Economic anxiety is driving them to consider parties outside the mainstream
In the shadow of One Nation's most significant electoral breakthrough in three decades, Australia's treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered a budget shaped as much by political anxiety as economic principle. With populist sentiment surging and a generation locked out of home ownership, the Albanese government moved to reform negative gearing, capital gains tax, and trusts — acknowledging openly that mainstream politics had failed to hold the trust of ordinary Australians. It is a familiar crossroads in democratic life: when institutions lose credibility, the budget becomes not merely a ledger but a plea.
- One Nation's capture of Farrer with 40% of the primary vote — its first lower house seat in thirty years — sent an unmistakable signal that economic frustration had curdled into electoral revolt.
- With One Nation polling as high as 25% nationally and running second to Labor, the government could no longer treat populist drift as a fringe concern — it had become the central political emergency.
- Chalmers and Albanese broke from diplomatic hedging, admitting directly that housing and tax conditions had worsened under their watch and were driving voters toward parties outside the mainstream.
- The budget's proposed reforms to negative gearing, capital gains, and trusts aim to rebalance the economy toward ordinary Australians, but critics on both flanks warn the measures may protect existing investors while failing the young and the poor.
- Social services advocates flagged that those skipping meals and rationing energy would see little relief from tax cuts, while disability advocates raised alarms about potential NDIS reductions — leaving the government exposed on multiple fronts.
When Jim Chalmers rose to deliver his fourth budget, the political context was impossible to ignore. One Nation had just seized its first lower house seat in thirty years, with David Farley winning Farrer on nearly forty percent of the primary vote — a seat where the Liberals had commanded forty-three percent just a year earlier. The combined Liberal-National vote collapsed to twenty-two percent. The message was clear, and the government heard it.
Chalmers and Prime Minister Albanese stopped hedging. They acknowledged openly that the housing market and tax system were failing many Australians, that conditions had deteriorated under Labor's watch, and that economic anxiety was pushing voters toward the political fringe. Polling showed One Nation running second to Labor nationally with as much as a quarter of the primary vote — the kind of populist surge that had already reshaped politics in the United States, Britain, and Europe.
"Tonight, we seek to address that," Chalmers said, framing the budget as a response to both economic failure and a crisis of confidence in mainstream politics. Proposed reforms to negative gearing, capital gains tax, and the treatment of trusts were designed to shift the balance away from investors and toward ordinary Australians. Albanese warned that home ownership was slipping out of reach for an entire generation, and that without intervention, things would only worsen.
The opposition pushed back, with shadow treasurer Tim Wilson arguing the reforms would paradoxically disadvantage young buyers while shielding existing investors. From the other direction, the Australian Council of Social Services warned that tax changes would do little for those already skipping meals and rationing energy, while disability advocates raised concerns about potential NDIS cuts.
The budget, then, was pulled in every direction at once — a government trying to reclaim the trust of voters already convinced the system was rigged, navigating between those who felt the reforms went too far and those who felt they did not go nearly far enough.
The morning Jim Chalmers delivered his fourth budget, the treasurer was thinking about Pauline Hanson. One Nation had just won its first lower house seat in thirty years—David Farley taking Farrer with nearly forty percent of the primary vote, a stunning result in a seat where the previous Liberal MP had claimed forty-three percent just twelve months earlier. The Liberals and Nationals combined for twenty-two percent. The message was unmistakable, and Chalmers knew it.
In recent polls, One Nation was running a close second to Labor, pulling as much as twenty-five percent of the primary vote. The government had begun to speak openly about the threat of a populist wave—the kind that had already swept through the United States, Britain, and parts of Europe. Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were no longer hedging. They acknowledged that many Australians felt locked out of the housing market, that conditions were deteriorating rather than improving under their watch, and that economic anxiety was pushing voters toward the political fringe.
"I think the housing market and the tax system is not working for a lot of Australians, and tonight, we seek to address that," Chalmers said on Tuesday morning, hours before the budget speech. "At the same time, it will respond to a lot of the pressures and anxieties that people are feeling, which is driving them to consider some of the parties outside the mainstream." He was being direct about the political arithmetic. The budget was not merely an economic document; it was a response to a crisis of confidence in mainstream politics.
Albanese had framed the problem in starker terms the day before. "What happens when people don't think they have a shot at a fair go?" he asked rhetorically. On Tuesday, he told radio listeners that home ownership was slipping out of reach for an entire generation. "Unless we do something about that, then that's likely to get worse, not better," he said. The government had signaled major changes to negative gearing, capital gains tax, and the treatment of trusts—moves designed to tilt the economic balance away from investors and wealthy Australians and back toward ordinary voters. Chalmers insisted the budget was economic policy, not political strategy, but the timing and the substance told a different story.
The opposition was already warning that the changes would harm young people trying to enter the property market. Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson argued that older generations had enjoyed generous tax breaks on property and assets, and that the government's reforms would "lift the ladder of opportunity up from young Australians" while protecting existing investors. It was a counterintuitive argument—that helping first-time buyers would somehow disadvantage them—but it signaled the political terrain ahead.
Meanwhile, the Australian Council of Social Services was pushing the government to go further. CEO Cassandra Goldie pointed out that people on low incomes were already skipping meals, delaying medical care, and rationing energy just to survive. "Tax cuts will not help those with the least," she said. She also flagged alarm among people with disability about potential cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The budget, in other words, faced pressure from multiple directions: from voters fleeing to One Nation, from the opposition warning of unintended consequences, and from advocates arguing that the most vulnerable were being left behind.
Chalmers had acknowledged the core problem plainly: the housing market and tax system were failing too many people. The question now was whether reforms announced on budget night would be enough to arrest the populist surge, or whether they would simply become another broken promise in the eyes of voters already convinced the system was rigged against them.
Citas Notables
The housing market and the tax system is not working for a lot of Australians, and tonight, we seek to address that.— Jim Chalmers, Treasurer
What happens when people don't think they have a shot at a fair go?— Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did One Nation's byelection win in Farrer matter so much to the government's budget planning?
Because it was the first time in thirty years the party had won a lower house seat, and they did it with forty percent of the primary vote in a seat where the previous MP had forty-three percent. That's not a fluke—it's a signal that voters are abandoning mainstream parties.
But One Nation was already polling around twenty-five percent. Wasn't the government already aware of the threat?
Polling is abstract. A byelection is concrete. It shows that people will actually vote for them when given the chance, not just tell pollsters they're considering it. That's the moment a government realizes the threat is real.
Chalmers said the budget was an economic document, not a political strategy. Do you believe him?
I think he was being technically honest. The budget does address real economic problems—housing, tax fairness. But the timing, the emphasis, the specific choices about who benefits and who doesn't—those are all shaped by the political moment. You can't separate the two.
The opposition warned that young people would be hurt by the changes. Isn't that a legitimate concern?
It's a political argument, not necessarily a factual one. The government is trying to cool investor demand for housing so prices fall and young people can actually afford to buy. The opposition is saying that will somehow hurt young people. The real question is whether the reforms work as intended.
What about Cassandra Goldie's point that the poorest Australians won't benefit from tax cuts?
That's the gap nobody really addressed. The budget was designed to respond to populist anger and housing anxiety. But the people skipping meals and rationing energy—they're not the ones buying investment properties. The budget's logic didn't reach them.