In a speech framed around economic freedom, Taylor accused the Albanese Government of presiding over “the worst collapse in living standards in the developed world” while claiming growth had become “an illusion” driven almost entirely by migration-fuelled population increases.

The address was not simply a critique of Labor’s Budget. It was effectively the opening policy manifesto for the next federal election campaign.

Coalition signals major shift away from current economic settings

Taylor outlined a sweeping agenda that would dramatically reshape Australia’s policy direction if implemented.

Among the headline commitments:

• Scrapping what the Coalition calls Labor’s “net zero bureaucracy”
• Abolishing EV tax concessions
• Ending build-to-rent tax incentives
• Restricting welfare access to Australian citizens only
• Cutting immigration significantly
• Expanding fossil fuel development
• Indexing income tax brackets to inflation
• Lifting defence spending to at least 3% of GDP
• Maintaining coal-fired power generation for longer
• Rewriting major sections of Australia’s regulatory framework.

The speech represented a decisive pivot toward economic nationalism and resource-driven growth, with Taylor repeatedly arguing that government intervention itself had become the source of Australia’s economic problems.

Immigration emerges as central political battleground

Perhaps the most politically explosive section of the speech centred on immigration.

Taylor claimed Labor had “opened the migration floodgates”, arguing that 1.4 million people had entered Australia since Labor took office and that this accounted for roughly 80% of population growth during the period.

He linked migration directly to the housing crisis, claiming Australia now faces a shortfall equivalent to housing for 400,000 people.

The Coalition’s proposed response is highly significant politically:

“A coalition will cap immigration numbers based on the number of homes constructed each year.”

Taylor also foreshadowed:

• major cuts to immigration intake,
• mandatory English obligations for permanent visa holders,
• expanded deportations of overstayers,
• tougher visa screening measures,
• and a return of temporary protection visas.

The rhetoric indicates immigration is likely to become one of the defining issues of the next election cycle.

Energy war reignites

The Opposition Leader also delivered one of the Coalition’s strongest attacks yet on Labor’s energy transition policies.

Taylor argued renewable energy “isn’t a rapid replacement for fossil fuels” and pledged to work with coal-fired power station operators to keep plants operating “as long and as hard as possible”.

The Coalition also committed to:

• expanding gas and oil production,
• fast-tracking major extraction projects,
• removing environmental approval barriers,
• and lifting the ban on nuclear energy.

Critics will argue the proposals risk undermining Australia’s emissions reduction trajectory and investor certainty in the renewable sector. However, Taylor is clearly betting that cost-of-living pressures and power prices now outweigh climate concerns for many voters.

Bracket creep becomes a key economic attack line

One of the more technically significant announcements was the Coalition’s “tax-back guarantee”.

Taylor accused Labor of using inflation and bracket creep as a “stealth raid” on taxpayers.

The Coalition’s proposed response:

• index the bottom two tax thresholds to inflation from 2028-29,
• then index all tax brackets from 2031-32 onward.

Economically, the proposal would constrain future governments’ ability to quietly increase revenue through inflation-driven tax bracket expansion — a mechanism governments of both political persuasions have relied upon for decades.

The policy could prove politically attractive, although Treasury officials would almost certainly warn it would materially reduce future budget flexibility.

Defence spending escalation

The Coalition also used the speech to strongly differentiate itself on defence and national security.

Taylor pledged defence spending would rise to “at least 3% of GDP”, substantially above current levels.

The speech repeatedly referenced geopolitical instability, fuel security and sovereign industrial capability, particularly around missiles, drones and domestic refining.

This reflects a broader global trend where both major parties increasingly frame economic policy through a national security lens.

Political strategy becomes clear

Strategically, the speech was notable because Taylor largely avoided small-target politics.

Instead, he delivered a broad philosophical argument:

• smaller government,
• lower migration,
• expanded resource development,
• reduced regulation,
• lower taxes,
• and greater economic self-reliance.

The Coalition appears to believe public frustration around housing affordability, inflation, energy costs and infrastructure strain has created space for a more aggressive economic reset.

Whether voters accept that argument remains uncertain.

The challenge for the Coalition will be proving these policies can materially improve living standards without simultaneously increasing fiscal pressures, reducing workforce growth, intensifying labour shortages, or damaging investor confidence in emerging industries.

The challenge for Labor, meanwhile, will be countering growing public concern that Australia’s current migration, housing and energy settings are becoming economically and socially unsustainable.

Either way, the election contest has now clearly begun.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers arrived at the National Press Club determined to frame Budget 2026–27 as both “responsible” and “ambitious” — a reform budget responding to global instability while reshaping Australia’s economic future.

But beneath the carefully crafted language lies a budget built on contradictions, political reversals and a series of risky economic assumptions that may significantly damage key sectors of the economy while failing to deliver the outcomes promised.

Most notably, it represents one of the most consequential broken election commitments in recent Australian political history.

During his address, Chalmers openly defended the Government’s reversal on negative gearing and capital gains tax, arguing Labor had “come to a different view” and that it would have been irresponsible to leave the “status quo” in place.

That may be politically convenient.

But Labor were not elected on a platform of winding back long-standing property investment arrangements.

