By Riley O’Leary for the Griffith Journal

30 June 2026

Title photo by Marcus Reubenstein on Unsplash

Today is June 30, meaning Australia’s new financial year is just on the horizon, the time at which parts of the federal Budget begin to take effect.

Since the federal budget was handed down on May 12, the Griffith Journal has been busy interviewing four members of federal parliament: Labor member for Moreton Julie-Ann Campbell, Liberal-National (LNP) Senator for Queensland Paul Scarr, Greens Senator for Queensland Penny Allman-Payne, and One Nation Senator for Queensland Malcolm Roberts.

These perspectives were valuable for creating an in-depth, student-focused guide for this upcoming financial year’s budget: what to expect and how it will affect you.

This article covers a broad range of topics which have been prevalent in this budget’s political discourse: housing, migration, taxation, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and a potential gas export tax, whilst also covering a range of student-specific issues, such as paid placement, HECS debt, transport costs and broader cost of living issues.

The Budget

Housing and negative gearing changes

House prices have soared in recent years, making it increasingly difficult for young people to own a property.

Median house prices in Brisbane have risen from approximately $500,000 in the mid 2010s to approximately $1.2 million in 2026.

This has contributed to an increase in the median weekly rent in Brisbane, from approximately $400 in 2015 to as high as $830 a week in some areas today.

This staggering rise in housing costs is widely considered a key driver of the “housing crisis” in Australia, contributing to increasing levels of homelessness throughout the country.

Young Australians aged 19-24 are over-represented in homelessness figures, with approximately 91 per 10,000 experiencing homelessness.

In an attempt to tackle soaring housing costs, the government has made changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT).

For those who are unaware – negative gearing is a tax break which allows property investors to deduct net losses on a rental property from their taxable income.

This budget restricts negative gearing for established investment properties bought after 12 May 2026, while grandfathering properties already held and keeping the concession for new builds.

This means that any newly built property can still be negatively geared.

This policy is designed to stop investor-driven bidding wars from artificially driving up the price of houses (by discouraging investment), whilst encouraging anyone investing in property to consider building new dwellings instead.

Member for Moreton, Julie-Ann Campbell said that these changes are designed to increase housing supply in Australia, through incentivising new builds.

“Fundamentally, at its core, we need more housing,” she said.  

“It’s why Claire O’Neill, the housing minister, comes out again and again and talks about, ‘hey, we actually have to build, we have to keep building.’

“And so I think, for me, this is one of the pieces of that puzzle.

“What we know is that we have to build more houses.”

More supply would allow for a greater capacity to house people currently experiencing homeless and would also place downward pressure on house prices.

Opposition Senator Paul Scarr opposes these changes to the tax system, saying that this will cause a lack of housing supply. 

“From my perspective, the taxation of investment in property can potentially act as a disincentive for new supply to come on board,” he said.

As a result, Senator Scarr believes that landlords will have to increase rent.

“The changes to negative gearing, I think, are going to mean that people are going to have to find additional revenue to cover the economic benefit that negative gearing provides,” he said.

“And there’s only one way in which you can generate that additional revenue, and that’s by putting rents up.”

In fact, the government’s own budget papers do concede that these changes may see an increase in rents.

“The reforms are likely to have a small impact on rents, with an expected increase of less than $2 per week for a household paying the current median rent.”

However, the government says that the changes will increase housing supply in the long term.

“The combination of the Government’s policies in this Budget will add to housing supply, which will exert downward pressure on rents over time.”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts disagrees with the changes to negative gearing, arguing that the government is not affording younger generations the same opportunities that were afforded to others.

“What they’re doing is stopping you from using the same means we had at our disposal when I was your age from building an asset base and then transferring it straight into a house,” he said.

“Let’s face it, negative gearing can help you get a house more quickly.”

“What we would do is allow negative gearing for two properties.”

Senator Roberts is also concerned that property investors will now look overseas, reducing housing supply domestically.

“People are now talking about investing in houses in New Zealand.

“How is that going to help young people get a house?

“It’s not.”

On the other hand, Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne believes that the government’s changes to negative gearing are not enough to support young people with cheaper housing, saying that her party would have taken stronger action on negative gearing.

“The government has grandfathered basically everything that’s currently in place, which means that really wealthy investors who have, you know, and sometimes hundreds of properties get to maintain all of those benefits.

“We would have wound that back such that we could have given everybody, including young people, a bigger tax break.”

Senator Allman-Payne also proposed rent caps to stop these changes being too detrimental to renters.

“We’ve also said for quite some time that we need to have a rent freeze and rent caps,” she said.

Citing the ACT as an example, Senator Allman-Payne said that rent caps had “been in place for quite some time as a consequence of a Labor-Greens government and landlords have not left the property market.”

