Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the Government's superannuation tax will unfairly impact younger Australians;

(2) recognises that:

(a) a 20-year-old today earning an average salary will be caught in the net of the Government's doubling of superannuation taxes;

(b) an analysis of Australian Taxation Office and Australian Bureau of Census data reveals that this means more than two million Australians under the age of 25 today will be slugged with the Government's latest tax grab; and

(c) the Government has been misleading Australia and it is time for the Treasurer to come clean and confirm exactly how many people will lose out under these changes; and

(3) acknowledges that young Australians today will pay the price for the Government's reckless spending.

Labor have never met a tax they didn't like. In fact, in 12 months the Albanese government has riddled two budgets full of new taxes and broken promises. The last election we warned Australians—we warned them—that when Labor run out of money, what they do? They come after yours. That's what they do. Their attempts to raid your superannuation is just one of the many ways that the Labor government are trying to take more of what you earn.

When Labor announced their superannuation policy, they intentionally misled Australians, claiming it would affect only older and wealthy Australians. They tried to turn the policy into class warfare, as they do time and time again, pitting young Australians against older Australians—always dividing, never uniting. They're asserting that those older Australians, many of whom have spent their entire working lives paying taxes to support this country, can spare a little more because they are so well off. What they fail to tell you, potentially, is that while they were raiding the super of older Australians they also had their grubby hands in the super of 2,000,000 young Aussies under the age of 25. Modelling released to the coalition under freedom of information on the government's controversial superannuation tax confirmed the changes will apply to young Australians earning average wages over their lifetimes. I hope young Australians are listening to this.

According to Treasury's own analysis, a 20-year-old, who earns an average wage throughout their life will have a superannuation balance higher than $3,000,000 in their early 60s, seeing the tax on their super double by the time they retire. That means a 20-year-old today—and I've got them in my household—earning an average salary will be caught up in the net of Labor's doubling of superannuation taxes.

It's shocking, that's right, member for Bruce. What's worse is that Treasury confirmed that this was a deliberate design feature of the tax increase.

I'll take that interjection: the member for Bruce just said 'It's shocking,' and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

For the first time, young Australians will face higher taxes on their super than the generation before them. This tax hike will affect young Australians under 25, including tradies, executive assistants, teachers, nurses, police officers, accountants, journalists, public servants, physios and many other professions. And what for? So Labor can pay for their pet projects, rollout more dodgy programs like school halls and pink batts. Not only did Labor lie to you about not touching your super but they also lied about it affecting only older and wealthy Australians. They're going after older and wealthy Australians—I hope they're listening to this today too—and then they tried to hide it from you. For a bunch that claim to be all about transparency, they spin lies and they break promises like a dodgy second-hand car dealer—or worse, I don't mind second-hand cars.

Young Australians are doing it as tough as everyone else right now—even more so in some areas. As the shadow minister for youth, I speak with young people regularly—all the time. What I hear time and again is that many are struggling, financially and also mentally. Rents continue to rise, and with house prices soaring, many of them fear they will never live the Australian dream of owning their own home, and they should be able to realise that dream. Suicide continues to be the leading cause of death for young Australians. Last year, 402 young Australians lost their lives to suicide—402 too many. Mental health is a huge issue, and with many young Australians trying to overcome challenges of the past few years with COVID, it's becoming harder and harder to access mental health services and, for many, with the cost of living rising, it's simply unaffordable. Yet this most recent budget delivered nothing for young Australians.

The latest ABS data shows youth unemployment is climbing back up again and it's now sitting at 8.2 per cent. It's a shame. A lesson for those young Australians who may not remember a time under a Labor government, is that when Labor run out of money, they come up to yours. When Labor claimed they wouldn't touch your super, they lied. Young Australians deserve to know why they always pay more under Labor governments.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder?

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to rise to respond to the motion put forward by the member for Moncrieff. I'm not sure if the member for Moncrieff plays any cricket, but it reminds me of those days when the kid at school, the bowler, would go right back to the boundary, come running in and then slip right at the crease and deliver a complete dud—one of those John Howard dud deliveries. This is the sort of fear campaign that I've come to expect from the member for Dickson. It's a shame to see that the member for Moncrieff has swallowed the Kool-Aid.

