Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be tempting and easy to look at the debate on this bill as one about people who are wealthy. In the talking points that the government has provided, they have sought to narrow that number to 80,000 affected individuals. Australians who are struggling right now—the average wage is $95,000, and the median wage is $65,000—would probably say, 'What has this got to do with the average Australian?' It has everything to do with the average Australian, particularly younger Australians.

Younger Australians are taken for granted by this government. They bank them electorally and perhaps have some competition with other parties. But young Australians are being sold short. We saw that they are being sold short on the issue of ballooning debt. You just have to go to the Intergenerational report on page 144 to see that, for every person in this nation, there was government spending in 2023 dollars of $25,000—$25,000 per person in Australia was spent by those who make decisions in this place. When you think about the average wage of $95,000 or the median wage, which is directly in the middle, of $65,000, that is a huge proportion of wages—average and median wages—being spent on federal government spending.

But, on the graph on page 144 of the Intergenerational report, it notes that in 40 years time, a generation away in 2063, that spending will hit $40,000. That uses 2023 numbers. So, assuming there are no increases in productivity—and that's a fair assumption with this government—assuming that that is the case, if the average wage is $95,000 and the median wage is $65,000, if we're to have ballooning government spending at that level, that is totally unsustainable.

Then, on the issue of housing—we will have an MPI today on housing, and we will have more to say on that—young Australians were looking to this government to provide hope that they can, like generations that have come before them, own their own piece of Australia, that they can build a better life for themselves, a life where, if they choose, they can raise children and enjoy grandchildren in generations to come. That aspiration is now at risk, and we saw in an article today in the newspaper that, looking at Sydney house prices, to save for a 20 per cent deposit is looking at 46 years for those on the average wage. It is 21 years in Melbourne. That's going to cause young people just to give up. That would be a rational decision.

So this decision, this proposal, on superannuation also affects young people. Young people are quite financially literate, and that's one of the good things about social media. I've spoken to many young people in high school or at university who are learning about the great benefits of compound returns. The flip side of that is the horrible losses that can come for people with compound debt, and that is borne out particularly in credit card debt. The key issue with this bill, in addition to the broken promise and taxing on unrealised capital gains, is the lack of indexing. Three million dollars may seem like a lot of money now, but without indexing that will affect much more than 80,000 people. In fact, it will affect two million people. For young Australians who are putting money away in their superannuation, by the time they come to be at this relevant stage of their lives, if that is not indexed, which it's not, then $3 million won't be what it is today. More and more young people will be caught up in it, in the same way that more and more young people are finding themselves moving through the various tax brackets through bracket creep. It has been described quite properly as a thief in the night. It's a thief in the night because it's not one that is discussed openly. People think that they have a particular bracket. They think that this won't apply to them, but, bit by bit, in compound losses, this will ultimately affect them, and it's done in a dishonest way.

At the heart of this proposal is dishonesty. When people are planning for their retirement—and their superannuation, in particular—the most important thing you want to know is certainty. Is there certainty in the tax rates, the rules and the systems, particularly for an investment that will be realised many decades later? The government, in their desperation to be sitting in the government benches, made that commitment not to change superannuation. They made that commitment. This isn't the first promise that has been broken by this government. We'll have an election at some stage, maybe at the end of this year or early next year, and Australians will quite correctly look at the Prime Minister and say, 'Are the promises you are making in this election going to be like what you said on super, on energy and on a wide variety of matters, which you then walked away from?' That is a fair question and one that has not been properly answered by the government.

There will be other speakers coming after me who will speak about the particular issue of taxing on unrealised capital gains. That affects probably farmers and those in regional communities or running small businesses more than any other. It is a huge change to the way superannuation is taxed, particularly for those that manage their own self-managed super fund.

This is another broken promise. It particularly affects young Australians. For the taxes on unrealised gains, that is quite an insidious change to our tax system for superannuation assets and will affect those in regional communities and on farms more than any other.