Treasury modelling estimates that as a result of the negative gearing and CGT changes, house prices will be lowered slightly and there will be a shift of about 75,000 homes from investment properties to owner-occupied properties over the next decade. 

Migration and housing – is there a link?

Many critics have said that the current housing crisis may also be being caused by high levels of migration, arguing demand is outpacing supply.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that Australia has seen a total of approximately 1.55 million in net overseas migrants (the net population growth from migration) since 2019-20, approximately 1.27 million of whom have come since 2022-23.

Meanwhile, there has been approximately 1.1 million new dwellings built since 2019-20, 525,000 of which have been built since 2022-23.

It is important to note that these numbers are a collation of multiple ABS data sets, averages and projections, and may not be exact.

Another thing to consider is that population and required housing generally isn’t a 1:1 ratio.

Most dwellings have an average of 2.4 to 2.6 occupants, which must be considered when looking at this data.

The government does not explicitly believe migration to be the root cause of the housing crisis, however has implemented measures in the 2026-27 Federal Budget to lower net overseas migration in the future.

The Budget sets the 2026-27 Permanent Migration Program at 185,000 places, with 70 per cent allocated to the Skill stream.

The Skill stream prioritises potential migrants who the government believes will immediately participate in the workforce.

The Budget also provides money to deliver faster skill assessment for migrants and has reformed the permanent migration points test, to “select better educated, higher-skilled and younger migrants overall.”

There will also be additional scrutiny of student and temporary graduate visas, while there has been a 100 per cent uplift in the Temporary Graduate visa application charge.

As a result, the government predicts that net overseas migration will fall, resulting in the following yearly forecast:

305,000 net migrants in 2024–25

295,000 net migrants in 2025–26

245,000 net migrants in 2026–27

225,000 net migrants from 2027–28 onward.

The Coalition attributes some of the housing shortage to migration, arguing that, at times, “immigration runs ahead of new homes.”

Consequently, they have also outlined a policy in their Migration and Housing Pledge which ties migration to housing.

“The Coalition will end mass migration and build more houses at a lower cost,” it reads.

“Each year, net overseas migration will be tied to the number of new homes completed.

“If Australia builds the homes, Australia can welcome the people.

“If Australia does not build enough homes, Australia cannot keep bringing people in at a pace the country cannot handle.”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts expressed that, in his view, the reason housing prices are at the point that they are is due to high levels of migration, not investor demand.

“We know that the root cause of the housing crisis,” he said.

“The root cause is mass immigration.”

Senator Roberts said he believes the migration policies of past governments have been too high.

 “Mass immigration, I just saw the figures the other day.

“John Howard doubled immigration during his term, and subsequent prime ministers have doubled it.”

Indeed, there was an approximate doubling in yearly net overseas migration in Australia during John Howard’s term.

There has also been a significant spike during the current government, however much of that was due to a boost post COVID-19, which saw many Australians returning home.

Senator Roberts attributes the housing crisis to mass immigration despite a recent report from the Australia Institute arguing that housing supply had grown faster than the population as a percentage, with dwellings up 19 per cent compared to a population growth of 16 per cent in the last 10 years.

“The Australia Institute is a socialist organization,” Senator Roberts said.

“They want to smash borders.

“They want to smash boundaries.

“And so they’re driving mass immigration.”

The Greens disagree with the notion that migration is a root cause of the housing crisis.

Instead, the Greens policy framework focuses solely on the issues of too much investor demand and a lack of public housing and supply.

The Greens official policy page on housing doesn’t mention migration in any capacity.

Rather, they focus on ending tax concessions for investors (such as even stronger negative gearing changes), the creation of a public developer of affordable homes, the creation of a National Renters Protection Authority, among other measures.

A public developer would seek to increase the supply of public housing available to the Australians who need it most.

The Greens argue that this can be funded through higher tax rates on very wealthy individuals and corporations.

“This Budget is a missed opportunity for big corporations and the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share to help everyone else with their cost of living,” Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne said.

This debate extends beyond permanent migration and also involves further consideration on the number of international students who study in Australia.

LNP Senator Paul Scarr was hesitant to tie housing to international students, arguing that different categories of migrants require different housing needs, and that international students provide a different impact on housing.

Senator Scarr suggested that the number of international students being granted visas should be conditional on whether universities provide relevant accommodation, or students are in share housing arrangements, to the extent that supply can match the demand.

“Different cohorts of migrants have different demands upon housing,” he said.

“If universities can provide additional accommodation on campus for international students, that’s a way in which extra supply can be provided.”

“And I think the extent to which universities can provide that additional accommodation on site or to the extent that… universities can work together with their local community and find opportunities for students to, say, take that extra spare bedroom in a household close to the university.