Sean Kelly in the Sydney Morning Herald actually reminded everyone of the member for Dickson's long history of dog whistling and running scare campaigns. He is a one-trick pony. Remember that time he said Melburnians were 'scared to go to restaurants' because of African gangs? The people of Aston didn't forget that the other week. There was the time the member for Dickson called refugees 'illiterate and innumerate' but then in the same breath said that they would take people's jobs. Obviously, fear doesn't have to be logical. Of course, remember the member for Dickson walking out on the Apology to the Stolen Generations and his recent declaration to campaign hard for a 'no' vote for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. So, with this long history of dog whistling, including this motion, we need to go to the core of such campaigns, and that's misinformation, because this motion doesn't waste any time getting into its misinformation groove.

I'm not sure who the member for Moncrieff chats to, but I'm not sure there are many 20-year-olds earning the average wage. For those that don't know, the average wage for a 20-year-old is about $24,000 a year, a far cry from the $90,000 used in the motion to make the maths work. I don't know how many part-time or casual jobs there are out there, being filled by 20-year-olds, that pay those sorts of wages. But, if the member does know of any, I'm sure that there are plenty of 20-year-olds who would like to know.

We're also talking about a motion highlighting a proposition that is more fanciful than real, and one which in any case wouldn't really affect anyone until 2068, 45 years away. To put that in context for the member for Hinkler, 1978 is 45 years ago. But, hey, scare campaign sent dog whistling aren't about facts and reality. The member for Moncrieff possibly got a call or two from some of the 17 people in Australia who have over $100 million in their super accounts who are actually concerned about these changes. She would have been nodding along on the phone as they complained about Labor picking on them and treating them unfairly, all the while thinking to herself, 'These poor battlers,' those poor 17 people with over $100 million in their super accounts. 'What can I do to help them?' Thus the birth of this stupid motion as part of the LNP's ongoing dog-whistling scare campaign.

Of course, the member for Moncrieff doesn't mention in the motion any of these people that she's trying to help out. They are those that shall not be named.

No opposition members, no doubt, will mention the notorious 17, but I'll leave it open to the member for Hinkler. Why? Because 99.5 per cent of Australians don't have over $3 million of super and therefore won't relate to the story of people with super balances of $100 million plus. The member for Moncrieff would have thought, 'How can I get people to relate?' So the figures were fudged that pushed the time frames right out to almost half a century into the future to get some scary numbers at the end. I'm surprised she didn't talk about people who were a year old now and how their super balances will increase. How disingenuous. This is from the same mob who rail against the evils of compulsory super any chance they get—an industry that Labor created that now has around $3 trillion invested around the world and in Australian infrastructure.

In reality, the changes to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances of above $3 million is the right thing to do. Labor was focused on saving for retirement when we invented superannuation, not rorting the tax system. The $3 million threshold strikes that right balance between incentives to save for retirement and strengthening the super system by making it sustainable into the future. Labor built the superannuation system, and we'll always protect it and work to make it stronger for all Australians—not just those poor battlers who have balances of over $100 million in their super accounts!

Like night turns to day, the LNP will blow their dog whistles. I even see the Leader of the Opposition blow the dog trumpet every now and then. I know that the leader does it better than anyone, but I hate to see him infecting his frontbench—that same fear campaign, that misinformation campaign. That's not what the people of Australia care about. Obviously, if we extrapolate long enough into the future, all Australians will have super balances of over $3 million, but that is a hundred years away. Ridiculous.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always great to follow the member for Moreton. He's gives me so much material. For the member for Moreton's benefit, does he really think people would put money into superannuation if it weren't for tax incentives? Without tax incentives, no-one would do it. Nobody would put additional money into an account that gets locked away for decades unless there was an advantage for them. They simply would not do it. We are all for people looking after their own money and making their own decisions with the money that they own and that they earn.

Madam Deputy Speaker, say it isn't so. We heard promises from now prime minister Anthony Albanese during the election campaign that there would be no changes to superannuation. There would be no changes to franking credits, no changes to unrealised gains, no changes to capital gains and no changes to negative gearing. Now, we know how much of that has turned out to be untrue. Firstly, Australians made a decision on who they voted for at the last election based on those commitments. Secondly, they made decisions on their own finances based on the rules of the day that were in place at the time, as they should. For many of them—those who have self-managed super funds, for example—who have actually borrowed money and bought hard assets, changes to unrealised gains will absolutely destroy those investments, because they will not be able to pay the tax on them. They simply won't have the money.

