I rise to speak on the Government's proposed tax reforms.

I want to start by commending the Government for showing the grit and determination to attempt something genuinely courageous.

Since the last election, many of us in this chamber have called on the Government to use its mandate to do something courageous and meaningful.

Real reform is hard and it's politically costly – and too often governments simply avoid trying.

Whatever my reservations about the detail of these tax changes – and I will get to these reservations shortly – I commend the Government for attempting to address the structural inequalities that have been embedded in our tax system for a generation.

These bills go to the heart of what kind of country we want to be. Who should bear the burden of tax? What kind of wealth-building do we want to encourage? And what realistic chance do young Australians have to own their home and get ahead?

These are serious questions, and I am glad the Government is finally trying to answer them.

Let me briefly explain what is in front of us, because the public debate has not always made this clear.

This bill has four main elements.

The one that has received the most attention is a change to capital gains tax. Currently, you receive a 50% discount on capital gains tax. That is being replaced with a discount based on inflation, so you will only pay tax on real, above-inflation gains. Based on historical data, for some assets, like detached houses, this is likely to reduce your discount. But for other assets, like some apartments or shares, your discount may actually increase. It depends on how much of your capital gain is due to inflation, or due to real gains. There will also be a minimum tax rate of 30% on your real capital gains.

The second element of the bill limits negative gearing on residential property. Investors who purchase existing properties will only be able to offset their rental losses against rental income, not against their wages or other income. Investors in new builds, however, retain the full negative gearing benefit. This design is clearly intended to tilt investment toward new housing supply – and I welcome that.

Then, the third element of the bill is a tax cut of $250 for working Australians.

And the fourth is a $1,000 instant tax deduction: allowing you to claim up to a thousand dollars in work-related expenses without needing to keep receipts.

I want to focus today on the CGT changes and negative gearing, because they are the most consequential for restoring fairness for Australian workers, and for backing business to take risks, employ Australians and contribute to productivity.

I am constantly listening to people in my community in Bradfield about housing. The system just isn't working. I speak to young people who grew up on the North Shore but who simply cannot see a path to owning, let alone renting a home there. I talk to parents who are watching their adult children move further and further away. I see a generation that has done everything right and is still shut out of the market and the opportunities that were afforded their parents.

The capital gains tax discount, combined with negative gearing, on 'investment properties' has contributed to this broken system by distorting the housing market.

For decades, these tax arrangements have encouraged investors to treat property as an asset class.

Over the years, we've learned to accept this as normal, but it's not. People in other countries find our relationship to property, quite frankly, bizarre.

This drive to treat property as a financial asset has been damaging.

Since the capital gains tax discount was introduced in 1999, property price growth has dramatically outpaced wages growth.

Houses have become unaffordable for too many. And far too much money has been redirected from productive investments to sit passively in properties.

Doing nothing about these taxes would mean we continue to face persistent and worsening problems of housing affordability and inadequate shelter.

Doing something is necessary – and some of the Government's changes will indeed help.

By limiting negative gearing for existing investment properties, while preserving the full benefit for new builds, the reform steers capital toward where it is actually needed: new housing supply.

The CGT changes, when applied to property, are defensible on similar grounds.

So in relation to housing, I want to emphasise that change is welcome – and my electorate broadly supports it.

In a survey I conducted earlier this year, people in my electorate overwhelmingly supported reforms to the capital gains tax discount for housing, even if they themselves held investment properties.

People recognise that change is needed for their children and grandchildren to live prosperous lives.

I share that support.

But, alongside my colleagues on the Crossbench, I have a number of reservations about the design of the Government's proposed changes.

I also have concerns about the way the government has conducted this process.

Why? Because the Government is trying to sell this as a housing policy – but it has extended the CGT changes to every asset class: not just real estate, but also including shares like ETFs, bonds, larger small business, and startup equity.

The Government's stated rationale is it doesn't want to replace one distortion with another.

Consistent tax treatment across asset classes is a legitimate policy goal, and I accept that as a principle.

But the case for extending these changes beyond property at this time, has not been clearly made to the Australian public, and the result is confusion and concern; and in some cases anger.

I have had constituents contact my office who genuinely thought these changes were only about investment properties.

They were blindsided when they realised their other investments were affected, too.

The Government has not communicated this well enough. I've heard from self-funded retirees who are too old to be completely funded entirely through superannuation and who were intending to sell shares as a retirement strategy. I've heard from young people who were using ETFs to save. I've heard from small business owners – with no super, but planning on selling their business to fund their retirement. And I have heard from young parents who were banking on selling some shares to get through an extended parental leave period.

These plans are now all in doubt.

That's why I came out right after the Budget to: call for the Government for ring-fence the reforms to residential property and slow down on the other changes: consult first, consult widely and make sure other changes don't result in unintended consequences.

I still hold that view now.