“I think all of that should and would be taken into account [under a Coalition government].”

International students specifically were not a topic of conversation with Senator Penny Allman-Payne, however the Greens have historically expressed that the number of international students should not be cut as part of the housing debate.

As part of the 2025 federal election campaign, Greens Deputy Leader Mehreen Faruqi released a statement saying that attributing housing issues to migration was an example of “racist dogwhistling” and “scapegoating.”

“International students are not the cause of skyrocketing rents or unaffordable housing,” she said.

On the other hand, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts believes that there needs to be stronger scrutiny on the number of international student visas.

“We have hundreds of thousands of foreign students in excess of capacity to service them.

“So we would tighten up on that.

“We know that student immigration here is a rort for many, many people.

“Not all, but for many, many people because they come here, work part time, send money home, repatriate $11 billion a year,” Senator Roberts claimed.

This $11 billion figure appears to have been taken from a report which suggests that international students contributed $11 billion to the economy in the March 2023 quarter through student fees, housing costs and local expenditure.

“They come in here on the student visa, they go to university, they enrol in university or they enrol in another course of some other tertiary provider, and then they don’t actually study,” Senator Roberts claimed.

“They just work.”

Student Visa condition 8202 requires that international students maintain full-time enrolment, meet attendance requirements for applicable courses, and maintain satisfactory academic results.

If they fail in meeting these criteria, Student Visas can be cancelled.  

The government did not mention international students, or did not single out any specific groups within Australia’s migrant intake within the 2026-27 Federal Budget.

Rather, the government has been very consistent that their position is about increasing housing supply. 

Taxation

There have been changes to Australia’s tax system as well.

From 1 July 2027, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount has been replaced with inflation indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax on real capital gains.

Under the old system, an automatic 50 per cent deduction was made to any capital profit before it was taxed.

So, if someone made a $100,000 profit in a given financial year, only $50,000 would be taxed.

Under the new rules, there will be no 50 per cent discount.

Rather, profits will be adjusted for inflation, to determine a ‘real profit’.

This figure will be taxed at a minimum outcome of 30 per cent of the real gain.  

This CGT change is designed to complement the negative gearing changes mentioned above.

Labor MP Julie-Ann Campbell says that these changes are an attempt to rebalance the tax system, to ensure that working people can be taxed less.

“What happens currently is people who work an everyday job, right, they are currently getting taxed more than people earning money through assets,” she said.

“And that rebalancing is really at the heart of that [the CGT change].”

LNP Senator Paul Scarr believes that these tax changes are only going to make it harder for young entrepreneurs looking to get ahead.

“We oppose the tax changes in relation to capital gains tax,” he said.

“I want the university students of today to have the opportunity to complete their studies and potentially start their own small businesses, which they build up to bigger businesses, or to join a new startup right at the basement level where it’s looking to grow and be part of that journey.

“And my concern is that those sort of opportunities are not going to be as available as they would be had the government not gone down this path.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts also opposes these changes, calling the CGT alterations “severe” and saying that it will “stop young people building assets.”

Senator Penny Allman-Payne said that the Greens would have “gone much further on the capital gains discount” as a way to further reduce tax concessions for property investors and redirect that wealth towards broader cost of living measures.

Small businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million per year are still eligible for existing small business CGT concessions.

Furthermore, the budget has also altered the tax rate in the lowest tax bracket to try and tackle bracket creep.

Bracket creep occurs when inflation pushes someone’s income into a higher tax bracket, without an increase in real purchasing power, leading them to pay more tax without a greater real income.

The Government’s measures have lowered the tax rate in the bracket which ranges from $18 201 to $45 000

Currently, income in that range is taxed at 16 per cent, or 16 cents of every dollar.

This has been lowered to 15 per cent from 1 July 2026, and will be lowered again to 14 per cent from 1 July 2027.

Furthermore, there is a $250 ‘Working Australians Tax Offset,’ which is a $250 discount applied on tax paid per year, starting in the 2027-28 financial year.

Julie-Ann Campbell re-iterated that these tax changes are designed to help working Australians.

“It goes to making sure that in that cost of living space, there’s another rung of tax cuts for people who work everyday jobs,” she said.

“If you’re a teacher, if you’re a police officer, if you work in aged care, if you’re a chippy, it’s designed to make sure that people who are working every day, working Australians, have, you know, have a tax cut.”

The Coalition have proposed an alternative model of tackling bracket creep.

Instead, the Coalition propose that the brackets are automatically adjusted each year for inflation.

For example, if inflation was recorded at four per cent in a single year, then the income threshold for each tax bracket would also raise four per cent.