I'll declare an interest: I have a self-managed super fund. Right now it doesn't own any hard assets. I don't have any of those types of assets, but I have had them in the past, and changes like these simply would have meant that I would've been forced to sell that property, because I could not pay what is coming as a tax bill.

We have seen the now Prime Minister of this country backflip on many of these issues, particularly those around superannuation changes and franking credits. Yes, I acknowledge what the member for Moreton has said: for most Australians that's a lot of money. It is, but people made those decisions based on the rules that were in place. Is the idea that they have to unravel the investments that they used to pay for their retirement because this government cannot control their spending in just one budget? Let's face it, the Labor Party increased spending in the budget in May by $185 billion over the forwards. That is $185 billion that has to be paid for. It'll be paid for by taxation from hardworking Australians right around the country, whether it's middle Australia, whether it's those who are on much better wages and incomes or whether it's the ones in between. You only have to look at my own electorate. The loss of the low-income tax offset meant that 51,000 of the people that I represent lost up to $1,500 this year in tax returns that they desperately need.

Let's look at what is actually happening. The point made by the member for Moncrieff is exactly right. On 5 May 2023 Simon Benson, that well-known senior political reporter from the Australian, wrote:

More than two million young Australians earning an average wage throughout their working life could be hit with a future super tax under the government's plans …

Guess what? You'll get there faster with an inflation rate of seven per cent. That's where it is right now. If the inflation window is not within target, they will reach these numbers much more quickly than before. That is the analysis of Treasury modelling. So what has been put forward by the member for Moreton, for example, is your own modelling from your own department, in terms of the federal Labor government. Based on the advice from Treasurer Chalmers's office, a 20-year-old earning an average wage throughout their career would have a super balance of more than $3 million by the time they reached their early 60s.

Now, I am 53 and I can tell you, Madame Deputy Speaker, that in my 20s I made a decision around a particular super fund, which had a couple of grand in it, for which, at the time, I could get a thousand bucks because I'd moved jobs. I changed and I went to someone else and they said, 'If you sign this piece of paper, you'll get this, but it'll lock this other bit up.' I've got to tell you that, at the time, that was a lot of money. I made that decision, and consequently I now have a small amount locked away in a fund here with ComSuper—or whatever the arrangement may well be—that I can't get. I can't transfer it to my other accounts and I can't move it because I made a decision in my 20s which impacts me now. So, for all of those workers out there in that age group, this will impact you. You will get there. It will absolutely get there. It will impact you directly.

Let's look at what happens with this money. We've now seen reports around Incolink in Victoria. CFMMEU chief John Setka is looking to expand the Incolink empire, and guess why? It is because they gave $20.5 million in the last financial year to the CFMMEU and they're looking to expand that empire across the country. It's wrong. This is why so much money being tied up in industry super funds is incredibly dangerous for the country. They simply don't look after it in the interests of members, only in the interests of unions.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Hinkler in his description of where this legislation leads us. I make only one very strong point on this issue. Yes, it will affect young people. Yes, it will affect lots of occupations and people who have invested under these laws. The point that I would like to make is that, if government decides in the process to change the rules, you then have to address the fact that you have changed the rules and give the person you had the agreement with an option to opt out of the contract that you put in place with them in good faith.

What am I talking about? I'm saying that, because of the rules set before the Australian people over a number of governments, not just this one, where they have made changes, governments have to go out of their way to say, 'We've have made this change, we believe, for the long-term benefit of the nation's people as a whole.' However, if you are directly affected by these changes, government must allow people to opt out of the contract. In business, if you and I make an agreement about a loan fund in which you agree to loan me a certain amount of money on these terms, and it's contracted, we both enter into that loan agreement in good faith. If, halfway through, one or the other says, 'Look, I don't believe you're paying me enough for the money that I lent you, because times have changed, and I'd like to change the contract,' it is an obligation and it is law that the person challenging the current situation must offer the other the right to opt out.

So, whilst I agree that government can make any change they like on any issue they like—this government can legislate for anything, and they are doing so; whether you agree with it or you don't agree with it, they have the numbers on the floor of the House and they've only got to get through the Senate as well to make changes to any current rules before the Australian people. I'm just saying that, if you do that, there is an obligation on government to go back to the people who are directly affected by the change to say to them, 'If you don't like the arrangements that we have now changed on our watch, we are going to give you the opportunity to withdraw all of your super money out of super and take it to a place of your choice for your investment.' The Liberals and Nationals believe that people should be in control of their own money. They were in control of their own money when they entered into a fair agreement with the government of the day—and that's what they did. And now these changes will affect directly a number of people with super balances over a certain amount.