The Government is now attempting to fundamentally reshape housing investment, capital allocation and taxation policy during a period where Treasury itself forecasts weaker economic growth, softer household consumption and elevated inflation.

According to Budget Paper No. 1, headline inflation is forecast to reach 5 per cent through the June quarter of 2026, while GDP growth is forecast to slow from 2¼ per cent in 2025–26 to just 1¾ per cent in 2026–27.

At the same time, the Budget forecasts gross Commonwealth debt reaching $1.051 trillion by June 2027, while the budget is not expected to return to balance until 2034–35.

Despite this, the Government is simultaneously:

• Increasing taxes on investment;
• Restricting negative gearing;
• Reworking capital gains concessions;
• Imposing new taxation arrangements on discretionary trusts; and
• Expanding government intervention across multiple sectors of the economy.

The central contradiction is impossible to ignore.

The Treasurer says Australia needs more investment, more housing supply, stronger productivity and greater business dynamism — while introducing measures likely to discourage private investment and undermine confidence in precisely those sectors required to drive growth.

The housing contradiction

The Government’s flagship housing tax reforms are being sold as an affordability breakthrough for younger Australians.

But even the Government’s own modelling effectively concedes the actual impact may be modest.

Under the reforms outlined in Budget Paper No. 2:

• Negative gearing for residential properties will largely be restricted to new builds from July 2027;
• The current 50 per cent capital gains tax discount will be replaced by indexation arrangements

At the Press Club, Chalmers acknowledged that housing prices are still expected to rise, merely at a slightly slower rate, while rental impacts are forecast to be “negligible.”

That raises a serious question:

If the reforms are not expected to materially reduce rents or substantially lower house prices, why introduce such economically disruptive changes at all?

The likely immediate consequences may instead include:

• Reduced investor participation in established housing markets;
• Lower confidence in long-term property investment;
• Transitional rental supply pressures;
• Greater market uncertainty; and
• Increased caution from developers and lenders.

The Government argues investment will simply shift toward new housing supply.

But housing construction itself is already under severe pressure from labour shortages, elevated financing costs, planning bottlenecks and weak productivity growth.

Without structural planning reform at state and territory level, tax changes alone are unlikely to deliver the scale of housing supply being promised.

Small business and investment concerns

The Budget also significantly expands tax pressure on discretionary trusts and investment structures commonly used by family businesses, professional firms and small enterprises.

Budget Paper No. 2 confirms the Government will introduce a minimum tax arrangement on discretionary trusts.

While framed as a fairness measure, critics argue it risks:

• Increasing compliance costs;
• Discouraging entrepreneurship;
• Punishing legitimate family business structures; and
• Reducing incentives for investment and expansion.

This comes while Treasury itself forecasts subdued consumption and weaker economic conditions.

The contradiction is stark:
the Government claims it wants productivity and private sector growth, while increasing uncertainty and tax burdens on the sectors most responsible for generating that growth.

Inflation and fiscal contradictions

Chalmers repeatedly framed the Budget as fiscally disciplined and anti-inflationary.

Yet the Government is simultaneously injecting billions in cost-of-living measures into an economy already facing elevated inflationary pressure.

Budget Paper No. 1 states inflation has been driven sharply higher by global energy disruptions following conflict in the Middle East, including a 32.8 per cent rise in automotive fuel prices.

The Government’s response includes:

• Temporary fuel excise reductions;
• New offsets and deductions;
• Expanded subsidies;
• Industry support programs; and
• Significant intervention into energy and fuel markets.

While politically attractive, these measures risk complicating the Reserve Bank’s fight against inflation by sustaining demand pressures longer than otherwise expected.

The Government insists the overall fiscal position has improved through savings and reprioritisations.

But Australians may reasonably ask:
if the economy is genuinely facing heightened global uncertainty, inflation pressure and slowing growth, why pursue such aggressive structural tax experimentation at precisely this moment?

The sectors likely to be negatively affected

Several sectors appear particularly exposed under the Budget’s settings.

Property and housing investment

Property investors face reduced incentives, greater uncertainty and long-term tax changes likely to alter investment behaviour.

Construction and development

Developers may face weaker investor demand while still battling high financing, labour and material costs.

Small business

Family businesses using discretionary trusts face higher compliance burdens and increased taxation risk.

Retail and consumer sectors

With Treasury forecasting softer consumption growth, retailers and discretionary consumer industries may face ongoing pressure.

Freight and logistics

While fuel excise relief offers temporary assistance, the underlying inflationary energy shock remains unresolved.

Broader private investment

The broader risk is a deterioration in investor confidence as governments increasingly alter long-standing tax settings retrospectively or politically.

A budget built on political risk

Perhaps the greatest political vulnerability for the Government is not simply the economic risk — but the perception of broken trust.

The Treasurer openly acknowledged changing position on contentious tax policies because the Government had reached a “different view.”

But voters may ultimately decide that changing fundamental tax policy after an election victory carries a political cost regardless of the economic justification offered afterwards.

The comparison many commentators are now drawing is unavoidable:
some broken promises are politically survivable;
others fundamentally damage public trust.

The broader economic gamble

This Budget is not a cautious budget.

It is a large-scale attempt to reshape taxation, investment behaviour, housing markets and productivity settings during a period of global instability and slowing domestic growth.

