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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of superannuation for all Australians, particularly younger Australians;

(2) notes that, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, in March 2023, $595,000 is the amount required to retire 'comfortably' in Australia;

(3) recognises that young people are becoming increasingly disheartened at the prospect of saving for their future, given the current government-induced cost of living crisis continues to erode their disposable income;

(4) further notes:

(a) that plans by the Government to impose higher taxes on superannuation earnings from 1 July 2025 will hinder the growth in retirement savings of younger Australians and is an attack on hard-working Australians; and

(b) comments by the Grattan Institute, that within 30 years, about one in ten workers will begin to retire with super balances that will be subject to the Government's higher taxes on superannuation, which is 200 times more people than the Government is claiming;

(5) further acknowledges that young people will be especially impacted by the Government's plans to impose higher super taxes; and

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) abolish plans to introduce higher taxes on superannuation so that all Australians, particularly young Australians, are incentivised to save for a comfortable retirement;

(b) consider enabling young Australians to invest in their super by facilitating them to use their tax advantaged superannuation contributions to buy a first home; and

(c) commit to protecting all Australians, especially young Australians, from a bleak future through better economic management, lower taxes and cutting wasteful and inflationary spending in the current cost of living crisis.

It is a very tough time to be a young Australian right now. We're seeing that, as inflation bears down across the economy, it bears down in an uneven way. There are sections of our society who are carrying the weight more than others, and one of those is young Australians. Those aged between 21 and 29 are the only demographic in Australia to see both their discretionary and non-discretionary spending go backwards. We're seeing this at the time of a housing crisis, when house prices continue to rise and housing availability continues to fall. We're seeing these people faced with a future that is getting worse and worse. They can't afford to save a deposit for a house and, if they're lucky enough to get a loan from the bank of mum and dad, they can't afford to service a mortgage.

At this time, in this context for this group of Australians, we're seeing this government reduce confidence in their super and reduce confidence in their retirement. No doubt, in the course of this debate, we will hear those opposite talk about superannuation as being a great Labor legacy. It is a legacy of the Hawke and Keating government—of old Labor. In that context, I want to speak to how different old Labor is to new Labor in their approach to superannuation.

It's good to remember where superannuation comes from—to go back and to read what was happening when the prices and incomes accord was being made, way back in 1983. This was when we had a Labor prime minister willing—member for Bowman, get this—to stand up to the unions. It was extraordinary. Maybe that's what made all Australians get behind him and understand that he was there for the national interest. He was willing to stand up to the unions, who were demanding continued price rises in the inflationary period. The Prime Minister knew, as the RBA governor of today knows, that this increased government spending will drive inflation harder and make things worse. It's not just a comparison I make with the Prime Minister. Compare that to, unfortunately, the relationship we're seeing between, let's say, John Setka—just to pick a random union member—and the Prime Minister of today. There is no standing up to the unions under this Prime Minister. In fact, he's rolled over on every one of their demands, including the abolition of the ABCC, and given them free rein.

It's not just the Prime Minister. Let's compare the approach of the Treasurer of the day, who supported superannuation and who got it through—Paul Keating—to the Treasurer that we have now. Keating was the last Treasurer to reduce spending as a percentage of GDP for three budgets in a row. Compare that to our current Treasurer, who has increased spending as a percentage of GDP for three budgets in a row. The difference between old Labor and new Labor is apparent across our economy. We're feeling the pain of it now.

They may speak to superannuation as a Labor legacy. It's an abandoned legacy. It's a legacy that they have walked away from, as new Labor needs to fight with the Greens to secure their inner-city seats. This is no longer a Labor that is being fiscally responsible. This is no longer a Labor that wants to reach out to young people who are struggling through an inflationary period, who are seeing the costs of everything go up and who are not yet in a period of their lives where they can save money and get onto that housing ladder. It's not giving them confidence in their retirement; it's the complete opposite. They've abandoned their legacy.

So bad is this abandonment and so full is their new spending that they've had to invent a new tax. It's a tax on unrealised capital gains. There are two groups that have made very, very clear the impact on young people that these changes will have. The first is the National Farmers Federation. Their statement says:

This may see the farmers left with a terrible choice. Sell the farm to meet these new tax obligations or increase their lease rates so much that their own children and grandchildren can't afford it and leave the industry.

What a damning indictment of this government's approach to securing the future of Australians. The Financial Services Council said:

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

These changes will hurt.

I want to put this in, once again maybe drawing some contrast between old Labor and new Labor in the context of today's fiscal situation. We have just seen a surplus brought forward at the expense of 10 years of deficits. Not only are you paying more for things now under Labor; you will pay more for things into the future as their policies play out and make things worse. The people who are going to hurt the most from this, of course, are those young Australians struggling to get through a very difficult period without the support of the government, who said that they would make things easier for them.

See this speech in context