Division
Milton Dick The question before the House is the bill be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. _Member for Wentworth's circulated amendment—_ (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add: 2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table heading dealing with 2027-28 year of income) Omit "or a later year of income". 3 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (at the end of the table) Add: Allegra Spender I have been fiercely advocating for tax reform since getting into this parliament. I believe strongly in reforms that ensure younger Australians get a fair go and the energy transition is as cheap as possible and that restore productivity. On personal income, my advocacy has always started with lowering income taxes, funded by reducing concessions. It has always been my firm view that tax reform should be budget neutral. Reforms to CGT and negative gearing might give younger people an edge back at the auction. I support that. I support reductions to the CGT rate and I support changes to negative gearing, but I've always believed that the best way to support younger working Australians is to let them keep more of what they earn. This budget fails at this task. Of the $100 billion it raises over the medium term, it keeps about $77 billion. It provides a $250 working tax offset for Australians annually from 2027-28 and rested justification on previous tax cuts already given under this government or tax cuts which may be given in the future. Those are welcome. But, after a period of high inflation, those tax cuts are shown by the average Australian marginal tax rate to be eaten up by bracket creep. The government has introduced a WATO. This is positive, but it doesn't do anything for our comparatively higher rates that kick in at relatively modest incomes. Cutting marginal tax rates would protect workers, drive aspiration and increase the
House of Representatives, 2026-06-04. negative: ayes 9, noes 73.
Question
Milton Dick The question before the House is the bill be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the question now is the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to. _Member for Wentworth's circulated amendment—_ (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add: 2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table heading dealing with 2027-28 year of income) Omit "or a later year of income". 3 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (at the end of the table) Add: Allegra Spender I have been fiercely advocating for tax reform since getting into this parliament. I believe strongly in reforms that ensure younger Australians get a fair go and the energy transition is as cheap as possible and that restore productivity. On personal income, my advocacy has always started with lowering income taxes, funded by reducing concessions. It has always been my firm view that tax reform should be budget neutral. Reforms to CGT and negative gearing might give younger people an edge back at the auction. I support that. I support reductions to the CGT rate and I support changes to negative gearing, but I've always believed that the best way to support younger working Australians is to let them keep more of what they earn. This budget fails at this task. Of the $100 billion it raises over the medium term, it keeps about $77 billion. It provides a $250 working tax offset for Australians annually from 2027-28 and rested justification on previous tax cuts already given under this government or tax cuts which may be given in the future. Those are welcome. But, after a period of high inflation, those tax cuts are shown by the average Australian marginal tax rate to be eaten up by bracket creep. The government has introduced a WATO. This is positive, but it doesn't do anything for our comparatively higher rates that kick in at relatively modest incomes. Cutting marginal tax rates would protect workers, drive aspiration and increase the
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.