Samantha Maiden

Like I think that they're open to doing more tweaks and I think that they've made that clear.

I think that there's a danger in all the colour and movement and frothing that people don't really see what the government has done here.

First of all, what they've done, which is really fascinating, is they've pretty much got an Australian consensus on the idea that negative gearing had to go for existing properties and

No one seems to be really arguing about that.

That's actually a huge victory.

That's a big change.

It's something that's been debated for over a decade and they've got that through.

The CGT changes are messier and they're a bit more complicated.

They've obviously made it more tricky by widening it out to take in shares.

That's opened up a whole new sort of layer of losers.

And, you know, they keep having little things come up like the so-called widow's tax and stuff that they need to tweak.

But the complete value of these changes is in the out years, but in the next four years I think it raises about $3.9 billion, about $4 billion.

And the reforms that they've put in or the back downs, the concessions, whatever you want to call it, cost the budget about $375 million.

You know, when you think about it, $4 billion over four years, not nothing, not huge, but the benefit is the better footing it puts the budget into forever.

$375 million in concessions, possibly going to be some more.

There is obviously, though, a...

that one of the concessions the Greens have got is to delay the NDIS changes and have this Senate inquiry.

And there's been these reports in the AFR this week that that could cost up to $1.5 billion a month.

Now, it's a bit of a rubbery figure, right, because it's basically saying...

We could save that if we did it faster or if we implemented it on the current timeframe.