LNP Senator Paul Scarr believes that the Coalition’s proposal is better than the government’s as it deals with the issue automatically, rather than needing to be adjusted manually as this budget is doing.

“The biggest hidden tax we have in Australia is inflation, and the impact that has on the income tax paid by Australians through bracket creep,” he said.

“The biggest advantage through the Coalition’s approach is it deals with the issue of inflation and its impact on income tax thresholds on a systemic basis,” he said.

The Greens, on the other hand, advocate for an increase in the income free threshold, which is currently set at income earned at $18 200 and below in a financial year.

“We would have wound that [negative gearing and CGT concessions] back such that we could have given everybody, including young people, a bigger tax break,” Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne said.

“So we could have increased the income-free threshold to give everybody, particularly those people at the lower end, more money in their pocket.”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts was also critical of these changes, arguing that the $250 tax break is essentially worthless, saying that “inflation will have chewed up” this money by the time it is implemented.

NDIS changes

The 2026-27 Federal Budget has overseen many structural changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The budget introduced clearer eligibility rules so that NDIS eligibility is based on “a substantial reduction in a person’s functional capacity that impacts their day-to-day living.”

This will be determined through a government-designed, standardised functional capacity assessment.

The budget also tightens reassessment criteria, essentially making it harder for people to get their plan increased.

Previously, according to budget papers, unscheduled reassessments were increasing plan values by 20 per cent, which has led to very high growth in NDIS costs.

The updated criteria strengthens guidance on “reasonable and necessary” support, essentially tightening what counts as fundable under the scheme.

This budget also aims to crack down on fraud within the NDIS, with the budget providing $821.2 million over four years designed to expand mandatory provider registration, meaning that more providers now have to meet stricter standards and comply with more rules and audits to receive NDIS funding.

This money also aims to introduce a new enrolment system to increase payment oversight, allowing the government to track payments more closely.

It continues the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, which is a taskforce aimed at conducting more investigations into fraud within the scheme.

It also strengthens NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) investigation and enforcement powers.

The government also provided $49.4 million over four years to allow the NDIA greater control of plan management and service delivery.

Essentially, this allows the NDIA to take a more direct role in organising and commissioning services for some participants, aiming to improve consistency and address gaps in the NDIS market.

The government also invested $200 million over three years to establish an Inclusive Communities Fund, $2 billion to deliver Thriving Kids, and $3 billion over five years for Foundational Supports outside of the NDIS to provide for people who need disability support but fall outside of the eligibility rules. 

The government says that these changes are designed to bring the NDIS “in line with the Scheme’s original intent.”

These changes are projected to reduce growth in NDIS payments by $37.8 billion over four years, while still allowing the scheme to grow each year.

Labor MP Julie-Ann Campbell said that these changes were necessary to ensure that the NDIS could continue.

“We want the NDIS to continue and it has to be sustainable in order to do that,” she said.

Ms Campbell said that the government was focused on stamping out rorts, to ensure that the NDIS could better serve taxpayers, especially those with a disability.

“In doing so, we need to make sure that we are, you know, stamping out rorts where they happen, because they’re not only things that take advantage of taxpayers, they’re also, when you see that rorting, it also takes advantage of people, again, some of the most vulnerable in our society, who are people with a disability.”

In the Coalition’s post-budget reply, they proposed reserving future eligibility for the NDIS, as well as welfare payments, to Australian citizens only.

Currently, to access the NDIS, one must fulfil the residency requirements of being either an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or a Protected Special Category visa holder.

A person must live in Australia or spend most of their time here as part of their eligibility.

The Liberal Party’s Putting Australians First factsheet says that existing recipients of NDIS benefits would be grandfathered if they were in government.

“From 1 July 2028, access to 17 welfare payments and benefits will be limited to Australian citizens only.

“Future eligibility for the NDIS will also be limited to Australian citizens.

“Existing recipients of these benefits and the NDIS will be grandfathered and current exemptions and international arrangements will continue to apply.”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts argued that the NDIS is being taken advantage of.

“We’d also return the NDIS to its original purpose, which is proper care for truly disabled people.

“At the moment, it’s being rorted.”

“There’s money going to people who don’t deserve it, and there’s money not getting to people who do deserve it,” he said.

Senator Roberts also suggested that past governments have expanded a scheme as a way “to buy votes.”

“Over the years, the Liberal and Labor Party, to buy votes, have bribed people.”

The Greens oppose these cuts entirely, arguing that the changes will remove support from 160,000 people.

“The NDIS isn’t a cost to cut,” the party’s No NDIS Cuts campaign page reads.

“Investing in disabled people strengthens the entire economy.”

