The Chaser Report - 2026 Federal Budget Special

Episode Date: May 12, 2026

After spending three days in the budget lock-up, and four days before that trapped in the budget lockers, Dom and Charles have emerged with knowledge of all the winners and losers of the 2026 Federal Budget. But more importantly than all of that, Charles needs to talk about Olivia Rodrigo.---Listen AD FREE: https://thechaserreport.supercast.com/ Follow us on Instagram: @chaserwarSpam Dom's socials: @dom_knightSend Charles voicemails: @charlesfirthEmail us: [e-mail] CEO’s Super-yacht upgrade Fund: https://chaser.com.au/support/ Send complaints to: [e-mail] Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report is recorded on Gatigal Land. Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to this special budget edition of The Chaser Report with Dom and Charles. Now, of course, we've been in the pre-lock-up lock-up, lock-up. I don't know if you know this, but there's actually a lock-up before the lock-up for people so trusted that we get really the half-formed ideas before they go to the media. Yes, the What do you reckon? What do you reckon?

Yeah, so we're in there just shaping the nation. And it's not delivered on, like, printed out paper. It's delivered on the back of envelopes. That's right, back of envelopes. And basically just whiteboards. Yeah. Those whiteboards that print onto thermal paper that immediately gets destroyed. Yeah.

No, look, it's very, very advanced stuff. So we have, I think, not only the finest budget analysis in the land. Yes. But we will also analyze all the other budget analysis before it's even happened yet. That's how good this podcast is going to be. So we're recording at 8.14 p.m. on Tuesday night. Yeah, about three days after we got the full details of the budget. That's right.

Yeah, that's right. But so, Dom and I, for some reason, thought that it would be a good idea to file. Yeah, to do a special, you know, up-to-date edition. Forgetting that we're supposed to be a comedy podcast. Can we just take some ads and we'll just remember what the point of us doing this podcast is? So the thing is, I turned on the TV at 730 with the full intent of watching the budget speech. Yep. But it is so boring.

Like, I can tell you, I was here, it was on. Like, there was an intent to watch it. I am not sure I actually processed any of it. What's happened? Are you not Charles Firth economics graduate of the University of Sydney? Labor kind of generational royalty with multiple former, you know, members of parliament and your family. This should be, with a triumphant labor government, with a lot of political capital they wanted to spend. This should be like a big night for you.

You should be, you should be like shouting from the rooftops, Charmas has done it. I knew he could. Or what's that, what's that, effect? We should be cracking open Australian sparkling champagne. You seem, I think you'd like to call it that. You seem very underwhelmed. But you know, it's always hard to know how a budget's going down.

But there's one person, one person who's extremely happy about this budget. And that person is Jim Charmers. I've never seen a politician since the days of Kevin Rudd as high on his own supply as It's just, as we speak, he's talking to Sarah Ferguson, you know, pretty tough for the question. He's very manic. He looks so happy. He has not slept. No, he hasn't slept.

He's definitely slept. And he's been having fever dreams of himself sashaying immediately into the lodge, I think, off the strength of this budget. But, okay, so let's run through the thing. I mean, as you say, we already knew everything that was in this budget already. Just before we get into the detail, just your big picture analysis. What's your vibe coming to this? Yes, a lot of things were strategically linked.

Look, I think that, you know, what I think is, that if I could understand the detail of all the changes to the negative hearing and capital gains tax thing, I would probably be very pleased, tried. But I have no idea, because it's all like capped at 30%, or minimum 30%, this. But it sounds like it's a lot of money, and it's taking from the right. And the way they're spinning it is actually genuinely great, which is, well, this is not about, because the all day, the libs have been saying, oh, well, this is going to be about. taking money from people who don't work, right? And they're just going, we think workers should be treated in the same way so that no one's getting special text treatment. Like, the work shouldn't be taxed more than people not working, which is such a good way to spin it, isn't it?

So my Insta reaction is that this is the Laboral party. This is, labor is, labor is occupying the middle ground to such a degree. And I think this is why Charmers look so happy with himself. Because, yes, as you say, there's all this money for workers. The workers get a permanent extra $2.50 a year. Small business gets all this stuff coming in. There's lots of money. So what is the small business stuff? Instant asset right off for $20,000 sticks around forever.

So what does that mean? Just for the big picture action, though, before we get to that. Does that mean we can buy a Mac studio? Yes, every year. Okay, great. Get instant right off of the, what's the depreciation, I think it is. But no, they're doing that. They're saying lots of money for construction, lots of money for business, come and invest, lots of funds.