The Government’s wager is clear:
that higher intervention, tax reform and industrial policy will ultimately produce a fairer and more productive economy.

But there is an equally plausible risk that the Budget instead:

• Weakens investment confidence;
• Slows private sector activity;
• Fails to materially improve housing affordability;
• Sustains inflationary pressures longer than expected; and
• Leaves Australia with higher debt and weaker growth.

If that occurs, Budget 2026–27 may ultimately be remembered not as the Treasurer’s great reform budget — but as the moment economic ambition overtook economic reality.

The Budget papers reveal a government actively choosing winners and losers across the economy — directing enormous sums toward favoured sectors while increasing taxes, regulation and uncertainty for others.

For Canberra, where Commonwealth spending shapes much of the local economy, the implications are enormous.

Some industries are being flooded with billions in support.

Others are being squeezed by:

• tax reform,
• slower economic growth,
• reduced investment incentives,
• inflationary pressure,
• and mounting government intervention.

And even many of the so-called “winners” come with substantial hidden risks.

WINNERS — WITH MAJOR CAVEATS

Defence Industry

Winner: Tens of billions in strategic spending

Risk: Australia becoming increasingly dependent on permanent geopolitical instability

The Government is dramatically expanding:

• defence capability spending,
• naval infrastructure,
• submarine program funding,
• and Indo-Pacific defence cooperation.

Major beneficiaries include:

• defence contractors,
• cybersecurity firms,
• aerospace,
• naval engineering,
• surveillance technologies,
• and Canberra-based strategic consultancies.

But the darker reality is this:

Australia’s defence economy is increasingly tied to:

• geopolitical instability,
• escalating regional tensions,
• and long-term militarisation.

The Budget itself openly references:

• Middle East conflict,
• supply chain disruption,
• terrorism,
• and growing strategic uncertainty.

Defence may be booming — but only because global instability is worsening.

Fuel Security and Domestic Energy

Winner: $14.8 billion fuel resilience package

Risk: Market intervention and higher long-term energy costs

The Government is deploying:

a $14.8 billion fuel resilience package, including:

• a $7.5 billion Fuel and Fertiliser Security Facility,
• a $3.2 billion Australian Fuel Security Reserve,
• and a $1.1 billion Cleaner Fuels Program.

On paper, industries such as:

• logistics,
• freight,
• domestic fuel production,
• and supply-chain infrastructure
  stand to benefit significantly.

But the Government is simultaneously:

• intervening directly into energy markets,
• imposing a 20 per cent gas reservation policy,
• and reshaping supply chains through heavy state involvement.

Critics warn this risks:

• distorting energy markets,
• reducing investor confidence,
• discouraging private energy capital,
• and increasing long-term energy costs.

The irony is difficult to ignore:
Australia remains one of the world’s largest energy exporters — yet Australians continue paying escalating domestic energy prices.

Renewable Energy and Critical Minerals

Winner: Massive strategic backing

Risk: Picking winners with taxpayer money

The Government continues aggressively backing:

• battery supply chains,
• critical minerals,
• clean-energy manufacturing,
• electrification,
• and EV infrastructure.

This creates substantial opportunities for:

• lithium producers,
• rare earth refiners,
• renewable infrastructure firms,
• and government-aligned manufacturing sectors.

But there is growing concern Canberra is increasingly:

• attempting to centrally direct industrial investment,
• subsidise politically favoured sectors,
• and reshape markets through taxpayer-funded intervention.

History is filled with governments attempting to “pick winners” industrially — often at enormous taxpayer cost.

The Budget repeatedly references “Future Made in Australia,” but critics increasingly question whether Canberra is replacing market competition with state-directed economic planning.

Public Service and Bureaucracy

Winner: 13,200 new APS roles

Risk: Expanding bureaucracy without solving productivity

Budget Paper No. 4 confirms:

more than 13,200 public service roles

have been created through outsourcing reversals since 2022.

Additionally:

• nearly 1,400 more APS jobs arrive in 2026–27,
• including 1,250 new Services Australia frontline roles.

Canberra’s administrative economy is booming.

But Australia’s broader productivity performance remains weak.

The Budget repeatedly acknowledges productivity is one of the nation’s defining economic challenges.

Critics argue:

• expanding bureaucracy does not automatically create productive economic growth,
• nor does shifting consultants into permanent public sector positions necessarily improve efficiency.

Australia risks creating:

• a larger administrative state,
• with slower private-sector dynamism,
• and rising long-term fiscal obligations.

Health and Schools

Winner: $168.7 billion for health and $147 billion for schools

Risk: Spending growth without structural reform

The Budget allocates:

$168.7 billion

for public health and hospitals from 2026–27 to 2029–30,

alongside:

$147 billion

for Better and Fairer Schools funding.

These are politically popular investments.

But the Budget provides far less clarity on:

• measurable performance reform,
• productivity improvements,
• or long-term cost sustainability.

Throwing larger sums into systems already struggling with:

• workforce shortages,
• inefficiency,
• and administrative complexity
  does not automatically guarantee better outcomes.

LOSERS — AND WHY IT MATTERS

Property Investors and Housing Supply

Loser: Negative gearing and CGT reforms

Risk: Making Australia’s housing crisis worse

The Government is reforming:

• negative gearing,
• capital gains tax arrangements,
• and discretionary trusts.