The Greens instead argue that the NDIS must be “fully funded and protected from being used as a scapegoat in the federal Budget,” that it be “equal and fair to access regardless of what category your disability falls into,” be  “customisable on a case-by-case basis” as “there is no ‘one size fits all’ when it comes to disability,” and prioritise “putting disabled people at the centre of decision making,” as they believe “participants must always have the right to appeal decisions made about their supports and drive any changes made to our NDIS.”

Should we introduce a gas tax?

An issue which was heavily discussed in the leadup to the Federal Budget was the issue of a ‘Gas Tax’.

Currently, gas companies pay tax in Australia through three main mechanisms: company tax, Petroleum Rent Resource Tax (PRRT) and royalties.

Companies pay a standard company tax rate of 30 per cent on taxable profits, however deductions can significantly reduce the amount of profit taxed.

Royalties are payments traditionally collected by state and territory governments for gas extracted onshore.

Offshore gas exports in Commonwealth waters do not attract royalties.

Rather, these companies pay PRRT, which is a 40% tax on all profits, after companies deduct exploration, development and capital costs.

Given that most offshore LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) projects attract high upfront costs, critics argue that some companies are paying little to no PRRT at all.

As such, there have been calls for an additional tax on all gas exports.

Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne has proposed that this should be a 25% tax on all gas exported, and believes that this should have been implemented at this budget.

“The other thing that they [the government] could have done is they could have introduced that 25% tax on gas exports,” she said.

Referring to a recent Senate inquiry, Senator Allman-Payne cited expert opinion to support her position.

“Experts, academics, economists like Ken Henry were all saying this really needs to happen and Australians are just not getting a fair return on our export gas,” she said.

“The only people who were pushing back against a gas tax were the big multinational corporations.”

“The other thing that I would just add is that the community campaign is for a 25% tax on gas exports.

“The Greens position has always been that 25% should be the bare minimum.

“We’ve seen many other jurisdictions with much higher taxes and so we think that’s a good place to start.”

Labor MP Julie-Ann Campbell does not support an additional tax on gas exports.

“Australians should get a fair return from the natural resources that we own,” she said.

“Offshore oil and gas companies… are subject to that PRRT.

“And we’ve made quite recently significant changes to the PRRT to make sure that offshore gas companies pay more tax, but also so that they pay it sooner.”

The changes Ms Campbell was likely referring to are changes made in the 2023-24 Federal Budget.

The major change was the introduction of a 90 per cent deductions cap, which limits the extent to which companies can offset their tax paid through deductions.

This effectively ensures that a minimum of 10 per cent of a project’s revenue is treated as taxable profit in a given year, meaning that companies will be paying more PRRT, and sooner.

LNP Senator Paul Scarr believes that a tax on gas would be detrimental to the industry.

“I believe it would be a huge negative to the gas industry and the opportunities which that industry and connected industries provide to young people,” he said.

“And also in the long term, I think it’d be a great detriment to the economy. I say that as someone who worked in the mining industry prior to entering parliament.”

“Tax policy is fundamental with respect to the decisions that companies make as to whether or not they build a project in Australia or they build it overseas,” he said.

“And companies have options as to whether or not they build, say, a gas project in Australia or in Papua New Guinea, which has wonderful oil and gas resources.”

“I think you have to be extraordinarily, very, very careful changing policy, especially in relation to existing operations where capital investment decisions are being made of billions of dollars on the expectation that current policies would continue,” he said.

“And I think it would have a devastating negative impact upon Australia in the long term.”

Senator Allman-Payne pushed back on the claim that an additional tax would be detrimental to the industry.

“I think that’s an industry talking point,” she said.

“We have stability in our community and the gas is here, right.

“Like you can only get the gas in so many places around the world and there’s no evidence that that will cause the flight of the industry.”

Having said that, Senator Allman-Payne also suggested that if a gas tax stopped new gas projects, that it wouldn’t be a bad thing.

“The other thing that I would say though is also we’re in a climate crisis that, you know, that’s not an understatement.

“We’ve got all the relevant international bodies around the world saying that we are far behind our climate targets, that we’re racing past two degrees and on the way to three.

“So if the effect of that export tax is that we don’t see any new gas projects opening up, then that would be a good thing because we know that the United Nations, the energy agency, they’ve all said we cannot open up any more coal and gas if we’re going to have any chance of tackling climate.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts believes that the gas tax proposed is designed to kill the gas industry in Australia.

“What the Greens want to do and Pocock wants to do, they’ve said it, is get rid of gas.

“So they’re not about taxing gas to get a fair share, they’re about taxing gas to make it prohibitive to produce gas.”

“They are all vowed to killing hydrocarbons, which are responsible for our massive improvement in standard of living and reduction in cost of living for the last 170 years.”

One Nation’s alternate model of taxing gas is to allow the Commonwealth to purchase equity in future drilling projects in return for a flat royalty on what is produced.

