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

I hear the minister opposite. There was a whole lot of information there that probably wasn't relevant to the bill. I'll keep in mind in relation to debt that, when I was elected in 2013, the country was $300 billion in debt thanks to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. There's this line about it being coalition debt, but that's a fact. I wish you were investing in defence, because defence industry around the country tell me that you're not. We support super. The coalition always supports super. We supported the Paid Parental Leave scheme as well.

The minister opposite says that this strengthens super. How does this strengthen super when you're taxing more? Whether it's 0.5 per cent or not, this is a doubling of taxation. It's not indexed, and it's unrealised capital gains, as I explained before. So how does doubling the rate support super, and shouldn't we be celebrating people that have actually put money away for retirement, because it takes people off welfare? The aged-care pension is there for people that need it. For people who have a small amount of super and are on a part pension, that's good, but why would we attack anyone that is completely self-funded or has put money away? The reality is that, for people on high incomes, particularly in the electorates of some of the independents that have spoken—there are not so many in my electorate, but there are some, I must say—that money won't be going into the system like it was previously. Most people with very, very high incomes in super were at a time when the Howard government was around, and the Keating government was around, and pretty well unlimited amounts of super could be put in.

As I mentioned before, you're now capped at $25,000 last year, and I think this year it's is $27,500. You're capped at what you can put in. Once you've got I think over $500,000, you can't catch up on previous years anyway, so $27,500 thousand a year is not a lot. That's particularly if people are wanting to buy a home and pay off their home, which is harder for young people now, with people studying longer. Now people don't finish studying until they're 25 or 24. They're getting married later, so they're probably enjoying life a little bit, then they're buying a home. By the time they think about salary sacrificing and putting into super, they might be 40 years of age, and by then they might have $500,000, but, under the changes that this parliament has made in the time that I've been here, you can only put in $27,500 a year if you have over 500 grand. If you do get up there and have managed to save, they're doubling the rate.

Let's say you get lucky and actually buy property or something, particularly if you have a self-managed super fund, like you are saying, and that property's value triples. It's not like you have any more cash flow, but this government will make you sell the property to pay the tax because of their unrealised capital gains. That is wrong. The minister can hardly stand up here with a straight face and say that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill is strengthening super, because it's not. It's not strengthening super, and it's not better targeted. It's targeted at people that they think won't vote for them and will vote teal, Liberal or National. That's the reality. What we should be doing as parliamentarians is looking after all Australians, being honest and keeping our word. If the Prime Minister says before the election there will be no changes to super, how can they come in here with a straight face and make all these changes, particularly around unrealised capital gains, that have never been done before in this country? Even the Greens might support this one. I don't know. Maybe they won't; maybe I'm going a bit too far. It might be a long bow. But the reality is that this is wrong, and it doesn't matter how much the minister gets up. It's not the right thing to do. You weren't honest with the Australian people before the last election, and we're going to put it on record.

See this speech in context