Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It makes a lot of sense. It's so sensible. It allows generational change in farming. But this decision is going to change the rules. It's going to say to a family farm in my community and many other communities across the country: if the land value of your farm is $2.8 million today and next year it goes up to $3.2 million—and that's a paper value, not money in the bank; it's not a realised asset but a paper asset—you're going to have to pay tax on $3.2 million. But guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? It's worse than that. If there's a drought and the value of land drops, and the value of your farm goes back to $2.8 million or $2.9 million—anything under $3 million—you don't get that money back from the Albanese Labor government. So you've got to sell the asset to pay for this, and if its value goes down you don't get it back. How can any of those opposite think it's fair-minded to do that? Are they so out of touch with the Australian people? Are they so out of touch with how communities like mine, farming communities, operate and small businesses operate? They're going to wave this through because they don't have the ability to analyse for themselves the decisions of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister; they just follow the line.

It's so frustrating, because this is going to have a tangible impact on so many communities who are just doing their best to get by—just so the Prime Minister can bank a fake saving. Let's be honest: it's a fake saving. What's going to happen is most of those people that are using this will just rearrange their tax arrangements to move it to another vehicle. Those that are really using this because they genuinely need to for their superannuation will be punished, and those that are taking advantage of the system—I'm sure some people are—will work out another way around this. But it's okay because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have banked their fake savings so they can talk about their surplus and pretend they're being responsible economic managers.

But it's the impact on communities that makes me so angry. This government talks about consultation, but it's a sham. Every time, it's a tick-box process. In their submissions to Treasury, several stakeholders criticised the taxation of unrealised gains: the Business Council of Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, CPA Australia, Deloitte, EY, the Financial Services Council, the SMSF Association and the Tax Institute. Surely those opposite—I know there are economists in the room here—would know that taxing unrealised capital gains isn't practical and isn't worthwhile, but they are going to wave it through because they need their fake savings. Meanwhile, farmers in my community cop it in the neck because of this out-of-touch government.

EY concerns have been summarised:

… the taxation of unrealised gains will result in:

But in many cases these assets are the family farm, where people live. These are people's homes. These are people's small businesses that those opposite are telling them they need to sell, because of a paper gain.

EY also raised:

To be clear: this legislation will force people to sell their assets based on paper profits, and it's a disgrace. We talk about super and we talk about allowing people to retire. Well, this government is cutting the retirement out of farmers and small-business owners in my community. It's making their lives harder. Those opposite—economists—know that it's not practical to tax unrealised capital gains, but they'll wave it through. They'll support their Treasurer and their Prime Minister because they don't want to rock the boat. Let's be really clear about this: the Treasurer is making these changes so he can get some paper savings in the budget and spend it somewhere else. We all know that those paper savings are not going to be delivered, because people change their tax arrangements, but those opposite are prepared to throw Australian farmers and small-business owners under the bus for their own needs. They've got two options: either they're out of touch or they don't care. Both reasons are an absolute disgrace.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context