“We will bankroll, say, 25% of their drilling costs.

“And then we would recoup 25% of what they sell,” he said.

“So we want to share in their revenues and well-head tax.

“So the well-head tax means you cannot avoid it.

“If you produce a cubic metre of gas, you pay so much to the government for that if you’re exporting it.

“But in addition, we want to make sure the gas industry flourishes because then we get more money.

“You kill the gas industry, you get nothing.

“So then we would get a share of the revenue and we would also get a share of the risk.”

Paid placement

As many of you would be aware, the vast majority of placements in Australia during university study are unpaid.

For students studying degrees with placement programs that mimic a full time job – such as medicine or nursing – it can mean that they do not have the time outside of placement and full-time study to earn an income, outside of youth allowance or family support.

For many, living off youth allowance payments alone can be difficult.

This is especially true considering the age when one is considered “independent” is 22, even if a student is independent (living away from home, relying solely on their own income) before this age.

As such, the parental means test can mean that students who are effectively independent cannot earn money through the youth allowance payment.

This leaves many students with high placement hours unable to earn a liveable income, resulting in what is known as placement poverty.

There were no explicit measures in the 2026-27 Federal Budget to tackle placement poverty.

However, Labor MP for Moreton Julie-Ann Campbell pointed to the government’s past paid prac programs as examples of progress in this space.

This is through a program known as the Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP).

The CPP commenced at the start of the last financial year and sees eligible students undertaking placement in degrees such as teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work receive a weekly payment of $338.60.

They must meet other eligibility requirements, such as income means testing or recent workforce participation.

Applicants generally must not earn more than $1536.37 per week to be eligible and must be already receiving some form of commonwealth income support, or satisfy a “Need to Work” test.

“We’ve seen 60,000 people have benefited since February,” Ms Campbell said.

“That’s the first time that’s ever happened.”

“But we understand that, you know, there are students who are still doing it tough and are seeking for us to look at that policy more broadly, but I’d really like to see how it goes as well,” she said.

Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne believes that students should be paid for the work they do on placement.

“We think that people should be paid for the work that they do, including when they’re on university placements,” she said.

This paid placement, according to the Greens, must at least be at minimum wage level and universal.

Speaking on the CPP, Senator Allman-Payne believes that it is not enough.

“I do note that the government shifted slightly in giving people, what is it, around $300 a week for some placements.

“We think that’s woefully inadequate.

“I don’t know how anybody can live on $300 a week, so they need to be able to earn a living wage.”

LNP Senator Paul Scarr said that while the Coalition don’t have an official policy position on the issue at this stage, he believes that it should be considered going into the future.

“The Coalition, I don’t think has a policy at this point in time in relation to that concept,” he said.

“There have been developments across a whole range of professions and occupations which require more of this sort of placements [full-time placement] and that creates a financial burden upon students.

“And I think we need to carefully consider ways in which we can support students who are meeting those costs.

“Whatever that support is, I think it needs to be considered.”

Senator Scarr also believes there needs to be changes in order to increase the number of placements available for Australian students to strengthen the domestic workforce for certain professions.

“The other thing we need to consider is how we ensure that there are sufficient placement opportunities available, so that we can maximise the student cohorts who are going through our universities studying things, for example, like medicine.

“And if there’s an opportunity to increase those placements for Australian students, I think we should really consider that very carefully.”

“From my perspective, and I’ve said this to universities and to others, I don’t see any reason why a country like Australia should be in a position where we need to bring in doctors and other health professionals from overseas in order to meet our workforce requirements,” Senator Scarr said.

“There are so many young people who want to study to become doctor and going to some of the other health professions, and my understanding is one of the barriers to the provision of extra places is opportunities for students to go on placement.

“And I think that’s something we need to carefully consider on a systemic basis.”

On the other hand, Senator Roberts was more sceptical on the notion of taxpayer-funded paid placement, arguing that students voluntarily enter into degrees with high-placement hours and that any additional support they receive would have to come from taxpayers. 

“So everything that a student gets or a pensioner gets comes from some other taxpayer, or it comes from business.

“It comes from small business.

“Small business is getting smashed.”

Senator Roberts emphasised that, in his view, there should be a responsibility on students when they choose to enter into a particular degree.

“So what we’re about is the responsibility.

“If you’re a student, you made the decision to be a student, knowing that you’d be an intern, knowing that it wouldn’t be easy then, but hopefully you’d make more money later on.”

Nationally, Australia does not face an overall shortage of doctors.

However, there is a significant shortage of GPs and medical professionals in Australia’s rural and remote regions.

Senator Roberts was asked if paid placements for students undertaking demanding medical placements could be used as an incentive to encourage more people to study that field, and increase the number of doctors flowing to rural and remote areas. 

