TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): I call the member for Tweed to order for the first time.

Mr DAVID MEHAN: Expenses are now below revenue. That is a sustainable position. We have brought debt down to billions lower than the former Government's forecast figures for 2026‑27. I make this point on capital gains and negative gearing: I watched my father clean his work boots every Saturday morning, religiously. Then he would go to Merewether RSL and set up his drum kit for his second job. When he retired, there was no capital gain. He depreciated those working assets. I will not be lectured by those opposite on economic management and what is right and just for the working people of this State.

Ms ELENI PETI NOS ( Miranda ) ( 17:13 :10 ): We have heard it straight from the horse's mouth: Labor members hate anyone who wants to get ahead in this State and anyone who works hard, invests and wants to leave something for their family. It is just the Labor way. The contribution from the member for The Entrance was absolutely disgraceful. But I am not going to let that distract me, because the reality is that the Federal budget that was handed down has gone viral, not just around Australia but globally. Why? It is because of the outrageous position on capital gains tax that the Federal Government has taken. We are talking about 47 per cent. There is a meme going around. I am sure members have seen it in their social media feeds. Business owners have been posting images of the Prime Minister alongside the words, "Every Australian founder just got a new co‑founder with 47 per cent equity." People around the country have been posting that the Prime Minister has a 47 per cent stake in their small businesses—small businesses that they have shed blood, sweat and tears to start up.

Mr David Mehan: That's a lie!

Ms ELENI PETINOS: It is not a lie. That is exactly what is online and that is what the public is perceiving—Labor is stripping away what people have worked hard to establish for their families, and Labor is disincentivising entrepreneurship in this State and wants to disincentivise people from having any interest in the private sector. It is a bad deal for New South Wales. It is little wonder that the Chamber is practically empty. Government members can scream and do whatever they want, but the reality is that they must be so embarrassed to go to their communities—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): I call the member for The Entrance to order for the first time.

Ms ELENI PETINOS: —and tell them that they support the CGT position, they support the removal of negative gearing, they support a death tax, and the list goes on. The Federal budget is so bad for New South Wales that the Premier is not defending it. That is embarrassing for Labor. Under the Prime Minister's deal, New South Wales will receive its lowest share of GST revenue since the tax was introduced. That is just 82¢ for every GST dollar that this State sends to Canberra, despite the fact that there are over one million more people in New South Wales than in Victoria. New South Wales is being short changed. Why? Our infrastructure is going backwards. There is no investment in our State. Funding to our State will decline by 28 per cent. We will receive $5.5 billion less in infrastructure funding than Victoria and $7.94 billion less than Queensland. It is not based on population or our State's contribution. Might it be because the Prime Minister and the Premier do not get along? Might it be because the Prime Minister would rather support Jacinta Allan in trying to win the next election? I do not know, but the impact of these Federal decisions is quite significant for the people of New South Wales.

Members opposite are getting very upset. On a per person basis, every person in New South Wales is now $1,101 worse off than every Victorian because of Federal Labor's funding decisions. This State has a great rivalry with Victoria, and that is not something we want to be losing on. Surely, Government members do not want to tell their constituents that New South Wales residents are that far behind our counterparts in Victoria. But that is what the numbers reveal. Families, homeowners and small businesses are already under enormous pressure from rising costs. All members know that. We hear that from our communities each and every day. But Federal Labor's answer to that, unsurprisingly, is to collect an additional $77 billion in Federal taxes over the next 10 years, because when Labor cannot balance the budget it simply takes more money from taxpayers.

This Federal budget is bad for New South Wales residents and businesses. Quite frankly, the people of New South Wales not only deserve better, but they also deserve a government that is going to advocate to make sure that we are better off in this State. Instead, Labor is pushing tax hikes on millions of Australians. Labor's record spending means that the Federal budget is now forecast to be in deficit for a decade and the debt is about to pass $1 trillion. That is the Labor way—high taxes, high spending. They rob Peter to pay Paul. That is the only thing they know how to do. Labor's toxic taxes are an assault on aspiration. That is all they have. The people of New South Wales know this—in our communities and online, the message is out there.

