A Bad Budget; Are the Liberals Back? And More Gender Madness | Australia’s Future S5E8

Added: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]This idea that somehow the negative gearing changes and the capital gains tax changes are going to make it much easier for young people to afford a house is frankly bunkham. This is at best a band-aid on a bullet wound. And I would say that this is much more likely to make a bad situation worse than better. Increasing taxes on things almost never increases the supply. And basically this is a tax on rental housing. The Australian way of life is under threat like never before.

[00:00:32]Sectarian violence is rife on our streets. The political class is silencing mainstream Australians under the guise of hate speech and the media, universities and major civic organizations continue to fan the flames of division. Australia is without leadership and Australians are losing hope. 2026 will be the year that defines the future of our great nation. Are we up to the task?

[00:00:56]Hello Tony and good day to all of our viewers and listeners. Great to be back today. Tony will be sharing his thoughts on the federal budget and the budget in reply speeches. Uh the meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the giggle and tickle case plus many other domestic issues. So Tony, great to be back with you >> as always, Dan.

[00:01:15]>> All right. Well, let's start with the federal budget, which it would be fair to say has gone down like a lead balloon. the uh changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax, and how trusts are going to be treated uh was obviously uh a lie in terms of what they told the public before the election and what they've gone ahead and done now. It looks to me anyway like they're backpedaling pretty quickly. Alani doesn't seem very enthusiastic in defending these changes and he's got Jim Charas out there doing all the hard yards. So what's your assessment Tony of of these changes and also the consequences to the government?

[00:01:49]>> The bad news for the country from last week was that the Albanese government showed its true colors as a big government, big taxing class envy um leftist green leftist establishment. The good news from for the country is that the Angus Taylor opposition I think has also shown its true colors as a strong and credible alternative. So what we saw last week in the budget uh was a government more interested in wealth redistribution uh and what we saw with the budget reply was an alternative government more interested in wealth creation.

[00:02:34]So I think that u in some respects the budget reply was even more significant than the budget itself because it was a reply that was full of policy substance, policy bravery and I think that the budget reply has well and truly established Angus Taylor as an extremely credible alternative prime minister. Uh I think it's going to change the political dynamic uh very considerably.

[00:03:04]Uh the government believed that having got away with um misleading people over power prices, misleading people over its commitment to the stage three tax cuts, it could get away with another breach of faith. But this is a rather different breach of faith in that you can't blame breaking a promise on tax on circumstances beyond your control. Uh this was not a promise that was broken that involved any benefit to anyone.

[00:03:39]This was a pure and simple broken promise that involves more tax, not less, which puts into place bad policy, not good policy. And the final dimension to this, which I think is going to be a bit of a slow burn with the public, is that the taxes that he has drastically changed for the worse are tax taxes and so-called concessions that the prime minister himself has benefited from in the past. Now, if negative gearing was all right for him, uh, why is it wrong for everyone else? If the capital D gains tax discount was all right for him when he needed it, why is it wrong for everyone else? So, not only is this a broken promise, not only is this bad policy, but it reeks of hypocrisy.

[00:04:41]And I think this is really going to be a huge difficulty for the government. I wouldn't be surprised if it's seen in the fullness of in the fullness of time as the moment when the Albani government started to eb out of office.

[00:04:59]>> Why do you think they've gone ahead with this? I I found it a bit strange because politically you would say basically the government's got their foot on the neck of the coalition. Never interrupt your opponent when they're making a when they're going backwards. They've now injected this into the political debate, which as you say has given Angus Taylor and the Liberal Party an opportunity to to turn the tables on the government. To me, it seems like it was basically Jim Chararma's wanting to be able to at least be remembered for doing something in his time as treasurer and Albanesey's basically let him do it because they've got a massive majority. I don't, as you sort of suggested, I don't think that they thought that the push back would be this. I think they thought maybe it wouldn't be super popular, but it would just be a technical change to the tax system and people would live with it.

[00:05:44]But that doesn't appear to be the case.