Instead, Mr Roberts believes that doctors are leaving, at least in part, due to regulatory bodies, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

“Big pharma, who is not interested in your health, they’re interested in making money,” he said.

“It’s controlled by giant multinationals, and they’re ripping people off.”

“They basically control the medical guilds, which say whether or not you’re going to be registered as a doctor,” he said.

“They control the medical industry, they control the medical practitioners, doctors, nurses.

“We would look into that because we are disgusted with what AHPRA did.”

“We’re disgusted with what they did because they censored doctors,” he said.

“They wiped out doctors’ careers just purely to push government policies.

“The Doctors’ Guild are in pockets of big pharma to many extents.”

“I know of young doctors who graduated, worked their butts off, got into a job, and they loved being a doctor,” he said.

“They loved it.

“But they said a big ‘F you’ when it was controlled.

“And we’ve lost good people in the medical profession who’ve moved into another industry, self-made small businesses, because of that.

“So that’s far more significant.”

HECS and student fees

The average graduate or student owes $25,000 to $30,000 in HELP/HECS debt, which takes an average of approximately ten years to pay off.

In the 2025-26 Federal Budget, the government introduced a one-off, 20 per cent cut to everyone’s student debt.

This was a one-time cut which applied to the debt accrued by someone as of 1 June 2025, before indexation was applied.

Labor MP Julie-Ann Campbell reflected on that decision with pride.

“We’re super proud of the 20 per cent student HECS debt cut and to watch people’s faces as they kind of looked up on their phones and could see that they were 20 per cent debt lighter, it was pretty special,” she said.

Ms Campbell reiterated that no further HECS changes occurred through this budget as the government’s priorities were for broader tax reform.

“I think we’ve laid out what our priorities for this budget have been.

“And they are about those tax cuts, which I think flow on to so many young people as well.”

LNP Senator Paul Scarr also recognised the burden that HECS places on young people.

“It does concern me that young people leave university with the HECS debt that they that they’ve accrued through the course of university,” he said.

“I certainly think it’s something that needs to be considered.

“I was pleased we supported ultimately the government’s initiative in that regard [the 20 per cent cut], and that was the right thing for us to do.”

Greens Senator Penny Allman Payne believes that all student debt should be abolished entirely.

“We’ve had a long-standing position that universities should be free and we need to wipe students’ HECS debts,” she said.

A common criticism of this policy is the question of how it would be funded, without having to increase taxes and inevitably increase inflation through government spending.

Senator Allman-Payne believes that there is greater opportunity to raise revenue without taxing working Australians, emphasising that spending needs to be re-prioritised.

“There is so much opportunity for increased revenue,” she said.

“People like Gina Rinehart, their income increased something like $600,000 a day and they did it in their sleep and yet we are not taxing them fairly.

“So we need to move to a position where we’re taxing wealth, not work, and that would actually give us much of the money that we need to do the things that we need to help people with cost of living.”

On the other hand, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts opposes cuts to student debt, including last year’s 20 per cent cut,  emphasising personal responsibility when deciding to study.

“We were against the government paying off 20 per cent of the debt,” he said.

“That was a vote grab by the Albanese government.

“That’s all that was.

“So we wouldn’t be doing that, because you signed up for a loan, and that’s your responsibility.”

“What we would do though is force universities to publicise the starting salaries and the number of jobs in each sector from each degree,” he said.

“So that you don’t study for a useless degree, you study for something that’s in demand.”

Instead, Senator Roberts proposed that graduates should be allowed to merge their HECS loan with a mortgage, to allow them to build capital earlier.

“At the moment, what we’ve got, is to allow the HECS loans to be merged into the housing loan,” he said.

“The bank is telling them [people with student debt] they can’t get a loan because they’ve got a HECS debt.

“So if they merge it into one, it would take a few years longer to pay it off, but at least you can start capital appreciation early.”

Transport

The primary cost of living measure seen in the 2026-27 federal budget was the temporary three-month fuel excise cut, which temporarily reduced the petrol and diesel excise by 32 cents per litre.

A media release from government ministers said that this change would put downward pressure on fuel prices.

“The halving of the fuel excise will reduce the cost of fuel by 26.3 cents per litre,” they said.

“This will reduce the cost of a 65L tank of fuel by nearly $19.”

This change was supported by LNP Senator Paul Scarr.

“We certainly supported the government in terms of bringing the fuel excise down, and, in fact we were calling for some action in that regard before the government actually did it,” he said.

Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne also said that cutting fuel costs was a priority for the Greens, highlighting price gouging as an issue that the Greens would tackle.