I can accept that and I can accept absolutely that the government elected by the people of Australia has the right to make a change. My argument is this: if you then enter into a changed situation, you must go back to the people that you have made the change for and say to them: 'Alright, we've made the change. If you don't want to continue to invest in this product that we're offering you, we offer you the opportunity to opt out.' Then you say, 'But that would have millions of dollars taken out of super and put into other investment arrangements.' Yes, it would, but it's an obligation of government to say: 'We've changed the rules. Nobody else changed the rules. We changed the rules by legislation in the last budget, and this is what we're doing with super. This is where we want to go.'

Now, I was criticised at the time—mostly by my own party—for being seen to support the government in their super changes. That's not exactly what I said, but it was taken that way at the time. I'm saying two things. One is that, during the election campaign, the now Prime Minister said, as opposition leader, 'I won't make any changes.' The current Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, said exactly the same thing: 'We do not envisage making any changes.' In the last budget, they did. That's my first point. My second point is: if you then make that change, be fair on the Australian people who are affected by that change and say, 'Because we've made the change, you can now withdraw the whole of your super and put it in another investment of your choice.' That is fair and reasonable.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is yet another example of the 'no-alition' paying politics while we get on with the business of governing for Australia's future. The government has been completely upfront about these proposed changes. We're making a modest adjustment to superannuation tax breaks for those with balances over $3 million. That means 99.5 per cent of Australians with super accounts will keep on receiving the same generous tax breaks that are currently in place. That means that just 0.5 per cent of people with balances above $3 million will be impacted by this measure. Let's be clear about that. They will still receive tax breaks, just less generous tax breaks.

It is completely wrong for those opposite to claim that these modest super changes will unfairly impact younger Australians. The simple scenario raised today illustrates that a young person earning $90,000 right now and increasing their earnings throughout their life would be very unlikely to exceed a balance of $3 million during their working life. So the $3 million threshold strikes a balance, and it strikes the right balance between the incentive to save for retirement and protecting the future of superannuation.

When it comes to super, the Liberals have no ground to stand on. Let's not forget the fact that their proposed changes to super in 2017 would have affected twice as many Australians with a super account. On top of that, this is the same group of people who allowed more than $30 billion to be drained out of Australian superannuation accounts during the pandemic. Most of that money was taken out by young Australians. In most cases people took out their entire superannuation balance, and in many cases those people remained employed or on JobKeeper. It was reckless policy on the run that did great damage to the superannuation system. It also did great damage to those individuals affected by that same policy. It didn't reduce their vulnerability, and it didn't reduce their hardship. It moved that hardship from one point in their life to another point in their life—that point being when they retire and find that they have, in some cases, up to $60,000 less in their superannuation accounts than they would otherwise have had. The policy was vandalism of Australia's superannuation system, and it will have a pernicious effect on many Australians who will now be retiring with much less in their superannuation accounts than they otherwise would. That's the damage that those opposite inflicted on Australia's superannuation system.

This modest measure strengthens our superannuation system and strengthens the government's budget. Let's not forget that this government inherited $1 trillion of debt, so it is quite ironic that we have on that side of the House a political party that now wants not only to maintain that trillion dollars of debt but also exacerbate that debt by maintaining tax breaks for extremely wealthy people with superannuation balances well above what is needed to provide for a comfortable retirement, which is the purpose of superannuation. In fact, these are people who, as a result of their super balances, are getting very generous tax breaks that are not available to most Australians who don't have that same balance in their superannuation. We've been very clear about why these changes are needed with the challenges facing the economy.

Today marks one year since the election of the Albanese Labor government. It is one year since we inherited a trillion dollars of debt resulting from reckless coalition spending. That trillion dollars of debt included rorts and colour coded spreadsheets and programs like JobKeeper, which massively oversubsidised businesses and workers who remained employed, with that JobKeeper money going in its billions to businesses that had no reduction in their profits. Now it falls to us to fix the budget, and this type of measure is exactly the type of measure you would want to be fixing the budget with: a measure that is tailored, a measure that is targeted, a measure that doesn't affect the vast majority of Australians who are currently doing it tough.