[00:05:47]Well, a government which says that this is a big deal can hardly then turn around and say after the event actually it's not not such a big deal. I mean for weeks beforehand the government was flagging these changes and claiming that these were somehow very important reforms. The prime minister was standing up in the week before the budget saying this is going to be a budget that's full of labor values. Well, it turns out that the Labor values that the budget reflects are class envy, um, class war policy, broken promises, uh, higher taxes, and the destruction of incentive and aspiration. So, so, so yeah, uh, I think they were a bit shocked by the savage reaction to the budget. I think they were surprised by the strength of Angus Taylor's policy response.

[00:06:47]And I do think that there was a kind of arrogance and complacency that was a product first of the very large parliamentary majority they've got and second of the fact that the opposition had a pretty bad year certainly until Angus Taylor took over the leadership.

[00:07:06]Do you think there is a case for for property to be taxed differently than other investments? I mean, I I think that there sometimes is a case because unlike a share portfolio, I mean, you can't live in a share portfolio, but you can live in a house. And so, I I think that there is an issue with treating it conceptually the same as any other investment because I don't think that housing, at least residential housing, is categorically the same as just another investment. Would you share that perspective?

[00:07:36]My very strong instinct, I've got to say, Dan, is that assets are assets.

[00:07:42]Income is income. And different classes of assets should not normally be treated differently, and different forms of income should not normally be treated differently.

[00:07:54]Now, I'm not saying that that's an absolute unbreakable rule, but if you look at uh the previous attempt by Paul Keading when he was treasurer in the 80s to remove negative gearing from rental properties uh to remove negative gearing from uh investment properties, it ended badly because particularly in Sydney and Perth, rents skyrocketed and the availability of rental properties dramatically declined.

[00:08:26]This idea that somehow the negative gearing changes and the capital gains tax changes are going to make it much easier for young people to afford a house is frankly bunkham. Absolute bunkum. And even on the government's own modeling, Treasury's own modeling, uh just 75,000 people over a decade are going to gain access to a home as a result of it. Now, 7 and a half thousand people a year, uh that's hardly going to make a difference. Uh, I mean, if if if housing affordability uh is a problem, and I accept that it is, this is at best a band-aid on a bullet wound. And I would say that this is much more likely to make a bad situation worse than better. Increasing taxes on things almost never increases the supply. And basically, this is a tax on rental housing. M I think you put your finger on something important which is as you say they try to big it up saying this is going to be a big deal and then their own budget papers say 75,000 more people over 10 years and also I think Albany had used the figure of >> house prices will continue to grow but I think at 2% less per year so instead of going up by 8% like it is in Perth it'll go by 6%. Well, okay. Yes, technically you're improving housing affordability compared compared to the counterfactual, but really how many more 25 year olds are going to get into a property at 6% compared to 8% growth? I would say probably none.

[00:10:05]>> Um, it that does bring me to the big thing that they haven't talked about, which is mass migration. I mean, the single biggest driver on the demand side is mass migration of housing unaffordability. And on the supply side, it's the cost of actually building a house. If you're not bringing down the cost of building a house, if you're not bringing in more trades people or training more trades people to build them, really anything else you do is going to be very minor in the grand scheme of things.

[00:10:30]>> Uh, two things. First, Labour's pro-UN changes uh are damaging productivity and driving up costs. And second, Labour's green obsessions are making it much harder to release more land for housing.

[00:10:48]And that is a much more important part of the problem than investors going into the market to buy properties that might under different circumstances be available to first home buyers. Now, I certainly think that we do need to make it easier for first home buyers. I think we need to make it easier for everyone.

[00:11:11]And the best way to make it easier for first home buyers is to have a more prosperous economy. Uh and that means less tax, not more. It means less regulation, not more. Uh it means less union power, not more. And and again, I I I tend to think that everything this government is doing is making our prosperity more imperiled. And one of the reasons why I'm quite optimistic about the next election from the coalition's perspective is that I can't see any of the big problems that our country faces being improved by this government. And to get on to mass migration, well obviously you're right, Dan, record levels of immigration are obviously going to have a huge impact on housing costs. um when we are importing uh close to half a million people a year and we're lucky to build a 100,000 new homes a year, obviously there's going to be massive pressure on supply and there's going to be very significant price increases. Well, in terms of uh Angus Taylor's budget and reply speech, there were, as you say, a number of policies uh outlined, including in relation to linking the immigration intake to house builds. Now, this to me makes sense at one level. Obviously, you need to take into account uh whether there's going to be houses here for newcomers to actually live in. Uh, I think that that I would see that as a a first step in a in a broader immigration policy because it could be taken to imply if we build 500,000 homes then we can have 500,000 new migrants. Now, I don't think that's what they're saying, but they are going to have to clarify what exactly they mean by the numbers and I suspect they are going to have to put a number on the nom which should be much less than 100,000 in my view. But nonetheless, it is now finally uh integrating an economic side into the migration policy just as they've said they'll integrate a social component through the value statement through the requirement to speak English into the social side. So this seems to be a positive step which I think needs to go much further but a good step nonetheless.