And then there are the concerns being raised by business.

As someone with a background in venture capital, I see how these proposed reforms threaten to place a significant tax burden on this important part of the finance sector – that takes risks and backs business.

A VC fund will back 20 entrepreneurs and their ideas or business models, knowing that only one will likely net them any profits in five or 10 years' time.

The proposed tax changes mean the Government will reap rewards when profit is made but leaves all the downside risk with the VC investors.

Let's also talk start-ups – particularly those without formal VC inputs. People who take a loan from the bank, or borrow from family members and friends.

The sector has a unique relationship to risk and reward. Founders spend years building their companies often foregoing wages or super in the hope that their risk-taking would yield long-term rewards.

But the financial and time investment in these high-growth assets will be punished under the new scheme.

This will likely disincentivise people from engaging in the years of hard work that goes into start-ups, or it will push them to take their businesses overseas.

I surveyed constituents about this issue as well, and 3 in 4 people who responded supported a CGT carve-out for founders.

They recognised that passive property gains and active business gains are different, and the Government's tax reforms should reflect this.

These start-ups are not just the 'unicorns' we hear about in the news – the companies that end up being worth over a billion dollars. Those are rare.

It's also about the far more numerous, smaller start-ups you don't hear about – but which also do such valuable work driving innovation, employing talented people, and making our economy more productive.

I'm particularly concerned about our climate tech sector.

This is one of the most important emerging parts of our economy. Helping it grow will help us tackle the climate crisis, improve energy security and make us more prosperous in the process.

We are fortunate to have a burgeoning climate tech sector. More than 800 companies and 12,000 employees. World-class researchers and entrepreneurs working on all kinds of important issues from energy storage to clean agriculture to industrial decarbonisation. Many of these companies manufacture products here in Australia. Over 30 of these companies are on track to reach $1 billion valuations in the next two years.

The Government claims to want to see this sector thrive. But its tax changes undercut that goal.

These are companies like MCi Carbon, which decarbonises cement and steel production and turns CO2 emissions into valuable products. Or Allume, which is helping residents in apartment blocks install solar and electrify.

Companies doing innovative, valuable work decarbonising our economy and unlocking economic opportunities.

Bradfield is home to many people who work in and invest in climate tech. We want to see these companies stay in Australia. We don't want to see a brain drain.

The Government says they want this, too – which is why they've committed to consulting on possible exemptions for start-ups.

I welcome this.

But it raises an important question.

Why the rush?

The Government is asking Parliament to pass the foundational framework for this reform while acknowledging that significant design questions remain unresolved.

Why legislate the framework before these thorny questions are settled?

Despite all the resources it possesses, the Government has chosen to develop something behind closed doors – and spring it unexpectedly on voters who were expecting to see targeted changes to property taxes.

This process doesn't cut it.

We saw another example in the budget of these rushed and opaque processes – with the Government's announcement of separate tax reforms on foreign investors that will disproportionately affect the renewables industry.

Again, problems that could have been foreseen and resolved were not! – because the Government didn't engage with industry players before setting out to legislate changes that will impact them.

I supported fellow Crossbencher Allegra Spender's motion last week to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Economics for report by the end of July. The Government voted this motion down.

And I am pleased to support amendments today which call on the Government to limit the CGT reforms to property. The Government will almost certainly vote these down, too.

A Senate Committee is looking at these bills, but they only have a couple of weeks to do so.

That's not enough time to properly scrutinise the reforms, nor is it enough time to build support among the public.

Why not take the time to build genuine community understanding and support?

This will help ensure that any changes endure beyond this Government.

I welcome the Government's bravery. But I also ask it not to rush.

Consult properly and return to Parliament later this year with reforms that have been properly scrutinised and designed.

And take the time to explain to Australians clearly what these changes mean for their own financial lives.

Take the time to consider people's views and genuinely listen. Continue to be brave, but have the humility to change the design of these reforms in order to mitigate against unintended consequences.

I genuinely believe in the direction of this reform.

If this bill were only about housing, if the negative gearing changes were paired with CGT reform ring-fenced to residential property, I would vote for it without hesitation.

But that is not what is before us.

What we have been presented with is a change that applies across all asset classes, is introduced ahead of consultations the Government acknowledges it still needs to conduct, with design questions still unresolved, and without the broader public having been brought along on the journey.

I will of course hold the Government to account on its ongoing consultation with the startup and small business sector.

And I will keep pushing for more information and clearer communication about the impacts of these changes.

I commend the Government's appetite for reform.

But just because a policy is courageous, doesn't mean it has been well-designed or that the process has been thoughtful and transparent.

For those reasons, and with genuine regret given how much I support the housing elements, the tax deduction and tax cuts of this bill, I will not be supporting this legislation today.

I urge the Government to take the time to get this right, because the cause is too important to continue to get wrong.