Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Isn't it a joy to see what a couple of quorum calls do to lift the atmosphere in the chamber! I remember all the wonderful times on quorum duty that I spent listening to pearls of wisdom, and I'm happy to dispense some back, because there's much to talk about with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Goodness me: what an affront to the economic credibility that the Treasurer strives for—the idea of taxation of unrealised gains. Goodness me.

But to put this into the context of the time where we find this: this is the highest-taxing government in 23 years and—a wonderful little pearl that I picked out—outside of COVID, the highest spendings of potential GDP since 1986-87, which, for those of you who remember, were Keating's 'banana republic' years. Isn't it wonderful the way things just come back? We find ourselves in another era of spiralling spending, causing a giant threat to interest rate rises. But that is where a bill like this comes from: Labor needs to find a new tax. You've heard of Farmer Needs a Wife. Well, Labor needs a tax. That's what this is about. They need something to feed this constant appetite for growing spending that we've seen.

And they've gone ahead with a new one. They're flouting all our taxation history and coming up with taxation on unrealised gains, and I'll speak about where this will hurt. This is beyond just the usual redistribution of wealth that we've come to expect. This is now a redistribution of wealth that you don't even have. This is stretching into realms of fiscal thought police, economic re-education programs and monitoring the market for signs of aspiration to nip it in the bud and make sure we can snuff out the slightest thought of prosperity in this country.

To reinforce my humble contribution today, I'm going to add a few statements that we've received—all on the public record—that I think all very much agree on what a ridiculous proposal this is and on what an affront it is to the basis of economic credibility. The National Farmers' Federation made a fantastic comment. They said they hold significant concerns about the impact of the government's proposed changes to the treatment of superannuation holdings and what effect it will have on operations across the country. The NFF is particularly concerned with respect to the proposed taxation of unrealised gains on holdings and what this will do to farming businesses. They point out quite well that the smaller the farming operation the bigger the impact this will have—the less likely you will be able to cover the new tax.

Regarding that $3 million threshold, I've got to point out that in my part of the world a $3 million holding is not a big farm anymore. We're not talking about big guys. These are family farms. And we have seen the value of the land increase, particularly around cities like Toowoomba and those beautiful black soil plains stretching out towards Dalby and beyond—these are reasonable, modest family operations. Their value has increased. The concerns that the National Farmers' Federation raise about this legislation are significant. They point out that most of these farms nowadays use a self-managed super fund to hold that operation.

This is not new. When the NFF raised this to this side of the House we knew this. This is not new. These are our people. Sadly, it seems to be coming as quite a shock to the government. I think the National Farmers' Federation put this clearest. They said that, given that agricultural land values can experience high growth, as they did in 2022 and 2023, land price per hectare increased by 28.6 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. They continue to generate only modest cash income. This new tax may see an increased obligation that represents a significant proportion of their annual retirement income derived from leasing arrangements with their children or even exceed it. What we're seeing here is capital growth, paper capital growth, but no growth in income coming in. So the ability to service this new tax is simply not there. In fact, it's quite the opposite, because, whilst that growth in income isn't happening, we're seeing inflation across the board making every one of those dollars worth less. As inflation cripples the country—I know governments come up with forecasts to suit their spending habits, but it is out there and hurting us in the regions—as that continues, a farmer's ability to service this new tax will decrease year on year.

I'll go to the Financial Services Council. This was covered in the Australian. They've criticised the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold for tax structures and being unfair to future generations of super members. We've heard this covered before. The acting chief executive, Spiro Premetis, told the Australian that more than 500,000 current taxpayers would be adversely impacted, and this included '204,000 Australians under the age of 30'. I point out that this is the only demographic, 21 to 29-year-olds, who are experiencing a decline both in their discretionary and their non-discretionary spending. They are losing out every which way. House prices are going through the roof. Their ability to save is completely reduced. If they're renting, they're seeing rents going up. Now, thanks to this wonderful tax, they are again disadvantaged. Mr Premetis went on:

Leaving the cap stuck at $3m will mean that in today's dollars a 30-year-old will have a real cap of around $1m, calling into question the intergenerational fairness of an unindexed cap.

It's a very fair point. Under this government, it has become harder for these young people to own a home. We've seen house prices continue in this cost-of-living crisis. We've seen the ability for people to save reduce. Now, thanks to this, we're also going to make it harder for them to retire. They're going to get it as they come to adulthood and as they retire. We've just made that harder as well with this fantastically poorly-designed piece of legislation.

I'll go to the next on my list of people who have reasonable concerns about a very unreasonable bill. Writing in the Australian, Robert Gottliebsen makes an excellent point. This was covered by the member for Wentworth as well. He wrote:

After July 1 2025 it will be virtually shut down because a major source of local funds—large self-managed funds—will withdraw.

He's speaking of the ability of venture capital to support new industries. This is fascinating. He goes on:

The current participants in the venture capital market raise high risk money from a variety of sources, but one of the largest is big self-managed superannuation funds.

…

That tax is clearly unfair and goes against all principles of Australian and global taxation. But, when applied to unlisted venture capital investments it is a disaster.

This is a wonderful point. When we hear a government talking about Made in Australia and wanting to see things made here, this is fantastic!

See this speech in context