We want those people to have the opportunity to own their own home.
In the quiet arithmetic of a winter parliamentary session, Australia's Greens and Labor found common ground at a price — trading concessions on superannuation borrowing and disability inquiry timelines for the votes needed to reshape how wealth is taxed and homes are bought. The deal reflects an enduring tension in democratic governance: that progress is rarely clean, and that those with the least — first-home buyers, disabled Australians — often wait longest to see whether political bargains made in their name will hold. What passed in the Senate chamber in late June was not a resolution, but a negotiated pause in a longer argument about who the economy is built to serve.
- Labor's signature tax reforms — tightening capital gains discounts and negative gearing — were stranded in the Senate without Greens support, forcing a deal that neither side found entirely comfortable.
- The Greens extracted a ban on self-managed super funds borrowing to buy residential property, a concession the government downplayed as minor but advocates framed as a meaningful check on wealthy investors crowding out first-home buyers.
- The NDIS overhaul — designed to cut $37.8 billion over four years from a scheme serving hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians — was delayed eight weeks, with amendments limiting ministerial discretion and increasing transparency in automated decisions.
- Despite securing those amendments, the Greens made clear they remain opposed to the broader NDIS changes, leaving disabled Australians with more time to be heard but no certainty their voices will alter the outcome.
- The tax bill, refined through consultation to protect small businesses, startup founders, and deceased estate trusts, is expected to clear the Senate — while the harder fight over disability support stretches into August.
In the early hours of a Tuesday morning in late June, Australia's political balance shifted quietly but consequentially. The Greens and Labor had struck a deal: a contentious tax bill would pass the Senate, but the cost was steeper than either side had first signalled. Self-managed super funds would lose the right to borrow to buy residential property. The NDIS overhaul would be delayed. And in the background, disabled Australians waited to learn what eight more weeks of scrutiny might mean for their lives.
Labor's tax package had been its signature economic move — replacing the 50 percent capital gains tax discount with an inflation-adjusted model, imposing a 30 percent minimum capital gains tax to prevent wealthy investors from timing asset sales to low-income years, and tightening negative gearing. The Coalition opposed it. Without the Greens, the Senate numbers didn't work.
What Labor offered in return was a ban on SMSF borrowing for residential property investment — a carve-out that had existed since 2011. Treasurer Jim Chalmers noted that SMSFs accounted for less than one percent of total residential property borrowing, framing the impact as modest. But Greens Senator Nick McKim saw it as a meaningful step toward stopping wealthy investors from outbidding first-home buyers. Existing contracts would be protected, with a 45-day grace period for arrangements already underway. Prime Minister Albanese cast the deal in the language of fairness: most Australians, he said, have nothing to sell but their time. Greens leader Larissa Waters acknowledged the reforms were real, while making clear the party believed Labor had not gone far enough.
The second part of the bargain was the NDIS. Labor had hoped to pass its disability scheme overhaul — designed to cut $37.8 billion over four years — before parliament rose for winter. The Greens pushed back, securing an eight-week extension to the inquiry, with a new reporting date of August 14. In exchange, Labor agreed to limit ministerial powers to cut support budgets, increase transparency around automated decision-making, and protect disabled people from being forced into harmful restrictive practices. Health Minister Mark Butler acknowledged the delay would cost the budget several hundred million dollars.
Even so, the Greens signalled the fight was far from over. Senator Jordan Steele-John said the party would continue opposing the broader NDIS changes. The amendments constrained the worst outcomes — they were not an endorsement. For disabled Australians and their advocates, eight more weeks meant more time to be heard, but no promise of a different answer.
The tax bill itself had already been softened through consultation: the small business capital gains exemption threshold was lifted to $10 million annual turnover, startup founders and early employees retained the existing 50 percent discount, and testamentary trusts were exempted from the minimum tax on discretionary trusts. The full package was expected to cost the budget around $475 million over four years. The Senate vote was expected Thursday. The harder argument — over who the disability scheme serves, and at what cost — would continue into August.
In the early hours of a Tuesday morning in late June, Australia's political arithmetic shifted. The Greens and Labor had struck a deal that would let a contentious tax bill pass the Senate—but the price was steeper than either party had initially signaled. Self-managed super funds would lose the right to borrow money to buy residential property. The NDIS overhaul would be delayed. And in the background, disabled Australians waited to see what eight more weeks of scrutiny would mean for their support.