It's this type of measure that is a hallmark of the disciplined economic management of the Albanese Labor government—economic management that has enabled this government to provide a surplus in its first full budget, a surplus that all Australians should be very proud of.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the contributions of those opposite to this debate on superannuation tax, it is clear that the Liberal Party is clutching at straws, frantically scrambling to maintain a misplaced sense of economic superiority. After inheriting $1 trillion of Liberal debt as well as growing spending pressures in defence, health, aged care and the NDIS, the Albanese Labor government has been up-front about the economic challenges we face. Unlike the Liberals opposite, we are taking a responsible approach to these challenges. We aren't trying to rort our way to re-election and we aren't ignoring the need to secure our nation's economic future. Labor's economic plan is about repair, restraint and targeted relief, after almost a decade of economic mismanagement at the hands of the Liberal Party.

This change to superannuation tax breaks is a small part of that. Despite the agitation from those opposite, the adjustment being made to superannuation tax breaks is very modest, only affecting earnings on balances above $3 million, a figure that represents just half of one per cent of Australians—the top half of one per cent of Australians. It is also entirely in line with existing norms not to index the threshold. We don't index the tax-free threshold, the personal tax thresholds or the corporate tax thresholds. Instead, the parliament sets a threshold, and the parliament decides to change it in line with community expectations from time to time. This is a modest change to superannuation tax breaks, to be implemented in line with existing taxation practice after the next election.

Yet somehow those opposite have decided that this is the silver bullet to their political woes. They gamble that this is the point that demonstrates that Australians should put their economic faith in the people who gave us $1 trillion of Liberal debt rather than in the government that delivered the first surplus in 15 years. Those opposite are suffering from an identity crisis. For years they have tried to fool Australians into believing that they are somehow superior economic managers, repeatedly assuring the public that only they could get the budget back in black. Now, we may not have the mugs to prove it, but the Albanese Labor government has returned the budget to surplus after just 12 months in office. So, I understand why the Liberals opposite are clutching at straws like this. But unfortunately they just don't get it.

Treasury projects that only the top 10 per cent of earners retiring in 2052 will have a superannuation balance of $3 million or more upon retirement, demonstrating that the $3 million threshold strikes the right balance between providing incentives to save for retirement and strengthening the super system by making it more sustainable over time. However, if they had it their way—the mob that gave us $1 trillion worth of Liberal debt—we'd be borrowing even more money to subsidise people who already have millions of dollars in their super accounts so they could continue to enjoy the privileged economic conditions they find themselves in.

The opposition have no integrity or principle to stand on, when you think back to their changes in 2017. On introduction, the coalition's change was estimated to impact about one per cent of people who had a superannuation account in 2017-18. That is twice the proportion of those affected by this very modest adjustment. Treasury projects that at least the top 30 per cent of earners retiring in 2052 will have paid additional tax contributions in their working life under the threshold legislated by the coalition—three times the proportion affected by our change. For all of the bluster coming from those opposite, it is absolutely clear—crystal clear—that they just do not know how to effectively manage the superannuation system, let alone the economy that their egos are so invested in.

Labor built the superannuation system, a superannuation system that serves working people and provides for comfort and dignity in retirement. Only a Labor government can be trusted to protect this system and make it stronger. This budget and the changes that are contained within it are focused on making life letter and more secure for Australians, for working Australians, while those opposite will continue to dither as they try to protect the privileged interests of the top half. (Time expired)

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, the hubris of those opposite. Twelve months in government and they are absolutely dripping in hubris, but the Australian public know this lot. What did the Prime Minister say prior to the election, on 2 May 2022? He said, 'We have said we have no intention to make any super changes.' Then again on 31 January 2022, the now Prime Minister said, 'We have not planned for any changes in superannuation.' The Treasurer said on 27 March 2022, 'Look, we said about superannuation that we would maintain the system. Australians shouldn't expect major changes to superannuation if the government changes hands,' yet here we are.

I rise in support of the motion of the member for Moncrieff, who is doing an excellent job in advocating for young people and educators as the shadow minister for youth and early education. Those opposite talk about $1 trillion worth of debt. Clearly, every single time they raise this issue, they are, of course, misleading the House. They talk about $1 trillion worth of coalition debt but, just over the last 12 months, those opposite added $185 billion and around about $250 billion prior to that, when they were in government, to the current debt. You don't hear those members opposite talking about it but almost $400 billion worth of debt has come from them. Interestingly, though, they never talk about it. But in any event, it's not a trillion dollars. I know they are not particularly good at maths but it's a very, very great shame that they continue on about this.