[00:13:24]>> I think that's right Dan. These are very encouraging important moves in the right direction. Angus has been saying since the beginning of migration that the numbers are too high and the quality is too low. Uh he's been saying that we can and should discriminate on the basis of values. He's saying that we obviously need to take into account things like housing stock, employment prospects and so on. And yes, plainly there's going to have to be a lot more detail at some early point. well before the next election. But I do think again this is a clear case of the Liberal National Coalition now going very decisively in the right direction. I I always think that you should start any policy discussion from first principles. Um, immigration has got to be run first and foremost for the benefit of the existing Australian population, not for the benefit of newcomers, although obviously they wouldn't come if they didn't think they were going to get a benefit. Uh, not to change Australia, but to help build up Australia. And frankly uh the only people who should be coming to our country as a matter of course are people who are the genuine dependents of existing Australian citizens and people who we are confident are going to make a strong contribution to the country. And the best way of knowing that someone is likely to make a strong contribution to the country is if that person has a definite job offer uh at uh market wages plus. Um because obviously the best way to make a contribution to Australia from day one is to do a job that would not otherwise be done uh and pay taxes and contribute.

[00:15:35]>> And the other major policy announcement was the indexation of the income tax thresholds. Now this is a good idea because it would mean you have a permanent tax cut.

[00:15:46]>> It's a discipline on government. It's a discipline on government and yes, having a a one-off hit is nice as what Albanzy is offering, but with the indexation, you'll get a permanent long-term tax cut that will be baked into the system. So, you'll be paying over the course of your working life a lot less tax uh than you would otherwise in the absence of >> Exactly. Right. This is a a discipline on government that means that government cannot rely on inflation to automatically increase the tax take. Uh it was put in place for a few years by the Fraser government. Uh as the Fraser government lost discipline and lost direction uh the change was uh was reversed. I think that was a real pity.

[00:16:34]And good on Angus Taylor for having the courage and the principle uh to declare this policy early in his time as opposition leader. Um because let's face it, if you are going to be taken seriously, you can't just produce policies a few weeks out from an election. if you really believe them, if you really mean them, uh you will articulate them, defend them, explain them, justify them. And I think that this is going to really help sharpen the contrast between on the one hand uh the Albanese Labor government which frankly is about wealth redistribution and the politics of envy and anxiety and a liberal national coalition which should always be about aspiration about opportunity and about wealth creation. M now the other uh I guess budget in reply speech we should talk about is that of Senator Pauline Hansen who delivered a speech from the Senate and I thought there were a lot of good things in what Senator Hansen had to say as well uh including for example the uh commitment to income tax splitting of of families which I think is also something that Senator Canavan has been a champion of over many years and also something we talked about a fortnite ago I think which was ending uh taxpayerf funed welcome to country ceremonies which I I think would be a very good idea But what I was quite boyed by on Thursday night was putting the party politics to a side. If you take the policy substance of what Angus Taylor was saying plus Senator Hansen plus Matt Canavan, you take collectively the the centerright parties in Australia, we're sort of back in business. We're talking about the big ideas that really matter to Australia's future. And if you take those policies collectively, you say, "Yeah, if if this was all implemented, Australia would be a much better country." And it's the first time I think I have felt that way in a number of years where it's like okay we're we're finally getting somewhere. The you know abolition of net zero was another policy that is now completely accepted on on the center right. Um so I felt positive about that general direction >> and and I think a lot of people did Dan.

[00:18:49]I had a lot of text messages on Thursday night and Friday from people saying it's at least a decade since they've been as positive about the coalition as they felt listening to Angus Taylor's speech.