The policies are marketed as helping first-home buyers.

But the danger is substantial.

Reducing investor incentives during an existing housing shortage risks:

• reducing rental supply,
• weakening apartment project viability,
• discouraging housing investment,
• and increasing rental pressure.

For Canberra renters already facing affordability stress, the consequences could be severe.

You cannot increase housing supply while simultaneously discouraging the capital that finances housing.

Private Consultancy and Advisory Sector

Loser: $14.8 billion in consultant savings

The Government confirms:

total savings from reducing consultants and external labour now equal $14.8 billion since 2022–23.

An additional:

$2.7 billion in savings

will be extracted by 2029–30.

Canberra’s consultancy ecosystem faces enormous pressure.

While reducing wasteful spending may be popular politically, critics warn the Government may also:

• lose access to specialised expertise,
• reduce independent policy challenge,
• and entrench internal bureaucratic groupthink.

Small Business and Consumers

Loser: Slower growth and persistent inflation

Treasury forecasts:

• inflation hitting 5 per cent,
• while GDP growth slows to just 1.75 per cent in 2026–27.

That combination creates extremely difficult conditions for:

• hospitality,
• retail,
• tourism,
• discretionary consumer sectors,
• and SMEs.

Small business owners face:

• rising energy costs,
• weaker consumer spending,
• wage pressure,
• insurance increases,
• and financing strain.

Many will receive modest tax incentives while simultaneously operating in a far weaker economy.

Young Australians

Loser: Trillion-dollar debt and declining opportunity

The Budget confirms:

gross debt reaches $1.051 trillion by June 2027.

Meanwhile younger Australians face:

• reduced investment incentives,
• unaffordable housing,
• weaker economic growth,
• and increasing government dependency throughout the economy.

The Government insists it is delivering “fairness.”

But many younger Australians may reasonably ask:

• how fairness exists in an economy where:
  • home ownership drifts further away,
  • taxes on investment rise,
  • rents increase,
  • and debt exceeds $1 trillion.

Canberra’s Economic Turning Point

The 2026–27 Budget reveals something much larger than ordinary fiscal policy.

It reveals a Government increasingly willing to:

• direct investment,
• reshape industries,
• intervene in markets,
• expand bureaucracy,
• and redistribute economic incentives.

The winners are industries aligned with Canberra’s strategic priorities.

The losers are increasingly:

• private investment,
• market-driven enterprise,
• property capital,
• and independent economic dynamism.

The real question now is whether Australia is building resilience — or slowly normalising economic stagnation under a permanently expanding state.

For younger Australians in particular, this Budget risks becoming a generational turning point in the wrong direction.

At its core, the Budget admits Australia faces weaker growth, persistent inflationary pressures, deteriorating productivity and worsening global uncertainty. Treasury forecasts economic growth slowing to just 1.75 per cent in 2026–27 while inflation remains elevated at around 5 per cent through mid-2026. 

Yet despite this fragile environment, the Government has chosen this moment to fundamentally reshape Australia’s tax and investment settings.

The Government’s Contradiction

The Treasurer repeatedly argues Australia needs:

• more productivity,
• more housing supply,
• more business investment,
• and stronger long-term economic dynamism. 

But the same Budget simultaneously introduces:

• reforms to negative gearing,
• changes to capital gains tax arrangements,
• a minimum tax on discretionary trusts,
• tighter investment taxation,
• and broader structural tax increases. 

The contradiction is glaring.

You cannot seriously claim to want more investment while systematically increasing the tax burden on investment.

You cannot claim to support younger Australians entering the housing market while discouraging the private capital that finances housing construction and rental supply.

And you cannot champion productivity while reducing incentives for entrepreneurship, risk-taking and long-term capital formation.

Capital Gains Tax Changes: A Direct Hit on Aspiration

The Government frames its capital gains tax reforms as measures aimed at “fairness” and “future generations.” 

But the practical effect is likely to be the opposite.

Capital gains tax settings influence:

• property investment,
• start-up investment,
• venture capital,
• small business formation,
• retirement planning,
• and intergenerational wealth creation.

Reducing incentives for long-term investment inevitably reduces investment activity itself.

The Government appears to assume investment capital will simply remain in Australia regardless of tax treatment. History suggests otherwise.

Capital is mobile.
Talent is mobile.
Entrepreneurs are mobile.

And increasingly, younger Australians are as well.

Higher taxes on investment do not magically create affordability. In many cases, they simply reduce supply, reduce confidence and reduce economic activity.

Negative Gearing Changes Could Tighten Rental Markets

The Government claims reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax will “boost home ownership.” 

But there is remarkably little evidence within the Budget papers themselves demonstrating how materially reducing investor incentives during an existing housing shortage will improve affordability.

Instead, there is a serious risk the policy creates:

• reduced private rental investment,
• fewer new dwellings financed,
• upward pressure on rents,
• and greater housing scarcity.

Canberra already suffers from some of the nation’s most distorted housing dynamics:

• escalating rents,
• constrained supply,
• high construction costs,
• and strong public-sector wage competition.

Discouraging private investment into housing during a supply crisis risks worsening precisely the problem the Government claims to be solving.