Last week I hosted the shadow Treasurer in Fisher for a series of events with local community and business leaders. We did a community forum. At the community forum, Trent from Birtinya submitted a question about the impact of Labor's budget on young people. He shared his own experience of paying off his HECS debt. Despite Trent having paid $7,000, because of Labor's mismanaged inflation, he has only paid $1,000 off that HECS debt in real terms. The HECS and FEE-HELP systems have allowed Australians from all walks of life to access tertiary and vocational education with an equal footing, and that is really important because trades matter in this country. We should be encouraging more young people into trades, not simply pushing every young person into a tertiary education. We are seeing the fruits of that today. You try and pick up the phone and call a plumber, pick up the phone and call an electrician or a carpenter. These trades are absolutely in such significant shortage. That is because, under Julia Gillard, they changed they changed the tertiary education system, which pushed all young people into the idea, 'If you don't have a tertiary education then you're nobody.' That is very, very unfortunate because what we are now living with in this country is a great shortage in trades. Trades matter. If you get a trade, chances are you'll actually do better in life. You will work for yourself. You will earn more money than those at universities, where those opposite like to indoctrinate young people.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection, because that is absolutely what is happening right now in our universities. (Time expired)

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a year since the Albanese Labor government was voted into power by hardworking Australians, and what a fantastic year it has been. Despite inheriting $1 trillion of debt accrued as a result of a decade of the coalition's mismanagement, the government has got on with fixing our nation. It has been honest and upfront about the challenges we as a nation and as an economy face. This is a stark departure from the landmark 'cover-up upon cover-up' style that characterised the coalition government. Besides the $1 trillion of Liberal debt, these challenges include global economic pressures and growing spending on defence, health, aged care and the NDIS. This government's ability to deliver a surplus for the 2022-2023 financial year, for the first time in 15 years, in spite of these challenges demonstrates its commitment to delivering a better future for every single Australian.

While we are starting off in a good position, thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones, our work on fixing the debt we inherited and restoring sound economic management does not end there. A part of this includes modest adjustments to superannuation tax rates for earnings on balances above $3 million. This adjustment will not come into effect until after the next election. This change will not affect 99.5 per cent of Australians with super accounts, who will instead continue to receive the same generous tax breaks. The 0.5 per cent of Australians with super accounts above $3 million that are affected by this change will continue to receive tax breaks, although slightly less than before.

But this point doesn't seem to be understood by those opposite, which is not surprising considering the coalition was a government for the few and not for the many. The coalition continue to be working in the interests of 0.5 per cent of Australians, among the wealthiest in this country, and are not concerned about the welfare of the 99.5 per cent. What the opposition is asking is for a break from standard practice of non-indexing thresholds. We do not index the tax-free threshold. We do not index the personal tax threshold. We do not index the corporate tax threshold. It is a custom for parliament to fix the threshold and respond to community expectations by changing it from time to time. This is what the parliament of Australia, the country's peak representative body is for: to give effect to contemporary community expectations in the present and in the future.

I joined the Australian Labor Party because, among other things, Labor built the superannuation system. It was the Keating Labor government that introduced the compulsory employer contribution scheme, and successive Labor governments have strengthened the system, despite continued attacks by those opposite.

A $3 million threshold strikes the right balance between incentives to save for retirement and strengthening the superannuation system by making it more sustainable over time. The Treasury projects that only the top 10 per cent of earners retiring in 2052 will have a superannuation balance of $3 million or more upon retirement. The opposition have no integrity or principle to stand on when we remember the changes they introduced in 2017. On their introduction, the coalition's changes were estimated to impact about one per cent of people with a superannuation account in 2017 and 2018. The Treasury projects that at least the top 30 per cent of earners retiring in 2052 will have paid additional contributions tax, in their working life, that is under the threshold legislated by the coalition. Yes, that's right—thrice the amount of Australians affected by our change.

When Australians are doing it tough, this government's principal priority is targeted cost-of-living relief through a responsible and supportive budget. On the other hand, the priority of the Liberals is bigger tax breaks for the people who already have $100 million in superannuation. Indeed, the mob that gave us a trillion dollars in debt wants Australia to borrow even more money to provide subsidies for the richest 0.5 per cent of Australians. (Time expired)

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.