[00:19:01]I think many of us for a long time, a depressingly long time, have felt that the best thing you could say about the coalition is that it wasn't as bad as Labor. Uh but I think now we've got a choice between a Labor party which is definitely on the wrong track and a Liberal National Coalition which is definitely on the right track. Um it's not just choosing the lesser evil as it were. It's now offering us a positive good uh on the ballot paper.

[00:19:36]>> Hi, thanks for watching. Did you know that threequarters of you watching this podcast aren't currently subscribed to the IPA's YouTube channel? So, do us a favor, hit subscribe, and you won't miss any of the action. While you're at it, head to ipa.org.au.

[00:19:50]Follow the prompts to subscribe to the IPA's website. So, that way you will find all of our research and analysis.

[00:19:57]Now, back to the chat. All right. Well, let's talk about another issue on the domestic scene, which is the Giggle versus Tickle uh court case. Now, that wasn't court case. This is now a judgment that's come out in in the negative. So basically, Giggle is a platform that was intended for women only to be able to be used. Uh that was challenged by an individual, a um trans individual who said it was discriminatory uh to be undertaking that action to not allow them on the platform and then it was went through the court system. There was a ruling in the federal court that in fact you cannot you quote unquote discriminate on that basis. Now, S Grover, who's who ran the platform, has said, well, she's going to go to the high court. So, good on her for for doing that. But this does seem that the even though the public is is looking at this saying, you know, how how is it the case that we can't simply recognize men are men and women are women, it still seems to be the case that the political system and the legal system has not caught up with normal public opinion at the moment.

[00:20:59]Well, I think it's the case, Dan, that the political system and the legal system has drastically departed from common sense. And what would normally be regarded as uh uh the ordinary thinking of humanity certainly has always been the standard of thinking of humanity since time immemorial.

[00:21:20]The really interesting feature of the immediate reaction to this federal court decision was again Angus Taylor's swift announcement that he deeply disagreed with it and that a coalition government would change the law to make it absolutely crystal clear that women had the right to enjoy their own spaces.

[00:21:49]and that women only spaces could not be invaded by men uh who say they're women.

[00:21:57]Now again, we say that this is just common sense, but the federal court found that the legislation as it was amended by the Gillard government back in 2013 effectively says that gender is a fluid concept. Gender is simply what an individual decides it to be. Now, uh, if that is in fact, as the court has found, the impact of the legislation as it stands, well, that legislation has got to be has got to be changed as quickly as possible.

[00:22:30]>> I I think it's interesting as well because at at the time that that legislation went through, if you were to say to people, this legislation is really bad because it's going to mean that men basically are able to go into female spaces and there's not really much that can be done about it, a lot of people would have said, you're crazy for for saying that. And it's the same I was thinking about other other legislation that gets put in and then there's no real meaningful impact on people's day-to-day lives for a number of years.

[00:22:57]What happens is the activists are able to get a hold of this legislation. And that's why I'm always very very conservative with any legislation that's passed that has sweeping powers or changes to definitions because at a minimum you are inviting a whole lot of uncertainty into our legal system. And it's almost always going to be the case that you have a small number of, you know, well-funded activist groups that will weaponize it in in a way that's consistent with their ideology. We've seen it with green groups using the the lawfare system to shut down coal projects, which it was never intended to do. So, I think this is a really good example of why we when we talk about limited government, this is actually why we want to have a limited government to to to reduce the risk that it introduces into our lives.

[00:23:38]>> You're right, Dan. And certainly if you go back and look at the speeches that were given at the time in the parliament, there was no awareness by any of the speakers. Certainly in the speeches that I've reread over the last week or so, there was no awareness by any of the speakers that they were opening this Pandora's box. Uh there was some concerns which the opposition expressed at the time uh about the amendments to the legislation making it more difficult for religious institutions to maintain their values and their standards. But anyone who'd said that this would essentially mean that gender was just what you said it was and that men could say they were women and women could say they were men and no one could argue the toss. you would have been accused of the slippery slope argument >> um and and and dismissed. But that's exactly what we found ourselves on.

[00:24:38]>> Exactly what we've found ourselves on.

[00:24:40]Uh no sooner had the subsequent gay marriage uh debate been decided one way in favor of uh of of same-sex marriage. We then had the trans push really get up ahead of steam and subsequently it's been taken to what I think are absurd lengths.

