Definitely very un-Australian!
Having worked with a small cohort of exPats all have varying reasons to work and base themselves OS. Typically you might consider many of them to be hardcore permanent exPats, who have established life styles, property and even partners living with them for many years OS.
The most frequent reason for doing so was something to do with how little tax they needed to pay given their choices. There was always plenty of discussion on how to minimise it further. Most retained a physical footprint in Australia in different ways and visited on a regular basis, tax rule compliant. Many had a property in Australia, with tenants for various periods of time, between long breaks from work and life back in Australia, before going OS a little while later and finding new tenants.
There are of course others who may be simply working out of the country as one off circumstances, perhaps for several years. Perhaps as government appointments or short term company transfers for experience. Where that might lead is always open ended.
The exemption on the application of CGT which currently applies even if the family home is rented out for up to 6 years at a time would seem a very generous concession. In particular to resident tax payers with an investment rental or even moving cities or for work temporarily and needing to rent out the family home. Doubtless the ATO has some interesting and relevant observations it has not shared.
The opposition appears to be supportive of the change, although not on the retrospective application of the change.
It’s not certain that there are two sides to this proposed legislation. Does it treat all fairly, or should it be more targeted, independent of the retrospective application?