(Quorum formed)

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

I rise to speak against the changes proposed by the government in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and particularly against this concept that you can tax unrealised gains. The impact, particularly on self-managed super funds—and this is intentional from the Labor government—would be extraordinary. It is incredible that they would seek to seize taxes from an asset which hasn't been realised. For those who are listening, if you have a self-managed super fund you may well invest in commercial property, agricultural property or residential property. If we look at ag in particular, there have been extraordinary increases in the value of ag land. But you're holding a hard asset. In one year, you could get a tax bill for tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars for which you have no cash. And, with your self-managed super fund, you can't put more money in; you can't contribute. The only option you will have will be to sell that asset. That will mean that those individuals who have made real decisions based on the facts, based on the conditions at the time that they purchased and based on the law—they have not done anything unlawful—will be forced by this Labor government to divest their assets.

This is an extraordinary decision. It has been panned by economists everywhere, because what happens in the next year if the value of that property goes down? Will you then get a cash refund? Will they then calculate the value of what your property is now not worth? I don't think that's likely. Every individual with a self-managed super fund—and I'll declare an interest; I have one, though I don't hold any hard assets in my self-managed fund at the moment but have previously—and every single Australian who has made reasonable decisions based on the law of the day is now going to be absolutely hammered by this government, when all they're trying to do is build their wealth for them to live on in retirement, which is the purpose of the super system according to the Labor Party. This is something that they believe in, but they don't believe in individuals being able to build their wealth, because they want to force them into industry super funds for nefarious means and purposes.

This is a terrible decision. They will have to sell no matter what the market says, no matter what the value is and no matter whether they could potentially make a loss on that sale, but they'll certainly realise whatever gain there is, and the Labor Party will get their tax. They will get their handful of shekels. They will get their handful of silver. But the individuals who are out there trying to have a go will be penalised, not only financially but into the future, because that asset could continue to grow, which is the reason they purchased it in the first place.

I oppose this bill. It is abhorrent. It is a ridiculous decision. It should be absolutely panned across the country. Who are they attacking? They are attacking hardworking Australians that are trying to get ahead and are actually investing in assets that are of benefit to the nation, including residential housing. And guess what we need right now? We need more rental properties, more availability and less immigration, and this Labor government has messed this up completely.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Hinkler has just pointed out in very explicit detail, this tax on unrealised gains is, when it comes to farming property, just nonsense, and anybody with half a modicum of intelligence, financial know-how or acumen would appreciate just that.

Before the May 2022 election, Labor promised, wrongly, that there would be no changes to superannuation, there would be no touching of superannuation—that was promised. But, as we know, everything that Labor says is not the same as what Labor does after it gets elected. It's the same with the $275 power bill cuts; it's the same with this legislation before the House today. I'm surprised that Labor's not just going to ram it through!

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

No, you're not!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would they uphold the principles of democracy and allow us to talk about it, member for Hinkler? It's a good question, and I ask the House. We saw, just a few sordid moments ago, that Labor pushed through the new fuel efficiency standards without allowing members to speak on that debate. We saw last year that Labor rushed through, pushed through, the appropriations bills, the budget bills of all legislation, without allowing every member of parliament, who's elected to this place—the people's house—by the people, to speak on that bill. Of course, just in the last sitting week of the Senate, the national digital identity bill was pushed through without allowing debate, and many coalition senators wanted to speak on that particular bill but were not permitted. This is, unfortunately, the Labor way.

This goes to the far greater concern we have for people particularly, as even the member for Menzies noted, in regional Australia. This is not only a betrayal of what Labor said it wasn't going to do—and that is touch super—but a fundamentally flawed policy. It unfairly disadvantages farmers and young people into the future. Labor's proposed changes are such that they are going to look at the overall value of a farm and tax that farmer on an unrealised asset when, as the member for Hinkler pointed out, they may then have to sell the property, or part thereof, to pay the tax bill for an asset from which they're gaining their money and underpin their livelihood. How can people have the confidence necessary to make investments into their retirement when Labor backflips on its promises and pledges?