The tax changes themselves had been Labor's signature economic move: replacing the 50 percent capital gains tax discount with a model that adjusted for inflation instead, and imposing a 30 percent minimum capital gains tax to prevent people from timing asset sales to low-income years. Negative gearing rules would tighten. The package was designed to raise revenue and, in the government's framing, to level the playing field for ordinary Australians trying to buy a home. The Coalition opposed it. The Senate math was tight. Without the Greens, it would not pass.
What Labor offered in return was a ban on SMSF borrowing for residential property investment. The exemption allowing self-managed super funds to borrow had existed since 2011, a carve-out from the general rule that superannuation funds cannot borrow to purchase assets. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, was quick to note that SMSFs accounted for less than 1 percent of total residential property borrowing and less than half a percent of new borrowing each year. The impact, he said, would be small. But the Greens saw it differently. Senator Nick McKim called it a step toward keeping wealthy property investors from outbidding first-home buyers at auctions. The change would be prospective—existing contracts protected, with a 45-day grace period for arrangements already underway. People could still invest in property through their super. They simply could not borrow to do it.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese framed the deal as a win for working Australians. "Most Australians have nothing to sell but their time, nothing to give but their hard work," he said. "We want those people to have the opportunity to own their own home." It was the language of fairness, of a system rigged against ordinary people. Yet the Greens leader, Senator Larissa Waters, made clear the party believed Labor had not gone far enough. Ending the exemption immediately, rather than grandfathering existing arrangements, would have helped renters more decisively. The reforms were real, but they were also limited.
The second part of the bargain concerned the NDIS. Labor had originally hoped to pass both the tax bill and its proposed overhaul of the disability insurance scheme before parliament rose for winter. The overhaul was designed to cut costs by $37.8 billion over four years—a significant reduction in a program that serves hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians. The Greens pushed back. The inquiry into the changes would be extended by eight weeks, with a new reporting date of August 14. In that time, Labor agreed to amendments: ministerial powers to cut support budgets would be limited, transparency around automated decision-making would increase, and disabled people would be protected from being forced into harmful restrictive practices to access support. Health Minister Mark Butler said the delay would cost the budget "a few hundred million" dollars, a number to be detailed in the mid-year review.
Yet even with these amendments, the Greens signaled they would not stop fighting. Senator Jordan Steele-John said the party would "continue to fight night and day" against the broader NDIS changes. The amendments were a constraint on the worst outcomes, not an endorsement of the overhaul itself. For disabled Australians and their advocates, the eight-week extension meant more time to make their case, but no guarantee it would change the government's mind.
Labor had already backed down on several aspects of its original tax proposal following consultation. The threshold for small businesses eligible for capital gains tax exemptions had been lifted from $2 million annual turnover to $10 million. Founders of genuinely innovative startups, along with early investors and employees paid in shares, would retain the existing 50 percent discount. Testamentary trusts managing income for beneficiaries of deceased estates would be exempt from the 30 percent minimum tax on discretionary trusts. The package, Chalmers said, would cost the budget about $475 million over four years. The tax bill was expected to pass the Senate on Thursday. The NDIS fight would continue into August.
Citas Notables
Most Australians have nothing to sell but their time, nothing to give but their hard work. We want those people to have the opportunity to own their own home.— Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
The changes we have secured means that there will be fewer wealthy property investors turning up to auctions and outbidding renters who want to buy their first home.— Senator Nick McKim, Greens economic justice spokesman
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the Greens accept this deal if they think Labor hasn't gone far enough on housing?
Because half a loaf is better than none. They got a concrete win—the SMSF borrowing ban—and eight more weeks to fight the NDIS cuts. Sometimes you take what you can get and keep fighting the rest.
But the Treasurer said SMSFs are less than 1 percent of residential borrowing. Does that actually help renters?
Not much, probably. But the Greens aren't claiming it solves housing affordability. They're saying it removes one tool wealthy investors use. It's symbolic and marginal at once.
What happens to disabled people in those eight weeks?
They get time to organize, to make their case to politicians. The amendments Labor agreed to—limiting ministerial cuts, protecting against forced restrictive practices—those are real constraints. But the overhaul itself is still coming. The delay is a reprieve, not a reversal.
Did Labor want this deal?
They needed it. Without the Greens, the tax bill dies in the Senate. The NDIS delay costs them time and money, but they get their signature economic reform through. It's a trade both sides can live with, even if neither is entirely happy.
What's the risk for Labor?
That the NDIS amendments don't satisfy disability advocates, and the cuts still look cruel when they land. That the tax changes, after all the compromises, don't raise as much revenue as promised. That they've traded short-term legislative wins for long-term political pain.
And for the Greens?
That they look like they've settled for crumbs on housing, and that the NDIS still passes anyway. That their base sees them as enablers of a government they fundamentally disagree with.