Young Australians Will Pay Twice

The Budget’s deeper structural issue is that younger Australians appear set to bear the cost from both directions.

First:
they face diminished opportunities for asset accumulation due to weaker investment incentives and slower economic growth.

Second:
they will inherit the long-term fiscal burden of an increasingly large and interventionist Commonwealth.

The Government proudly notes gross debt will exceed $1 trillion. 

Even while claiming the debt position is “improving,” Australia is still entering an era of trillion-dollar federal debt combined with slower growth and rising structural spending pressures.

That matters enormously.

Because slower growth combined with higher debt means future Australians pay more simply to maintain existing government obligations.

Canberra Cannot Ignore This

Canberra is uniquely exposed to these policy settings.

The ACT economy is heavily tied to:

• Commonwealth expenditure,
• public administration,
• consultancy,
• regulatory expansion,
• and government-driven economic activity.

Yet even within Budget Paper No. 4, the Government openly celebrates expanding bureaucracy and shifting more functions internally into the public service. 

While reducing wasteful consultancy dependence may have merit in some areas, the broader direction is unmistakable:
a larger Commonwealth footprint across the economy.

That may temporarily support Canberra employment numbers, but it does little to solve Australia’s underlying productivity crisis.

Long-term prosperity is built by:

• productive private enterprise,
• innovation,
• investment,
• manufacturing competitiveness,
• and entrepreneurial growth.

Not perpetual expansion of administrative structures.

The Productivity Problem the Budget Doesn’t Solve

The Budget repeatedly references productivity as Australia’s defining economic challenge. 

Yet many of the Budget’s flagship measures move Australia toward:

• higher complexity,
• greater tax intervention,
• larger compliance burdens,
• and more state involvement in capital allocation.

The Government claims its productivity package will reduce regulatory burden by $10.2 billion annually. 

But investors and businesses will judge outcomes — not slogans.

And many will reasonably ask:
why would businesses invest more aggressively in Australia while facing:

• weaker growth,
• rising taxes,
• higher energy costs,
• elevated inflation,
• and increasing regulatory uncertainty?

A Budget Built on Optimistic Assumptions

The Budget’s economic recovery forecasts rely heavily on assumptions that:

• oil prices ease,
• global instability moderates,
• inflation falls,
• and growth rebounds by 2027–28. 

But the same Budget acknowledges enormous geopolitical and economic uncertainty.

That creates a serious risk:
if global conditions deteriorate further, Australia could face weaker growth and declining investment confidence at precisely the same moment it has weakened private-sector incentives domestically.

The Bigger Risk: Normalising Decline

Perhaps the most concerning feature of this Budget is philosophical.

Australians are increasingly being conditioned to accept:

• lower growth,
• permanent housing unaffordability,
• higher taxes,
• declining productivity,
• and weaker private-sector dynamism
  as somehow inevitable.

They are not inevitable.

Australia became prosperous because it rewarded:

• enterprise,
• investment,
• innovation,
• home ownership,
• and aspiration.

Policies that weaken those incentives do not create fairness.
They risk creating stagnation.

And younger Australians may ultimately pay the highest price of all.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has secured a historic breakthrough in federal politics, with candidate David Farley set to become the party’s first lower house representative to be elected after a dramatic result in the NSW seat of Farrer.

As counting continued on Saturday evening, early Australian Electoral Commission figures showed Farley dominating the primary vote with approximately 48.2 per cent, well ahead of independent Michelle Milthorpe on 19.8 per cent, Nationals candidate Brad Robertson on 10.9 per cent, and Liberal candidate Raissa Butkowski on 8.8 per cent. The projected two-candidate-preferred count placed One Nation ahead by approximately 63.3 per cent to 36.7 per cent. 

The scale of the result represents one of the most significant electoral upsets in recent federal political history. Farrer — which covers much of south-western New South Wales including Albury, Griffith, Narrandera, Leeton, Deniliquin, Hay and Wentworth — has been continuously held by Coalition-aligned parties since 1949. 

The by-election followed the resignation of former Liberal leader Sussan Ley, who had held the electorate since 2001. At the 2025 federal election, Ley retained the seat with 56.19 per cent of the two-candidate-preferred vote against independent Michelle Milthorpe, while One Nation polled only 6.6 per cent on primary votes at that election. 

The transformation in the political landscape over just twelve months has been extraordinary.

AEC data released before polling day showed approximately 9,000 completed postal votes had already been returned, more than 900 mobile votes had been cast, and around 700 temporary AEC staff were deployed across the electorate to manage the by-election count. 

Farley campaigned heavily on regional dissatisfaction, cost-of-living pressures, water policy and voter frustration with the major parties. The result appears to reflect a substantial realignment of conservative regional voters away from the traditional Coalition parties.

Independent Michelle Milthorpe mounted a significant campaign and again positioned herself as a major independent challenger after her strong 2025 performance. However, the scale of the One Nation surge across rural booths and preference flows ultimately placed the party in a commanding position during the count.

The Liberal and National parties meanwhile suffered from a split conservative vote in what had historically been regarded as safe Coalition territory. The Nationals contested the seat despite its long Liberal history, contributing to a fragmented conservative primary vote while One Nation consolidated anti-establishment support.