Ms SONIA HORNERY ( Wallsend ) ( 17:18 :30 ): On the day that I was elected to Parliament in 2007—I am sure that the member for Tweed will remember this too—I was confronted with many issues around people getting access to housing. That has not changed. If someone is on a low income or struggling and they want to get a first home, they need to have the opportunity to do that. I believe that that is the philosophy of the current Federal Government, which of course is in line with the attitude of the State Government. We are trying to give people opportunities.

On a personal level, I also mention that I was born in a housing commission home, which was pretty good, according to my parents. We then moved into a garage for some reason, and not because Mum and Dad were building a house. They did not have the money for that, because they were struggling. We—three kids plus cousins as well as Mum and Dad—lived in a garage. Eventually, by the time I was aged 12, both Mum and Dad had jobs. Mum was a cleaner and Dad was a truck driver. That was their opportunity to buy a very modest house. Considering what we are talking about today, that is the type of opportunity that our governments ought to be giving everyone.

I will move forward to 2021, when Labor had been in opposition in the State for quite some time. At that time, the New South Wales Government made a submission to the Federal housing inquiry. That submission identified negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount as contributing to housing affordability challenges. At that time, the Liberal Government was concerned about capital gains tax. It was not a fringe view within the Liberal Party. The former planning Minister Rob Stokes argued publicly that negative gearing should be reviewed. Former Premier Gladys Berejiklian said she was open to discussions with the Commonwealth if the expert advice supported reform. Today we are talking about housing reform and many other reforms.

I inform the House about some of the funding the Federal Government has allocated to the Wallsend electorate and in the Hunter. As a parochial MP, it is important to remember the Federal Government allocated $2 billion for the Housing Support Program, which is a local infrastructure fund to provide funding to States and Territories. That will enable local government to expedite the delivery of housing and enable infrastructure to improve productivity in the housing sector. Our Federal Government is doing something about providing housing and infrastructure. I wonder about the change of heart of my Opposition colleagues from 2021 to now, and why they now have an opinion that is different from the one they had when in government. Could it be that members opposite have a different opinion when they are in government to when they are in opposition? I hope not, but it appears to be the case that their opinions have changed, which is very sad.

There are other features of the current Federal budget that are good for all of us. There is money for more apprentices. We are looking at $659 million for high‑speed rail between Newcastle and Sydney. I would love that to hurry up. The Federal budget allocates funding for hydrogen capability, additional funding for the CSIRO, and $45 million to fund safety improvements to the M1, which is the major road between my electorate of Wallsend and Sydney, an essential roadway for commuters. I have mentioned a few projects that our Federal colleagues are funding. I emphasise to my colleagues opposite that I do not think the Federal budget is a bad budget. I think the Federal budget has all the hallmarks of a meritocracy. I just wonder about the change of heart of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House from 2021 to the present. I am sorry, but I do not support the motion moved by the member for Oatley.

Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON ( Clarence ) ( 17:23 :27 ): Finally a motion has been moved in the public interest debate that is about public interest. Every person in every street in every town in New South Wales has a deep interest in their purse and their wallet. After reading Federal Labor's budget, there is no doubt that the people of New South Wales will be worse off because of it. I congratulate the member for Oatley on moving this excellent motion, because the Federal budget is based on broken promises. The Federal Government will introduce a death tax so they will get us in the grave. The Federal budget also makes a huge cut in funding for infrastructure. Generally, it will leave each and every person in New South Wales worse off.