I'm particularly concerned about how the proposed changes are going to affect farmers and young workers, and many, many people share that concern, including, I have to say, the National Farmers Federation. They, in a press release on 14 May 2024—so that's this week—sounded the alarm on the superannuation tax impost. That was the heading on the media release. They are already under the pump, and I note with great concern that Tony Mahar, the chief executive, was one of those who walked out of the post-budget speech by the agriculture minister, Senator Murray Watt, when he began talking about the WA sheep farmers who are going to have their trade phased out. The NFF are right on that, and they're right on this issue too. As the NFF points out:

Evidence from financial and tax experts in a Senate Economics Committee Inquiry shows the agricultural sector will be unfairly hit with the changes that could even see families having to sell farms.

This is what I said a few moments ago. Why is there this constant attack on farmers?

I noted—and I am digressing a little bit—in the budget papers that there was no disclosure as to how much the Labor government will spend on water buybacks. Our irrigation farmers are nervous about that; our irrigation communities are very worried about that. We've got the WA sheep farmers being paid $107 million over four years to phase out what they do for a living, which is put food on the tables of Middle Eastern countries, in the sense of live sheep exports. Here we have farmers being slugged with an unnecessary tax on an unrealised asset—that is, the property, the land, the soil and the dirt from which they earn their income. This is just nuts! This is just crazy! Why? How? How can this possibly be?

As the NFF points out, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry's report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023—the bill we're discussing—was released late on Friday, ahead of the legislation now being debated. I'm amazed it is being debated, but anyway; I move on. Tony Mahar said this:

Concerningly the final report does not appear to address the issues raised by the NFF about the potential impact the reform may have on small business and family farms … These reforms could be like a sledgehammer to succession planning for family farms.

A sledgehammer to succession planning! I remember the late Bill Thompson, of Coolamon, and the work that he did in the Riverina in relation to succession planning. It's something that is so very important. But how on earth is an accountant—even a good accountant, like Mr Thompson was—and others who are doing work in this space supposed to know how much a farm is worth if Labor is going to tax the unrealised asset? This is like stealing something that hasn't even been sold, though it's probably going to have to be sold because of this legislation. Why is Labor so against our farmers? Why is Labor continuing this attack on regional Australia? Why is Labor bringing, as Tony Mahar says, a sledgehammer to the people who provide the food and fibre? And it's not just here in Australia; now we're stopping those who want to sell sheep overseas. I don't get it. It absolutely beggars belief.

Labor brought down a budget the other night. It was a potential re-election budget—a bit of a cash splash here, a bit of a cash splash there—but our regional communities won't be hoodwinked by this. They will not be fooled by Labor bringing down a sledgehammer on their operations, on their activities. As Tony Mahar says:

In many cases, older farmers will hold their farm in an SMSF—

a self-managed super fund—

and lease it to their children, providing both retirement income for them while giving the next generation an opportunity to start farming.

We are extremely worried the proposed taxation of 'unrealised gains' on holdings will increase the tax obligation so much, farmers will be forced to sell land assets to pay the tax bill.

Given high land values and modest cash income generated from farming, this new tax when will represent a significant proportion of a farmers' annual retirement income, or even exceed it.

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.

Is this what Labor wants? Is this what Labor desires? Is this some sort of subversive way that Labor wants to force farmers off the land? It makes you wonder; it truly does. Tony Mahar goes on to say 'This is a lose-lose situation and undoubtedly not what the wider community would expect these reforms intended to deliver.'

Our farmers are the backbone of the economy. People may disagree with that. They may say that some other industry or asset is, but I don't know any other industry or sector which grows the food to put on our tables, three times a day, every day—and we should thank farmers every time we tuck our knees under the dinner table. They also provide the fibre for the clothes on our backs. That's what they do. But they are not being treated fairly by this Labor government, which never cares about farmers, never worries about their concerns and has absolutely no idea as to the toils and turmoils and troubles that farmers go through to grow that food and fibre. In any given decade, farmers will have three good seasons, three average seasons and three terrible seasons, and the other one—well, take your pick. That's farming. It's a tough occupation. And our thanks go to those farmers, who do their best to prop up and feed everyone—even those opposite, and they should remember that.