The contest also produced an extraordinarily rare electoral scenario, with the Australian Electoral Commission conducting a notional two-candidate preferred count between One Nation and an independent candidate rather than between Labor and the Coalition. 

Farrer contains approximately 124,447 enrolled voters, making it one of regional Australia’s most geographically expansive electorates. 

While postal and declaration votes remain outstanding, the consistency of booth trends and the scale of the projected margin made the direction of the result increasingly clear as counting progressed on Saturday night.

For One Nation, the victory represents a watershed political moment — transforming the party from a Senate protest force into a party now capable of winning and potentially holding seats in the House of Representatives.

Canberra’s premium dining scene increasingly finds itself caught between two competing ambitions: refined hospitality and relaxed accessibility. The Wine Room lands somewhere directly in the middle.

On a busy Friday evening, the venue was operating at full pace — perhaps too much so. Arrival involved a noticeable wait for staff attention before eventually being shown to the table. For a venue positioning itself at the upper end of Canberra dining, first impressions matter, and on this occasion the opening service lacked polish.

That said, once seated, the venue’s strengths quickly became apparent.

The space itself is beautifully designed. A dramatic wine wall anchors the room and gives the venue much of its identity, while low lighting and dark finishes create an atmosphere that feels distinctly more metropolitan than traditional Canberra dining. Leather-bound menus add a welcome touch of sophistication and reinforce the venue’s premium aspirations.

The oysters proved the standout of the evening.

Sydney Rock oysters served with mignonette and finger lime delivered a rich creaminess balanced by bright acidity and texture. The roe and accompanying citrus notes elevated the dish beyond what might otherwise appear a fairly standard offering. Simple in concept, but extremely effective in execution.

The accompanying Pinot Noir — while positioned as a table wine — was surprisingly expressive and paired comfortably with both courses.

The 400g MB5+ Angus Wagyu sirloin arrived visually impressive and true to expectation: rich marbling, strong crust and the familiar buttery characteristics diners expect from quality Wagyu. The chimichurri and horseradish additions cut through the richness effectively without overwhelming the beef itself.

Yet despite the strength of the food and design, service remained the defining weakness throughout the evening.

Wine service felt particularly underdone for a venue built so heavily around its wine identity. Beyond the initial pour, there was little proactive engagement, no meaningful follow-up, and only water was refreshed during the meal. At this price point — approximately $137 for four oysters, a Wagyu sirloin and a single Pinot Noir — diners reasonably expect a more attentive and curated experience.

There is also a broader identity question the venue may eventually need to confront.

While Canberra dining has undoubtedly become more relaxed post-pandemic, The Wine Room at times veers too far toward casualness for a venue clearly aspiring to premium positioning. On this particular evening, both patrons and staff occasionally appeared dressed more for a late-night lounge than a serious dining room. The atmosphere consequently lost some of the sense of occasion the food itself was attempting to create.

And that is perhaps the most frustrating part of the experience: the foundations are clearly there.

The room is attractive. The food is strong. The wine concept works. But hospitality at the upper tier is rarely defined solely by what arrives on the plate — it is the orchestration around it that determines whether a venue becomes memorable.

At present, The Wine Room feels like a venue capable of being exceptional, but not yet consistently operating at the standard its pricing and presentation promise.

Capital Table Verdict:
Excellent oysters, impressive Wagyu and one of the better-designed dining rooms in Canberra — though service and overall refinement still lag behind the venue’s ambitions.

The conversation, centred on how markets can lower the cost of living, moved well beyond theory. Leigh’s contribution was notable for its pragmatism: not an argument for deregulation at all costs, but for smarter, faster systems that unlock supply without sacrificing safeguards.

Cutting Through the Bottlenecks

Leigh acknowledged a central frustration across housing, energy, and infrastructure: Australia is slow to build.

He pointed to billions of dollars in stalled clean energy projects and approval processes that can stretch over a decade. The solution, he argued, is not sweeping federal takeovers but coordinated reform across federal, state and local levels—with a focus on speeding approvals and reducing duplication.

“We’ve got to work with the states and territories to speed up approvals… getting more projects online faster is better for the economy and for all of us.”  

Rather than centralisation, Leigh emphasised competition and benchmarking between councils—highlighting how transparency in approval times can drive performance improvements.

Housing: Supply, Not Slogans

On housing, Leigh was clear: affordability hinges on increasing supply, not simply shifting demand.

The national target—1.2 million homes over five years—will rely heavily on the private sector. The Commonwealth’s role, he suggested, is to use financial incentives and policy levers to encourage better planning and faster construction, rather than dictate outcomes.

He also pointed to overlooked inefficiencies—like supply chain constraints and transport bottlenecks—that quietly add cost and delay to construction.

The broader message: Australia doesn’t just need more housing policy—it needs fewer barriers to building housing.

Migration as an Economic Multiplier

Perhaps the most direct intervention came on migration—a politically charged issue increasingly linked to housing pressures.

Leigh rejected the idea that migration undermines economic “abundance,” arguing instead that it is central to it.

“Migrants aren’t just mouths to feed—they’re muscles to build and minds to inspire.”  

He highlighted that:

• A significant share of construction workers are migrants
• Nearly half of doctors are born overseas
• Migrants are overrepresented in startups and innovation

Cutting migration, he warned, would reduce Australia’s capacity to build homes, staff hospitals, and grow the economy.

