The short answer
the Senate debated on 22 June 2026: tax reform package, senators' statements, and matters of urgency
On Monday 22 June 2026, the Senate sat under the presidency of Senator Sue Lines. The day was dominated by the introduction of the government's Tax Reform No. 1 package — comprising the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. Senators also made statements on a range of topics, dealt with committee business, and debated a matter of urgency.
This is a method for assessing public claims, not a verdict on a party or a direction on how to vote. Conclusions should change when the underlying law, data or implementation evidence changes.
The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.
Evidence review
Opening of the sitting
The Senate met at 10:00 am on Monday 22 June 2026, with President Sue Lines taking the chair, acknowledging country, and reading prayers. The day began with the tabling of documents, committee reports, and the moving of formal motions by various senators on a range of matters. These opening procedures are a standard part of each Senate sitting day, moving the chamber from ceremonial acknowledgment to the formal business of receiving documents and committee reports for the chamber's detailed consideration and debate.
Evidence review
Tax Reform No. 1: the government's signature package
The centrepiece of the day's proceedings was the introduction of the government's Tax Reform No. 1 package. The two bills — the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 — were received from the House of Representatives and brought before the Senate for their first reading.
Senator Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance and Manager of Government Business in the Senate, moved that the bills 'proceed without formalities, be taken together and be now read a first time'. This procedural motion, which is commonly used for non-controversial bills, became the subject of contentious debate.
Evidence review
The procedural dispute: what 'proceeding without formalities' means
Senator Claire Chandler (Tasmania) intervened to ask that the question be divided, so that the motion to proceed without formalities could be put separately. According to the Hansard transcript, Senator Chandler explained the opposition's position: 'Nothing about these bills, or the government's approach, has been simple, rational or flexible. I want to be very clear about what is actually before the Senate today. The bills that will be brought on shortly were rushed through a process and followed by a Senate inquiry that, frankly, I can only describe as a stitch-up.'
The Deputy President, Senator Slade Brockman, acceded to the request to divide the question. This procedural intervention is significant because 'proceeding without formalities' is a mechanism designed for non-contentious legislation. Senator Chandler's objection signalled the opposition's intention to contest the bills both procedurally and substantively. Two divisions were subsequently recorded in the Hansard, indicating formal votes were taken on the procedural motions.
Evidence review
Senator Chandler's critique of the tax package
According to the Hansard record, Senator Chandler set out a detailed critique of the tax reform package. She claimed the bills represented 'higher taxes on housing, savings, small business, start-ups and family wealth' and that the government labelling them 'tax reform' was misleading. She said: 'This package is a tax increase. It will increase the tax burden on Australians, and that means something very simple: it means that the government is taking more of Australians' money and Australians will be keeping less.'
Senator Chandler outlined specific features of the package that she said would make the tax system 'more complicated, not less', including 'a new indexation system for capital gains', 'a 30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains', and 'different treatment' for different types of taxpayers. She argued the government 'didn't have the guts to take its tax policies to the Australian people' at the previous election.
It is important to note that these are Senator Chandler's claims as recorded in the Hansard transcript and do not necessarily represent verified facts about the bill's effects. The bills' actual provisions are detailed in their text and explanatory memoranda.
Evidence review
Statements by senators
The day's proceedings also included a session of statements by senators, during which senators raised issues of concern to their constituents. Topics covered in these statements, as recorded in the Hansard, included: gender and sexual orientation (Senator Leah Blyth), early childhood education and care (Senator Ellie Whiteaker), One Nation (Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator Helen Polley, and Senator Peter Whish-Wilson), the food industry (Senator Susan McDonald), migration (Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator Lisa Darmanin), domestic and family violence (Senator Matt O'Sullivan), social cohesion (Senator Ralph Babet), housing (Senator Corinne Mulholland), the budget (Senator Jessica Collins), data centres (Senator David Pocock, with contributions on the 'Wild, Mr Brett' matter also recorded), and sports and aviation topics (Senator Nita Green on the Australian men's football team, Senator Josh Dolega on Virgin Australia).
Evidence review
Other business and adjournment
The Senate also dealt with questions without notice, the taking note of answers, notices of motion, committee business, a matter of urgency, documents, regulations and determinations, and further bills before adjourning. The breadth of the day's agenda reflected a busy sitting day with both legislative and general business items on the program. These procedural items form the daily rhythm of the Senate, with question time providing a forum for executive scrutiny and the various motions and committee matters allowing senators to progress their portfolio and electorate work.
Common questions
Before you rely on the answer
What was the Tax Reform No. 1 package debated on 22 June 2026?
The package comprised two bills: the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026. These were received from the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate.
Why did the opposition object to proceeding without formalities?
According to Hansard, Senator Chandler argued the bills were rushed through, the Senate inquiry process was inadequate, and the bills represented a significant tax increase. She asked for the procedural motion to be divided so the question of proceeding without formalities could be voted on separately.
Who is Katy Gallagher and what was her role?
Senator Katy Gallagher is the Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Minister for the Public Service, and Manager of Government Business in the Senate. On 22 June 2026, she moved the procedural motions to introduce the Tax Reform No. 1 bills.
What does the claim about a '30 per cent minimum tax rate on capital gains' refer to?
This was a claim made by Senator Chandler during debate, as recorded in the Hansard transcript. The specific details of tax rate changes would be contained in the bills' text and explanatory memoranda. Senator Chandler's characterisation represents her parliamentary contribution, not a verified fact.
Source spine
Primary material used for this guide
Review trigger: This article is a record of what occurred on 22 June 2026. It would only need updating if the proof Hansard transcript is corrected, or if subsequent events significantly change the context of the day's proceedings.
Archive note: This article is based on the proof Hansard transcript for the Senate on 22 June 2026. The transcript may be subject to correction.
Primary links are provided without affiliate or tracking parameters. Confirm that the source still applies to the bill, sitting date, jurisdiction or reporting period before relying on it.