Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Minister, under the government's super changes, if a family's farm is owned in their super fund and increases in value during the financial year, will they pay tax on that gain, even if they have not sold their farm?

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

NES (—) (): I thank the honourable member for the question. I think we should deal with this in three parts. First, why are we doing this? The reason we are doing this is that this government has inherited a trillion dollars of debt from those opposite. Simply doing nothing is not an option. We also need to ensure that the superannuation system is operating as it—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. I can't hear a word that's being said. If this noise continues, there will be no warning; people will be ejected immediately. I hope that's clear to everyone.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have inherited a debt, and we've got to deal with it. We've also got to ensure that the superannuation system operates as it was intended and that there is integrity in the system. That's what these measures are all about: ensuring that there is integrity in the system.

To the member's question, he may not be aware—but certainly the member for Deakin is aware and certainly the member for Hume should be aware—that under the current laws there is a requirement for superannuation funds—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Answer it!

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surely you know!

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The farmer just wants to know!

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just be quiet! You might learn something.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Deakin then left the chamber.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a requirement for superannuation funds, including self-managed superannuation funds, to have provision for liquidity events to ensure that they have a diversified asset base and ensure that they have provisions to draw down. I know that the member for Deakin knows this—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman is on a last warning.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because when he was the minister responsible for the tax office he had the tax office write—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, this was a very clear question: is the family liable for tax even though they don't sell the farm? If he doesn't know, ask him to sit down and put him out of his misery.

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the House will come to order. I can't hear what the minister is a saying. I remind members again: I can't hear a word that he is saying, because of the noise in this chamber. I ask him to return to the question so I can listen to him carefully to make sure he is being relevant. He has the call.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition's objection underscores the lack of knowledge that he has—and presumably many others have—about the current requirements of the superannuation system. If he did know what the current requirements of the superannuation system were, he would know that, currently, under the current law, funds are required to have a diversified asset base. So, if the only asset in the superannuation fund is one asset, as the honourable member describes, they are in breach of the current laws, and they should take that up with their financial advisers. They should raise the issue with their financial advisers.

As I was explaining, the Leader of the Opposition may not know this, but the member for Deakin does, because, when he was the minister responsible for the tax office, he had the tax office write to all of those funds that had only one asset in them and warn them that they had to make provisions for liquidity events. They may not understand what the current law is, but the member for Deakin does. (Extension of time granted)

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. The question before the House was an extension of time. There'd better be silence so I can hear him; otherwise, people will leave.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's important that the opposition, members who are gathered here—in fact, all Australians—understand exactly why the government is introducing these changes and the process that we intend to have to consult with stakeholders to ensure that we get the absolute detail right and to ensure that we explain to members opposite how it fits in with current arrangements. The reason we are doing this is that we have inherited a $1 trillion debt.

Opposition members interjecting—

You are a joke.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on relevance. Is the farm, with its unrealised—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat. There is no point of order.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth noting that they will get anybody but the shadow minister to ask me a question in this House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue with your answer.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason we are doing this is that we've got a debt. The reason we are doing this is to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system. This is a matter that the majority of Australians seem to support—but not the Leader of the Opposition and not the members opposite.

It is also the case that, under the existing law, the example that the honourable member opposite gave us would be in great difficulty, because that type of asset in the fund, described in the way the member opposite has described it, would be in breach of the existing laws. It would be a breach of the existing laws. Members opposite make a lot of noise, but they may not understand the way the existing laws operate. (Time expired)