Regulation: Fix It, Don’t Just Cut It

Leigh pushed back against simplistic “deregulation vs regulation” debates.

Instead, he outlined a principle-driven approach:

1. Check if existing rules already work
2. Adapt them in a technology-neutral way
3. Only introduce new regulation if necessary

This was particularly evident in his comments on AI, where he noted current consumer laws are largely fit for purpose—avoiding the need for rushed, sector-specific rules.

The goal, he argued, is better regulation—not simply less regulation.

Markets Still Matter

A key undercurrent of Leigh’s remarks was a defence of markets at a time when global politics is drifting toward protectionism.

He argued that well-functioning markets remain the most effective way to deliver lower prices and higher living standards, provided governments focus on removing constraints to supply.

This includes:

• Faster approvals
• More housing construction
• Expanded clean energy
• Open trade and migration

In that sense, the “abundance agenda” is less ideological than operational—it’s about making the system work.

The Takeaway

Leigh’s intervention was not a radical rethinking of economic policy—but a disciplined restatement of it.

Australia’s cost-of-living pressures, he suggested, are not primarily a failure of markets—but a failure to let them function efficiently.

The implication for policymakers is clear:
if you want abundance, start by removing the barriers to building it.

The leaders will meet at Parliament House on 4 May for the annual Australia–Japan Leaders’ Meeting — the fourth time the pair have met, following engagements at major international forums including APEC, the G20 and the East Asia Summit.  

The visit also marks a symbolic milestone: 50 years since the signing of the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, a foundational agreement that helped transform Australia–Japan relations into one of the region’s most significant partnerships.

A partnership built on strategy — not sentiment

In announcing the visit, the Prime Minister emphasised the enduring nature of the bilateral relationship, pointing to shared values and strategic alignment.

“Australia and Japan share strong strategic alignment… essential to maintaining a peaceful, stable and prosperous region,” he said.  

But beyond the diplomatic language lies a deeper reality: the relationship has become increasingly central to Australia’s positioning in the Indo-Pacific.

From defence cooperation and energy security to critical minerals and supply chains, Japan is no longer just a key economic partner — it is a strategic pillar.

Why this visit matters now

The timing is notable.

With global supply chains under pressure and geopolitical tensions rising across the region, Canberra and Tokyo are moving closer together — not just economically, but in terms of security coordination and long-term resilience.

Recent reporting suggests discussions are likely to extend to fuel security, trade continuity and critical resources — areas where both nations have strong mutual dependencies.

In practical terms, this partnership underpins:

• Australia’s export economy (particularly LNG, coal and iron ore)
• Japan’s energy security
• Regional stability in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific

The Canberra factor

Hosting the meeting in Canberra reinforces the capital’s role as the centre of Australia’s strategic diplomacy.

High-level visits such as this are not just ceremonial — they shape policy direction, signal alignment to allies, and send a clear message to the region.

And while much of the detail will remain behind closed doors, the optics are unmistakable: Australia and Japan are doubling down on a relationship that is no longer optional — but essential.

At the National Film and Sound Archive on Tuesday night, the 2026 ACT Heritage Oration—Saving Our Suburbs—was delivered with characteristic wit and urgency by design advocate Tim Ross.

What began as a reflection on mid-century modernism quickly evolved into something more confronting: a warning that Canberra risks eroding the very qualities that make it unique.

And, as became clear in the closing exchange, that warning lands uncomfortably close to home—particularly in places like Acton.

A City Built on Optimism—and Now Under Pressure

Ross framed Canberra as a rare national asset:
a planned city born from belief in architecture, landscape, and public purpose.

Mid-century design, he argued, wasn’t just aesthetic—it was ideological.
It reflected a confidence that good design could shape better lives.

“We don’t save buildings for now—we save them for people in the future.”

But that future is increasingly contested.

Population growth, planning reform, and densification pressures are colliding with heritage in ways that feel less like balance—and more like replacement.

The Suburbs Are the Story

Ross’ central thesis was simple but powerful:
suburbs aren’t just houses—they’re memory, identity, and lived experience.

From bush modernist homes to cooperative developments like Urambi Village, Canberra’s suburbs tell stories of:

• experimentation
• community living
• environmental integration
• architectural ambition

Lose the fabric, and you lose the story.

The Real Problem: Policy, Not Taste

One of the most compelling sections of the oration cut through a common misconception.

The decline in design quality—and the threat to heritage—is not primarily about bad individual choices.

It’s about policy settings shaping outcomes.

Ross pointed to:

• tax incentives
• planning frameworks
• development economics

as the real drivers behind:

• oversized homes
• loss of green space
• demolition of character housing

“Bad design breeds bad design.”

In other words: if the system rewards scale and turnover, heritage becomes expendable.

The most relevant moment of the night for Canberra came during the Q&A.

Raising the Acton Waterfront project, I asked:

What do we do when heritage is being overridden by financial incentives—where overdevelopment risks destroying one of Canberra’s most historically significant areas?

The concern is clear:

• massive densification
• revenue-driven planning
• loss of existing heritage character
• a precedent for future waterfront and civic areas

Ross’ response was measured—but telling.

