wages, you pay $23,000 in tax. If you earn it on capital gains, you pay about $7,000 of tax. If you can split it with a spouse and through a trust, you might pay about $13,000 worth of tax. If you earn it in retirement, when you're in the pension phase on your super, you pay zero tax at all.”
“We need a tax system that recognises that our overreliance on taxing wages is not sustainable. I look to a future where AI is also coming, and we do not know what impact that will have on jobs. I hope that it won't be negative. I hope it will build prosperity. But I certainly recognise that we can't have a system that is just built on trying to tax wages more. The problem in relation to sustainability is that we have a tax system, despite the challenges, which relies on different Australians to tax people less. For instance, about 27 per cent of older Australians used to pay income tax. That's now down to 17 per cent. Finally, something that I think is absolutely clear is that young people are falling behind. It's not just down to the tax system. It has a lot to do with housing.”
“They pay on average half the tax of a working-age household despite the fact that—I think these are the numbers—they are four times more wealthy, much more likely to own their own home, much less likely to have a HECS debt and much less likely to be battling with renting costs, trying to save for a deposit and all those kinds of issues. It's never going to be perfect, but I'd like a tax system that taxes people appropriately or taxes people less when they're trying to build wealth and when they have less capacity to pay. Secondly, we know we have a tax system that is not sustainable. In decades past, we used to have about six people who were working for every person over the age of 65. We now have under four people. In a few more decades it's going to be under three people.”
“It is absolutely right that reform is on the agenda if we care about building prosperity and we care about building fairness. We need both those things in our economy. When I look at the personal income tax system at the moment, I identify three significant concerns that I believe need to be fundamentally addressed. Firstly, we know that the tax system taxes you most heavily when you have the least ability to pay. Talk to any young person. I'll give you an example. There are two households living next door to each other that are both on a hundred grand, but one is a retired household.”
“Finally, it is the wrong decision for reform more generally. It is hard to get tax reform on the agenda. It is hard to get decent reform on the agenda. But the answer, once you've made that decision, is not just to ram it through and hope for the best and hope that people get over their concerns. If it's done wrong and if it can't build the support that it needs to build, it will set back reform not only in tax but also more broadly across the economy. That is a bad outcome for this country. I want to talk to you specifically about why I support reform, because there are people in this parliament and the country who say: 'No, don't touch anything. Everything's okay here.' I have to say, I don't agree. I have been one of the strongest proponents for reform in the tax system over the last four years since I have been here.”