So they're trying to occupy the whole of the middle ground in the speech. And if you heard the speech, you heard winner, winner, winner, winner, chicken dinner. No mention of the losers at all on budget night. And so fortunately, halfway through the budget, the Herald felt it was time to print their list of winners and losers. Oh, fantastic. I love the winners and there are losers. There are a lot of losers and we'll get on to who they are. But we'll start with the winners.

Well, imagine most of the cabinet are the losers. Because wouldn't most of the cabinet negative gear? No. Because they're all fathered. Oh, is they grandfathered? Oh, is that great. Well, let's get on to that. Oh, that's pretty.

So most people, if you're listening to this, you'll probably get $2.50 a year tax cut. That's one of the things that the government's so happy about. They've done the tax cut wedge again on the liberals. And they're making themselves the party of tax cuts. So that's tick. So 13 million workers. Liberal, liberal. Liberal rights.

Liberal. Yeah, liberal. Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. They are changing the investor tax rules. They reckon that 75,000 people will get the ability to buy the first property because they're reducing the capital gains tax discount and scrapping negative gearing for purchases

of existing properties. So new properties, you can negative gear. So you can go and buy your off-the-plan construction. Probably won't ever get built. It might end up in a sinkhole property. But things that exist, you can't. Then there are also, there's been $2 billion, trying to end red tape and build more housing, quicker zoning, get it all happening. And they're so keen to take the Liberals common ground.

They're even spending a lot on defense, Charles. They're the party of defense. Fifty-three billion dollars over 10 years. And fortunately, some of it isn't going to Walker. Some of it's going to stuff that will actually happen, like drones and counter drones, as well as some stuff for orchards. Then small business, yeah, three and a half billion, including instant asset right off. That's the depreciation, I think. And whatever a permanent two-year loss carryback is, Sounds like the chaser. I think the chaser's doing well out of this budget. And they didn't discuss this, but I knew there'd be money for rail because it's elbow,

8.6 in rail, including the suburban rail loop, rail freight, upgrade of the Bruce Highway and halving of the fuel excise. So there's basically money for all these strategic sectors. They've massively wedged Angus Taylor to the point where what does he even do from here? Which of these measures does he oppose? So should I get to the losers? Or do you want to react to all that? Because they've been very tricky.

I'm already so bored. So can we talk about Olivia Rodriguez? The controversy surrounding Olivia Rodriguez. We will. Let's just do another quick second. Sorry. Because I know this is, you know. You know that there was a study that says you shouldn't, you know,

discuss anything after 9 p.m. That's true. Well, it's almost 9 p.m. All right. So the negative gearing change is from July. So if you're not buying a business property, buy it now. If you're in the, from July. From July.

next year. Oh, so you've got a year. You've got a year to buy your investor property. Does that mean? So the rich people will be able to just buy up all the, all the property. No, I reckon you're wrong there. I reckon they're not grandfathering. The Herald says, are they grandfathering the.

Yeah, they are. I'm certainly not. Well, I don't think they're grandfathering. I think that they're just saying. No, it says, I'm quoting the Herald, okay. Australians wanting to negatively gear will not be able to use a tax perk from July next year, so 2027, this is newly built or they've already made the investment. Right.

So, new investors. So actually, this is going to actually drive up property prices for the next 12 months. So the boomers are fine with what they've got. And you've got 12 months. I'm going to go out and buy like 12 investment problems. Because the whole money is, the more of money I lose, the more I can negative gear. That's right. Yeah.

The infinite money glitch. Okay. So the CGT discount goes. Sorry, I don't, I think we've got to cut this short because I've got to go and buy some my property. Okay. But then the other losers, this is one you'll like and one of you won't like.

Okay. The one you'll like is trust fund. Have you got a trust fund? No. We better get one quickly. No, no, we don't believe in. Minimum 30% tax rate on discretionary trust distribution. So basically that looks like it's kind of ending as a vehicle.

So I don't really understand trust. I don't understand. I have one and I've never used it for anything. It was a total waste of money because you need to be richer than I am to actually take advantage of it. So a minimum 30% tax rate, but the minimum tax rate for rich people is 47%. I don't understand. But not if you're a retiree and not if you're giving it to your kids.

Ah, okay. So it's like a company. It becomes like a company. Yeah, basically. So there's no point in having one. Oh, farming and inheritance incomes is excluded. So that's not going to kick that hard. So, you know, Angus Taylor and co with the family trusts are fine.

Now, the one that you'll be bothered by is that 160,000 current NDIS recipients will be kicked off it. Australians with autism, it says here, and lower support needs will be. where the brunt of the cuts so that the scheme is focused on those with permanent and severe disabilities. I can't wait for all the autistic takes on this on TikTok. I think we'd have John Del Menko on the podcast. Yeah, we should. That's going to save $36 billion.