“Particularly for students who are living a lot further away from the university, for example, who are incurring significant fuel costs, having laws in place for our price gouging would have assisted them.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts also showed broad support for a cut on the fuel excise, among other cost-of-living measures he proposed.

However, this three-month measure ended on June 30.

Instead, it has been replaced with a 16 cents per litre cut from July 1, which is set to end on August 2.

“The temporary fuel excise cut was really important to make sure that people got immediate relief,” Labor MP Julie-Ann Campbell said.

“It’s why prior to this year, we had already worked to bring our fuel reserves back home to this country,” she said.

“It’s why we worked to make sure that there were increased fines so that people couldn’t take advantage of a really challenging time and it’s why we also have underwritten, basically underwritten contracts for shiploads of fuel being purchased on the international market so that we can get more supply back into our country as well.”

There was no public transport measures included in the federal budget – that is typically a state issue.

However, Queensland students are still in a relatively good position with permanent 50 cent fares across the Translink network. 

Broader cost of living relief

Member for Moreton Julie-Ann Campbell emphasised the Labor government’s past measures involving youth allowance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), free TAFE and apprentice support.

“I think it’s important to remember that since Labor came to government, and that was only in 2022, a single adult receiving youth allowance with no dependents who lives away from home has seen their annual payment go up more than $3,800,” she said.

Ms Campbell also mentioned relief in terms of “$25 PBS medicines,” “free TAFE,” and the “the $10,000 for apprentices who going to build the homes that we need to drive more housing supply.”

Queensland LNP Senator Paul Scarr’s broader cost of living argument is more focused on reducing inflation, protecting entrepreneurship and aspiration, and ensuring that young people can accumulate wealth after university.

“This budget is taking us down a route of punishing aspiration,” he said.

“I want the university students of today to have the opportunity to complete their studies and potentially start their own small businesses, which they build up to bigger businesses, or to join a new startup right at the basement level where it’s looking to grow and be part of that journey.

“And my concern is that those sort of opportunities are not going to be as available as they would be had the government not gone down this path.”

Senator Scarr also believes that this budget is too inflationary, which he says is feeding into growing cost of living costs.

“Government spending is at rates which are feeding into inflation and again that feeds into high cost of living,” he said.

As such, it is his implied position that lowering government spending would be a legitimate way to reduce inflation.

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts proposed a host of broader measures to tackle cost of living issues.

Senator Roberts reiterated One Nation’s position that Australia should leave the Paris Agreement, which set climate targets for all signatory nations.

“We would abolish net zero, abolish the Paris Agreement.

“That would make our energy far, far cheaper.

“We’d be able to cut energy, and we’d also abolish the rules favouring solar and wind.

“We’d let everyone just compete.”

Mr Roberts believes this would lead to a tangible change in electricity costs.

“We’ve estimated to cut costs of electricity by 20% overnight,” he said.

Senator Roberts also emphasised that, in his view, government spending must be cut to control inflation.

“Our government spending at the moment is about 28 per cent of GDP, heading for 30.

“It used to be a rule, what we want to do is get it back to 20 per cent.

“So that means finding savings in government expenses, the Department of Climate Change I’ve mentioned.

“Get rid of that.

“Shut it down completely.

“And that would not only give us $30 billion plus per year, every year savings, it would free up the economy to increase productivity, which would give more revenue to the government anyway.”

Greens Senator Penny Allman-Payne said that an increase to Youth Allowance and income support would be a priority for a Greens government.

“We’ve said for several budgets in a row and several elections in a row that income support, particularly youth allowance as it relates to students as well as young people looking for work, needs to be significantly increased.

“It needs to be brought well above the poverty line.”

Senator Allman-Payne also believes that there needs to be changes to Youth Allowance criteria and means testing.

“The other thing that we would also change and which we’ve been pushing for is lowering the age of the parental income test to at least 18,” she said.

“We would lower it down so that if you’re 18 and over, you’re not subject to your parents’ income to determine eligibility for Youth Allowance, JobSeeker and the like.”

Senator Allman-Payne also prioritised reducing student fees under the Job Ready Graduate Scheme.

The Job Ready Graduate Scheme was introduced in 2021, with the Coalition government at the time trying to incentivise students into courses which the government considered to be a higher priority for future jobs.

Degrees in teaching, nursing and STEM saw reduced fees, whereas degrees in fields such as humanities, arts, law & communications saw higher fees.

“Labor promised when they first came to government that they were going to do something about the job ready graduate scheme which is seeing students in particular degrees paying far, far more than they should be in their HECS payments.

“There’s nothing in the budget to address that, and so far there’s nothing to suggest that the government is going to move on that.

“We have been pushing strongly for that.”

“Our position is it should ultimately be free, but in the meantime they really need to act on the higher fees that people are paying under JRG.”