The Labor budget is a train wreck for the people of New South Wales, including the people of regional New South Wales. It highlights that the Labor movement simply does not understand the cash card—the tap and go every time, and spend, spend, spend—but then, it is cut, cut, cut. We no longer have $100 notes because our economy is so bad. The Federal budget is ripping $50 notes out of each and every person's wallet or purse and away from every mum and dad, as well as every nan and pop. Labor's death tax, capital gains changes and negative gearing changes are indications that Labor simply cannot manage the budget, so it comes after our money. We know that because the Inland Rail for regional New South Wales has gone. It has been cut, and we now have half an Inland Rail. It is now a rail to nowhere.

Of course, the Inland Rail was built on the movement of freight in this great nation and across this great State. It enabled farmers to transport their produce to the people at less expense and more quickly, but it is gone. A little closer to my electorate and the electorate of the member for Tweed is the Northern Rivers Rail Trail. One end of the rail trail has been done in the electorate of the member for Tweed, and it has been done in my electorate of Clarence. However, the little missing bit in between has gone. Thanks, Albo! Hundreds of thousands of visitors to the North Coast would have been attracted to the rail trail. The good people of New South Wales, particularly those who live in regional New South Wales, are high users of fuel. The Federal budget will impose excise of 26¢ a litre. That is about to hit the bowsers any second. At the end of the month, guess what happens? Thank you, Albo.

I turn now to the New South Wales budget, because the Federal budget affects the New South Wales budget. I am seeing the New South Wales Government strip jobs out of my electorate of Clarence. Transport for NSW is a great institution in the bush, but we have a regional roads Minister who appears t o be unwilling or unable to stand up for the regions. Those jobs are now being stripped out of my electorate and moved to Sydney. Of course, regional people are being offered jobs, as long as they want to move to Sydney. Why would the New South Wales Gover nment want to destroy local economies? I was just talking to the member for Cootamundra.

Mr Geoff Provest: Good member.

Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON: She is a great member. The former State Government delivered six ambulance stations in her electorate. The Tweed Valley Hospital was delivered in the member for Tweed's electorate. My electorate received the Grafton Bridge. We are very thankful that infrastructure is nailed down, otherwise the Government would take it back. Interest rates and unemployment rates are up. State growth is stalling. Energy costs are up, and food prices are up. Family budgets are teetering on the edge, and the Labor Government has run out of cash. The Opposition knows that every time a Labor government runs out of cash—

Mr Mark Speakma n: They come for ours.

Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON: It comes for everybody else's, each and every person's. When a budget is handed down by Labor, Coalition members know what is coming: more taxes, new taxes, changed taxes, even taxes in the grave. I congratulate the member for Oatley on moving a terrific motion, which should be supported by the House.

Dr DAVID SALIBA ( Fairfield ) ( 17:28 :34 ): At the outset, I state that I do not support the motion. I should probably begin my speech by saying that we are all team New South Wales and we need to advocate for our fair share in the best interests of the State. We need to make every effort to ensure that that happens. I imagine every member in this Chamber would be doing his or her best in that regard. Vertical fiscal imbalance is a result of the way our system of government is comprised. We have local, State and Federal governments, each with different sources of revenue, and each with different expenditure requirements. An interdependence exists in terms of funding distribution to ensure we deliver public goods and services. That is a continual engagement, and I understand that. It fluctuates throughout the years. It is complex and we need to manage it. Hearing their remarks in the media and seeing their engagement efforts, I fundamentally believe that the Premier, the Treasurer and the responsible Minister are doing a great job of delivering for New South Wales.

I make some concessions about the budget. The first is that there is a growing inequity for the people of New South Wales, in particular with regard to the GST and infrastructure funding. The State will receive about 17.7 per cent of total Commonwealth infrastructure funding in 2026‑27. I ask members to be quiet, please. I am respectful when they are speaking. That is lower than our population share of 31 per cent. In terms of the GST, the Morrison Government did negotiate a deal with Western Australia that has cost New South Wales billions of dollars since 2018. That is a fair point. New South Wales will now receive 26 per cent of GST revenue despite having 31 per cent of the population.

