Thousands of Jobs in Jeopardy Under Labor’s Tax Changes, Mark Bouris Warns

Tim Wilson MP and Senator Andrew Bragg warned on May 29, 2026, that thousands of construction jobs could be cut under changes included in Australia’s 2026-27 Federal Budget.

The estimate came from a joint opposition statement. It tied the projected losses to modifications involving capital gains tax and negative gearing.

The statement presented the employment figure as an industry-modelling claim. It said the measures could suppress housing supply and reduce GDP, rather than identifying a confirmed payroll total.

A separate warning came from Mark Bouris on July 16, 2026. He argued that the policy could make Australia less attractive to investors, creating a risk that weaker capital flows would limit business growth.

“less investment means businesses have less money to expand” and “less expansion means fewer jobs.”

The two warnings describe different parts of the same dispute. Wilson and Bragg supplied the specific construction estimate. Bouris described the investment path that could lead to weaker hiring.

The opposition links the Budget changes to fewer homes and construction work

The May statement called the package an “$80 billion tax grab.” It said the changes would punish housing and the wider economy by reducing the incentive to invest in property and development.

Tim Wilson, the opposition’s Shadow Treasurer, used stronger language in the statement:

“Labor's tax plan will deliver fewer homes, higher rents, smash the economy, and slash jobs. Treasury says that the main point of the Budget was an $80 billion tax grab, as 'revenue needs to be raised from somewhere.'”

The job estimate therefore rests on a sequence described by the opposition and its cited industry modelling. Lower housing supply would mean fewer projects, while reduced economic output would weaken demand for construction workers.

The estimate has a defined sector. It concerns construction, not a confirmed economy-wide total.

Housing activity sits at the center of the argument. If investors scale back projects, builders and businesses supplying development work could face less demand. The opposition says that would also push rents higher by limiting the number of homes available.

Bouris warns that investors could redirect capital

Bouris’s July 16 intervention focused on investment rather than a separate jobs count. His argument was that tax settings influence where investors commit money and whether businesses have funds available to expand.

That warning does not establish that a particular number of jobs will disappear. It identifies a potential transmission route from policy to employment: less investment, less expansion and fewer new positions.

The changes at issue include the capital gains and negative-gearing measures described in the opposition’s May statement. Bouris said they could reduce Australia’s appeal as an investment destination.

The construction estimate and the investment warning consequently overlap, but they should not be treated as the same forecast. One is a claim of thousands of job cuts in a named sector. The other is a warning about the conditions that could weaken hiring.

Hume says the proposed measures reach beyond property investors

Jane Hume, the Liberal deputy leader, attacked the proposed changes on June 21, 2026. She said the measures would affect millions of Australians and would weigh particularly on smaller businesses.

“target the very people that we rely on to grow the economy and particularly small businesses.”

Her criticism broadened the political case beyond construction. Hume argued that the people affected would include those needed to expand the economy, including small-business operators.

The opposition’s claims thus cover three connected areas: investment, housing and employment. The May statement focused on construction jobs and housing supply. Hume emphasized the reach of the measures across households and businesses.

The article’s scope is Australia. Separate warnings involving the UK Labour government concern different policies, including energy, retail and steel, so they do not establish the effect of the Australian Budget changes described here.

The Coalition proposes migration and red-tape changes alongside its tax opposition

The Coalition has pledged to link migration numbers to home construction. It has also proposed cutting red tape to offset the construction jobs it says could be lost under the Budget measures.

That response places the tax fight inside a broader housing argument. The Coalition says population settings should reflect the pace of home building, while faster approvals could help increase supply.

The proposal does not replace the employment estimate. It responds to it. The May statement supplied the claim that “thousands of jobs will be cut from the construction sector,” while the July warning supplied a separate concern about investment leaving Australia.

As of July 19, 2026, the most specific job figure remains the opposition’s construction-sector estimate. Its stated basis is industry modelling connected to housing supply and GDP, while Bouris’s warning centers on whether businesses retain enough investment to expand.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax advice. Consult a qualified tax professional or CPA about your specific situation.