He didn’t dismiss the concern.

Instead, he reframed the tension:

• Cities must evolve
• Density is necessary
• But outcomes must be better designed, not just bigger
• And critically:
  green space and community must remain central

“We don’t crave privacy—we crave community.”

The Missing Piece: Quality, Not Just Quantity

What Ross stopped short of saying outright—but strongly implied—is this:

The problem isn’t density.
It’s bad density.

The risk with Acton—and similar projects—is not that development occurs.

It’s that it occurs:

• too fast
• too large
• too disconnected from landscape
• and too driven by short-term financial return

Without:

• architectural excellence
• environmental integration
• or respect for context

Canberra’s Unique Advantage—At Risk

Ross repeatedly highlighted something many Canberrans take for granted:

the tree canopy.

It’s what allows density to coexist with livability.

It’s what softens buildings.
What creates identity.
What makes Canberra… Canberra.

Projects like Acton Waterfront will test whether that advantage is preserved—or eroded.

A Bigger Question for Canberra

The real takeaway from the night wasn’t nostalgic.

It was strategic.

Canberra faces a defining choice:

Do we:

• treat heritage as an obstacle
• or as a foundation?

Do we:

• maximise yield
• or maximise quality?

Do we:

• build quickly
• or build well?

The Bottom Line

Tim Ross didn’t deliver a nostalgic plea to freeze Canberra in time.

He delivered something more uncomfortable:

A warning that if we don’t get this next phase right, we risk losing what made the city worth building in the first place.

And nowhere is that tension more visible than Acton.

⸻

The hidden architecture of Canberra’s power

At first glance, Canberra in the 1950s looked like a sparse, unfinished capital — more paddock than power centre.

Yet behind the official façades of government departments and embassies, a very different city was taking shape — one defined not by institutions alone, but by dense, informal social networks that quietly shaped Australia’s political, diplomatic and cultural trajectory.

A recent talk at the Canberra Museum & Gallery as part of the National Trust ACT Heritage Festival revealed how this “social web” operated — and why it still matters today.

⸻

A city built as a social experiment

Between 1933 and 1966, Canberra’s population surged from just 8,000 to 93,000. But this wasn’t a typical Australian cross-section.

It was a curated mix:

• ambitious young public servants
• globally connected academics
• diplomats and cultural figures
• families building new lives in a national project

Canberra became, in effect, a living laboratory of nation-building — where ideas, policy, and relationships were forged simultaneously.

As outlined in the presentation, institutions like the Australian National University and the rapidly professionalising public service created a new kind of elite — not inherited, but talent-driven and networked.  

⸻

The real engine: informal networks

What truly defined Canberra in this period wasn’t just Parliament or policy — it was who knew whom, and how.

Deals, ideas and influence didn’t just emerge in offices. They emerged:

• over drinks in living rooms
• at impromptu dinner parties
• in bookshops and theatres
• on cricket fields and tennis courts

As one example, economist John Crawford reportedly began diplomatic engagement with Japan not in a boardroom — but by casually returning a tennis ball over a fence.

This was quiet diplomacy in its purest form.

⸻

The tennis court as a diplomatic arena

Perhaps the most revealing insight from the talk was the role of the Canberra diplomatic tennis circuit.

Far from being just sport, tennis became:

• a neutral meeting ground
• a social equaliser (including for women)
• a hub for diplomats, academics and policymakers

From informal matches to larger social events later covered in Vogue, these gatherings blurred the lines between:

• diplomacy
• culture
• politics

Relationships built here often translated into influence elsewhere.

⸻

Cold War Canberra — intimate and immediate

The 1950s were also shaped by Cold War tensions, particularly following the Petrov Affair, which brought espionage and global politics directly into Canberra’s daily life.

Unlike larger cities, Canberra’s scale meant:

• international events felt personal
• surveillance (including ASIO monitoring) intersected with social life
• ideological divides played out at dinner tables

Historian Manning Clark’s diaries captured this vividly — recording friendships across ideological lines, alongside growing suspicion and tension.  

⸻

The Burton network and the politics of proximity

Few families better illustrate this world than Cecily and John Burton, central figures in Canberra’s intellectual and diplomatic circles.

Their influence extended through:

• weekend gatherings
• bookshop salons
• theatre and cultural scenes

At times, these networks even attracted ASIO attention — highlighting how social connection itself became politically significant.

⸻

A capital defined by closeness

What made Canberra unique was not just who was here — but how closely they interacted.

Unlike today:

• people lived near each other
• social circles overlapped constantly
• children moved freely between homes
• professional and personal lives were deeply intertwined

The result was a city where:

influence flowed through proximity

and relationships often mattered as much as rank

⸻

What we’ve lost — and what remains

By the late 1960s and 1970s, Canberra began to change:

• networks became more formalised
• institutions grew more complex
• social intimacy declined

Yet the legacy remains.

Today’s “Canberra bubble” is often criticised — but historically, it was less a bubble than a highly connected ecosystem, built on shared purpose rather than isolation.

⸻

The takeaway

The talk makes a compelling case:

Canberra’s power was never just institutional.

It was social, informal, and deeply human.

Understanding that history isn’t just nostalgic — it’s instructive.

Because in a city still defined by relationships,

the quiet diplomacy continues.