So that's by far the biggest saving. So literally just the way they've actually funded everything is to just kick it in the hips to disability sufferers. The trust will save for $4 billion. I'm not sure how much is going to be saved by the negative gearing thing. No, but the worst one. And these international travelers are being slugged an extra $80 per passenger movement. Well, it's up from 70.

So, but it adds 10 bucks, but it's, we're so busy. That's $755 million. Oh, in over four years. Older people with private health insurance are going to pay more. Older people and the autism people. Luxury EV buyers are going to cop it. Gas exporters. Oh, good.

They're going to tax. 20% of the gas is reserved for Australians. But they're not doing the Royal. The bill bill. It doesn't look like it. What a fucking. So that's where we are. Anyway, Charles, my point is

they're trying to basically. So they're going to cut $36 billion from the NDAS. Yep. It's interesting that Jim Chalmers with his Big Green didn't really. Didn't really discuss that in great detail, did he? He didn't mention that.

You talked about returning the NDAS to its original purpose. Which is to make Bill Shorten Prime Minister, wasn't it? Yeah, I think so. University of Cambridge, but my bachelor is their vice chancellor. It's worst design system.

They should just, they should admit that it's a voucher system so inherently inflationary and start entering the market. The government should actually employ people. The whole problem with it is, you get on IDIS, we're on NDIS, and then suddenly you start having to pay a billion dollars to get anyone because everyone's on the NDAS gravy train. Let's just say that we recently had reason to look at some NDIS type products. Yeah.

And anything where the NDIS sells it, it costs extraordinary. It's rubbish. It's a rubbish. I mean, let's just say a particular product that was needed for healthcare-related reasons. I won't go into it to why. The cheapest one we could find for the NDIS supplier was $1,400. Yes. And the average one was $2.5 grand.

Yeah. Got it on Amazon for less than $100. Yeah, exactly. That's basically where it works. That's exactly. That's one for another time. But Charles, let's just take Ed Saman breaks and talk about Olivia Rodrigo. Sounds much more interesting.

The Chaser Report. Now with Extra Whispers. Okay, so Olivia Rodriguez has been shamed. Really? For wearing a dress. A baby doll dress. Yes, a baby doll dress. Is that why Jim Chalmers is looking so pleased this?

All the people are saying that she shouldn't do that because Epstein liked to fiddle with kids. What? This is honestly true. They're saying it's like a moral panic. Is this supposed to be a cheerful distraction? You brought Jeffrey Epstein into it? Isn't the world depressing? But it's just like it's just a sort of like, yeah, it's just, that's the latest controversy.

That's the thing that's making the headlines in the US today. Yeah, she and Sabrina Carpenter. They're basically saying that women aren't allowed to choose what they wear anymore. Which I think is sort of actually the way the US is heading. Like it's sort of unsurprising that suddenly the conservatives in America are now policing what women wear because of the crimes of a man. Blessed to be the fruit. Yeah. So.

Oh, you know what we really need. to weigh it on that. What? Two men. Two men. Two men. Absolutely. Pro feminists.

Hashtag girl dad. Yeah, exactly. Over here. Yeah. And I just want to suggest that perhaps Olivia Rodriguez and Sabrina Carpenter can make their own choices about what to win. But apparently lots of other people online, many of the women, just disagree. Oh, really?

As a women. Some of them. In this extremely sensationalist article, though I just found on Google, because I didn't know anything about it. USA Today. Yeah, great. Quotes Lois McClucky Miller, whoever that is, we have to talk about the weird trend of heavily sexualized pop stars

dressing themselves as little girls. Why are we talking about this again? Jim Chalmers come back, always for different. All right. You know what? Good news is when they tour to Australia, those baby doll dresses, instant asset right off, baby.

I thank God you redeemed it. Yeah. Okay, so there you go. I guess the budget wasn't such a bad, topic. I've got to interrupt you there because Tim Wilson is now is currently being interviewed by Sarah Ferguson. So he's giving the coalition's first response.

Yes. I've just got to, you're going to have to stop this podcast because we've got to go and turn off the TV before I risk listening to him. Well, it's a kind of funny thing. You get the instant response for the shadow treasurer, then the opposition leader gets the big one on Thursday. But I mean, Charles, I think your point was the point. What would a Labor backbencher do right now?

If you were a member of the government, you'd be going out. You'd be pretty happy. And you'd be buying investment properties. Let's get on domain. Yes. And real estate.com. Actually, I can't afford to buy investment properties, but you go ahead, buddy. We're part of the Aconicless Network.

Catch you tomorrow. Please subscribe so I can buy a hovel.