The Labor Government has positioned itself as willing to take on difficult reform, particularly in tax. Since its election in 2022, it has restructured the Stage 3 tax cuts, increased taxes on very large superannuation balances, and lifted the low‑income tax offset threshold. Collectively, these changes have modestly improved equity and strengthened women’s economic security. In this year’s budget, the Government has continued along this path with reforms to capital gains tax and negative gearing.
From 2027, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will be replaced with an indexation model, alongside the introduction of a 30 per cent minimum tax on capital gains. Negative gearing will be restricted to new housing. These measures are significant. Women currently receive only around two‑fifths of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount and rental deductions, including negative gearing, reflecting persistent gender gaps in wealth and investment. The Government estimates these reforms will raise $3.6 billion over five years.
This change is an important and long‑advocated step toward a fairer tax system. It reflects years of evidence‑based advocacy and represents a meaningful improvement to women’s economic security. While other tax measures in the budget are limited—and continue to overlook the gendered impacts of flat or non‑progressive tax settings—capital gains tax reform stands out as substantive.
The budget also includes investments that deserve recognition. The allocation of $218 million to implement actions under Australia’s first stand‑alone First Nations‑led plan to end family, domestic and sexual violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children is an important commitment, both in scale and in approach. Similarly, $182 million over four years has been directed to address the misuse of the child support system.
This latter investment is particularly notable. For the first time since the child support scheme was introduced, the Government has formally acknowledged that it operates within a gendered framework and can be used as a tool of coercion and control. With more than $2 billion in child support debt projected for 2026, the economic consequences for single mothers and their children are profound. This funding represents a long‑overdue step toward addressing the abuse and inequality embedded in the system.
In other, smaller, commitments we can see progress too: $3.2 million over four years to extend the Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative; $68.5 million over three years to support elimination of HIV in Australia for people who are not eligible for Medicare; almost $60 million to support young people to live in community housing; $4.9 million to achieve universal perinatal mental health screening and $10.8 million to continue the Health in My Language Program.
Taken together, these measures show that progress remains possible.
And yet, when viewed in the context of broader budget priorities, their limitations become clear. Nearly $7 billion in additional defence spending over the next four years dwarfs investments in women’s safety, equality and economic security. The contrast raises unavoidable questions about what the Government ultimately prioritises when constrained choices are made.
The budget also includes significant cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, even though we know women with disabilities are already at high risk of experiencing gender-based and institutional violence. Women, including women with disabilities, are also overwhelmingly more likely to be carers, who will take on the inevitable unpaid work as the NDIS is scaled back. Rather than strengthening the social safety net for those most at risk, many of whom are women, the budget tightens it.
The Government has repeatedly justified restraint in social investment by pointing to global uncertainty and economic instability. We are told these are unprecedented times, requiring caution and fiscal discipline. But it is precisely periods of instability that test a government’s commitment to equity and protection for those most exposed to harm.
A strong electoral mandate can provide the political space to pursue ambitious reform. Labor’s decisive election victory suggested public support for addressing entrenched inequality and systemic disadvantage. Commitments to gender equality, however, must be reflected not only in rhetoric or representation, but in sustained investment and structural change.
The Government frequently highlights Australia’s improved standing in global gender equality rankings and the increased number of women in senior political positions since 2022. These gains matter. But they sit uneasily alongside budget decisions that reduce support for people with disabilities and limit investment in preventing gender‑based violence.
This year’s budget demonstrates that reform is possible—but also that ambition remains carefully contained. Where courage is shown, it is partial. Where opportunities exist for deeper structural change, particularly for women facing the greatest risk and disadvantage, the response remains tentative.
In a budget that makes clear choices about national priorities, the question is not whether progress has been made, but whether it goes far enough. On that measure, the Government’s record this year is mixed at best.