[00:25:02]>> Yeah. All right. Well, let's go to the international front and I think the main development obviously you've got the Iran conflict which is ongoing.

[00:25:09]>> Uh we've also had the the meeting with uh President Trump and Xi Jinping uh of of China. It seemed on the face of it a very convivial meeting if you like as these are often presented to the outside world. Now what they talked about in private I don't know. Uh do you have any sense of what was really going on with this meeting? I mean they always say it's about cooperation and economic development and etc etc. Now I suspect there's many other things involved here.

[00:25:36]What's what's your read on on the meeting and what came out of it?

[00:25:40]>> Look uh I think it was a PR exercise essentially. There's often a lot to be said for PR exercises uh and given the comparative rarity of summit meetings between the leaders of the two most powerful countries in the world. It's probably no bad thing that it happened, but I don't believe on what we've been told there have been any substantive outcomes.

[00:26:11]>> I don't think China has given up its dreams of global domination. I don't think China has surrendered its technological arms race with the United States or indeed its actual arms race with the United States.

[00:26:29]My big fear was that the president might end up making some concession over Taiwan.

[00:26:39]>> That doesn't appear to have happened.

[00:26:42]And yet the mere fact that he gave the Chinese leadership a chance to bluster, as they always do, on Taiwan, to put in flashing neon lights their over-the-top claims, to some kind of a right to Taiwan. Uh, I thought, well, I didn't particularly like seeing it, I've got to say. I mean the big issue at the moment is will America finish the job in Iran? That's the big issue. Now um can we restore freedom of navigation uh in the Persian Gulf? Can we effectively reopen the straits of Horm Hormuz without bringing about regime change in Tyran? That's the big question. Now, now I think the minimum objective uh for the global west if you like um the democratic alliance the minimum objective uh has got to be the total degradation of the Iranian war machine which as we have seen uh is a threat to the region as well as to Israel and ultimately to the wider world. the degra the degradation of the Iranian war machine and the restoration of freedom of navigation in the Gulf. Now, I don't believe that either of those objectives will be achieved without regime change as well. We certainly can't have a situation where the Iranian theocracy is charging what is effectively a massive toll on all ships going through the straits of Hormuz.

[00:28:40]>> Uh that would be a long-term strategic disaster. Uh and that would be a terrible defeat for the United States and ultimately an utter humiliation for President Trump. M you had a lot of dealings with China as as prime minister and what I mean based on your insights and perspectives of what you um will have picked up from your time. What are there any sort of broader implications for Australia at the moment uh as it pertains to that meeting?

[00:29:11]Obviously Taiwan is the big issue, but is there anything Australia should be aware of at the moment or is it sort of business as usual?

[00:29:19]I think what's absolutely palpable is that China will do no more and no less than it is in China's interests to do. And China's values, at least while the CCP is in charge, are very, very different from ours. If President Trump was going to Beijing in the hope and expectation that Beijing would somehow help him to restore freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, I think he was utterly mistaken.

[00:29:58]From what we can gather, most of the ships that are transiting through the Gulf at the moment are Chinese ships. And because there is an effective de facto alliance between the Iranian theocracy and the communist dictatorship in Beijing. Um, of course the Iranians are going to give favor treatment to their friends. Now, uh, I think the the tragedy of all of this, the humiliation of all of this, the shame of all this from Australia's perspective is that what the Americans are trying to do is fundamentally right.

[00:30:39]>> And we're hardly lifting a finger to help other than in an empty rhetorical way. Now, that's bad for us, I think.

[00:30:50]Uh, but I guess it's an even greater shame and humiliation for what we used to think of as much more powerful and influential countries like Britain and France that they are not providing any effective help to the Americans. And in fact, they're saying that while they want to secure freedom of navigation, they're not going to lift a finger uh to enforce it while there are hostilities.

[00:31:18]Well, if u if someone is determined to deny something to you, you either accept that denial or you are prepared to assert with force if necessary your right uh and we all have an absolute right to freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.

[00:31:41]>> All right, Tony, on that note, I think we'll leave it there. So, thanks as always for your insights and we'll catch up again shortly.

[00:31:46]>> I look forward to it, Dan.

[00:31:48]This is a production of the Center for the Australian Way of Life at the Institute of Public Affairs. To find out more, visit australia.ipa.org.au.