Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to commend and strongly support the amendments and the words shared by the member for Wentworth and the member for North Sydney. But I'd also like to bring another element of concern around this insistence—dogmatic, I would say—of the government on taxing unrealised gains. As has been highlighted, there are incredible concerns when it comes to venture capital in the tech sector and, as the member for North Sydney highlighted, when it comes to large properties and farms in regional Australia and how they will be impacted with fluctuating values and the impact of taxing unrealised gains.

The other area of concern I have is in relation to rents. We know we are in a housing crisis with rental levels that are unaffordable and rising. We also know that a high number of rental properties are held in self-managed super funds. With a housing market that is rapidly rising, with values going through the roof, it is very likely that a high number of properties will be caught by the taxation of these unrealised gains. These properties are not being sold, but self-managed super funds are going to incur a tax in relation to the increased values attached to these properties. What is likely to result from this policy is an increase in rents. The minister says part of the government's ambition in looking at superannuation taxation is addressing intergenerational inequity, but you may be creating the very instrument that will make a crisis even worse. What's really disappointing is the unwillingness to compromise—to be more realistic about this and do it more incrementally.

The amendment put forward by the member for Wentworth provides for a deferral, an opportunity to see if there is fluctuation of unrealised gains from one year to the next, so that there can be better management from a cash flow point of view. It's also to make sure that people can have confidence in the system. Australians now have some $3½ trillion invested in super. It's a system that is highly regarded around the world, despite long political battles between the two major parties—and I'm sure that, as we head towards another election, we will have yet more political footballs around what uses superannuation can be put to and how it should be taxed. I am firmly of the belief that Australians should be comfortable and secure in their twilight years, still living a great life, and it is essential for them to have trust and confidence in the super system to be able to do that. People 's super plans are based on rules already in place for decades. We know that these are long-term investments. Changes like this one, especially in relation to the taxation of unrealised gains, are incredibly disruptive and, I think, will have a much greater negative impact than is contemplated by the government, the minister and, I would suggest, the advisers standing behind this.

That the government is not even willing to have a prompt review to look at the unintended consequences is incredibly concerning. I've had a huge amount of consultation in the electorate. Many people have reached out with concerns about the implications. Many are open to looking at the question of superannuation taxation and ensuring intergenerational equity. There's no difficulty with that. But what the government is proposing here, in its unwillingness to contemplate the negative consequences, is incredibly disappointing. It shows a dogmatic approach to legislation that is very counterproductive to confidence in the system.

I look forward to hearing the minister's response to the member for Wentworth's questions. What we do need to see is a sensible approach to this to make sure we have legislation that does not undermine the system. We don't want to see the forced sale of assets to cover tax on gains never realised. We don't want to see fire sales of liquid assets for uncalculated tax liabilities, with adverse consequences for investment planning. And obviously there's also the question of overtaxation and another layer of cost, change and complexity in a system that is already too often a political football.

I urge the government to rethink its approach: consider these amendments, come to the table and make this a more sensible piece of legislation.

See this speech in context