That being said, the budget needs to be looked at from a multifaceted perspective. There are good things in there. Firstly, there is $25 billion in additional funding for State and Territory hospitals, totalling $220 billion over five years. That is good—we need our hospitals and healthcare infrastructure to be funded. That budgetary funding also seeks to lift bulk-billing rates for the Central Coast, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Hunter regions. There is $5.9 billion to list new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and $1.8 billion to roll out more urgent care clinics, which are a godsend for our communities. I doorknock every week to try to push that message out to our local constituents. There is $3 billion to add 5,000 new residential aged-care beds each year, because there are too few and that is a big problem. We need to look after our older Australians. It is important to support small businesses as well. That is my commentary about the budget.

I have observed that the culture in politics is to measure the performance of something based on the amount that was spent on it, but I think that we need to look at it through the lens of productivity. The goal is to do more and spend less, but I do not see that happening. In response to every budget the Opposition says, "You're spending less here; you're spending less there". But I hear that and think that that is probably the goal—to deliver more goods and services where we need to do that. I mention that we inherited record public debt from the former Coalition Government in 2023. It was projected at close to $188 billion. New South Wales was in a bad budgetary state. I say that because it is one thing to ask for more money but it is another to manage our money effectively to deliver great goods and services.

Couple that with a fact that we all know, which is that there is increased demand for public services and goods, particularly policing in the regional areas. I have spoken to colleagues on the other side of the House about health care in regional areas as well. It is important that we save what we need to save and spend what we need to spend, but also save money for a rainy day. I postulate that Opposition members—although many are my friends—need an alternative vision. It is one thing to point out the problems and say that there are advocacy efforts on the way, but what are the solutions to the problems that we are confronted with? I could go on forever about how, just over the past two or three years, they have resisted changes to workers compensation, infrastructure funding for hospitals, public preschools, social housing—particularly out my way—rail and housing affordability.

Younger people say the big thing is generational inequity. What is the solution for that? It is easy to throw bombs but it is another thing to offer solutions. Federal politicians will do what they believe is in the national interest and State politicians will do what is in their State's best interests. That is an ongoing engagement. I do not support the motion for those reasons.

Mr JUSTIN CLANCY: I seek leave to contribute to the debate.

Leave not granted.

Mr MARK COURE ( Oatley ) ( 17:33 :53 ): In reply: Firstly, I acknowledge those who spoke in favour of the motion—team New South Wales. They were the member for Miranda, the member for Clarence, the member for Wallsend and the member for Fairfield. The one member who is not on team New South Wales, who must be a Queensland supporter or maybe a Victorian, is the member for The Entrance—the one who is losing his hair. This is where I need a bit of community participation. Which party broke promises on changes to capital gains tax? It was the Labor Party. Which party broke its promises on negative gearing? It was the Labor Party. Which party introduced a new bad tax—the death tax? It was the Labor Party. Which party cut New South Wales infrastructure funding by 28 per cent? It was the Labor Party.

Let me make this simple for those opposite, because it needs to be simple for them: The Federal budget is bad for families. Shame! It is bad for businesses, it is bad for infrastructure and it is bad for our State's future. Labor does not like New South Wales. That is why I brought this public interest debate to the House today, which notes that Federal Labor's budget relies on broken promises, higher taxes and cuts to infrastructure funding, leaving New South Wales worse off. Our State will receive just 82¢ from every dollar generated. Think about that: For every dollar sent to Canberra, 18¢ disappears before it comes back to New South Wales. We are getting less than other States. This is the chance for those opposite to stand up against this budget. They should stand up and apologise to the people of New South Wales. This is their chance to stand up for the State.

The Federal budget means fewer roads and fewer public transport projects. Families feel it every single day under Labor. They will feel it when they pay their grocery bills and electricity bills, and they will feel it when they fill up the family car. New South Wales deserves better, our taxpayers deserve better and businesses deserve better. Those opposite allowed it to happen.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER ( Mr Michael Kemp ): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes32

Noes48

Majority16

Motion negatived.