Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Deputy Speaker. I was just saying that—I won't continue on with that interjection, but the reality is it's a broken promise.

Combined with other changes as well, like the response to the quality of advice review that will impact financial advisers—the government were supposed to run a program there for 12 months. They're only doing it for a few months, which puts more taxes on financial advisers at a time when Australians need financial advice more than ever. I'd call on the minister that I shadow to look at that, to try and fix that up because Australians need financial advice. They need financial advice in their super as well. We don't want a regulatory approach from the Albanese Labor government that favours one form of superannuation over another.

This is a big one: tax on unrealised capital gains. Taxing unrealised capital gains in superannuation means Australian retirees will pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet. They haven't made the money, but the Albanese Labor government wants to tax them on it. This is unheard of; it is unprecedented and it would set a new standard if this bill passes with the Greens support in the Senate. I know we're not voting for it. The coalition is not voting for this bad policy, particularly after the government said they wouldn't touch it and then broke that promise. Representations made by the Treasury that the taxation of unrealised gains is already a feature of the country's tax system are misleading because the only example of this within the Australian taxation system is in the taxation of capital gains where an individual or a company ceases to be an Australian tax resident. Well, that's not the case. This is on Australians living in Forrest, living in Swan, living in Petrie, living around Australia.

As a good analogy I can think of for young people, it would be like the government saying to you: 'Listen, you buy a carton of beer and you spend 200 dollars on cartons of beer every year. The tax on those cartons of beer is about 25 per cent, so you owe us $50.' This is before they even bought or drank the beer. That's what's happening. They're basically saying: 'You're spending 200 bucks on beef for the year? Twenty-five per cent of that is tax. You haven't purchased it yet, but we know you're going to. You haven't drunk it yet, but we know you're going to. We want our $50.'

It would also mean—and many people who are currently homeowners would understand this; we don't trust the government's commitment that they won't tax the family home or even any property. Think of your own property where perhaps you bought a property for $500,000. The reality is that that property today might be worth $1 million. You've had a $500,000 increase in that asset. It would be like the government, before you even sell the house, saying, 'We want tax on 500 grand.' That's what they're doing to super funds. That's what they're doing. Farmers in particular, like in the electorate of the member for Forrest, might have a property of 500 acres, raising sheep, dairy cows or whatever it is. They bought that property years ago. They're providing milk, meat or other food, and on paper they get a valuation from the state government, whether it's Western Australia or another state, saying: 'You bought that property for $1 million. It's now worth $4 million.' The government in this legislation is saying: 'Right. That $4 million is in your super. You haven't sold it yet. It's over $3 million. We want tax on $1 million.' And where are they going to find that money from?

See this speech in context