This bill seeks to implement a broken promise to change the tax arrangements on superannuation. That's what it is doing, and that's what it represents. It's a shame that it even has to come before the parliament, given the fact that Labor said, prior to the May 2022 election, that it would not touch super; it said it would not touch it, but indeed it has.

The NFF is against it, and there are so many other people who are against it. Young workers aren't going to escape this Labor cash grab, either. The proposed $3 million threshold isn't indexed to inflation. Who knows what inflation will be over the next 30 or 40 years? We might ask the member for Rankin, the Treasurer. He seems to know. He seems to push the Reserve Bank of Australia in one direction and comes out and says what the inflation rate will be—locks himself into that. Good luck with that; I'll be watching that with great interest, and I'm sure RBA governor Michele Bullock will, too, as well as many other economists who panned the budget—many I would almost say Left-leaning economists who panned the budget; they saw through it.

Regional Australians see through this legislation. If this wasn't simply a cash grab by Labor, the government would do the right thing, the honest thing, and index the threshold to inflation. But they just won't. The coalition is not supporting this. Why would we? Why would we support yet another tax? Why would we support yet another cash grab? Why would we support something that is going to hurt our farmers such that they may have to sell part or all of their land simply to pay the unrealised gain, the tax that Labor is going to impose on them?

Accountants around the country will be scratching their heads and wondering how this is even possible. Labor's broken promise on superannuation is, as I say, a broken promise, but also it comes at a time when cost-of-living pressures are making it so hard, particularly for those people in regional Australia, who have to drive further. They've just had another tax imposed on them with the fuel efficiency standards. They won't be able to drive the cars that they can afford. They won't be able to pay for the ute or pay for the SUV. And it's is not just farmers; it's families—mums taking kids to school, dads taking kids to sport and all that. And our tradies are going to be hurt by the legislation that was rammed through earlier today.

This legislation that Labor is proposing will double super taxes for one in 10 Australians by the time they retire—double. It'll stop companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities—those volunteer organisations that do so much good for so many Australians. As I said, it will tax unrealised capital gains in superannuation, meaning that Australian retirees will pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet. What nonsense! Who came up with this idea? What brainiac decided this would be a good idea? It was obviously somebody who had never set foot on a farm, somebody who has never sat around with farmers and talked about how they're going to manage: 'It hasn't rained for five years, but you're going to have to pay an unrealised gain, because your property is actually now worth more than it was last year. But there's a tax coming your way.'

The farmer would ask, 'How am I going to pay for that?' And the farmer would be told, 'Well, that's your choice: sell off a portion, sell of a paddock of your farm.' But the brainiacs in the bureaucracy don't care; they don't worry. They'll still go down to their coffee shop and they'll still go down to their tapas bar and they'll still go and eat the food that has been provided by an Australian farmer, while at the same time coming up with dumb legislation and giving it to the likes of the member for Rankin, who brings it into this place to get passed.

It's simply not fair, it's simply not right—but unfortunately it is the Labor way. That's what Labor stands for. It stands for broken promises. It stands for taxes. This should be absolutely rejected every point of the way.

(Quorum formed)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. There are reasons I was inclined to support the bill, the primary of these being intergenerational inequity in our tax system. This is an issue of grave concern to my community. However, I cannot support the bill in its current form, primarily because of its poor design, particularly the taxing of unrealised gains and the lack of a clawback mechanism for that tax, the lack of indexing and the ambiguity as to whether final salary pensions will be subject to the same conditions. These are issues that my community has raised with me—and continues to raise with me—at the ferry at Rose Bay and at Bronte Beach just in the last week. In the words of a young man who had just come out of the surf, 'Taxing unrealised gains—that's crazy!' The taxing of unrealised gains is, in my mind, the most critical of these objections because of the extremely poor precedent it sets in the tax system and the impact it will have on people. We've just heard from the member for Riverina about the impact on farmers, but it will particularly have an impact on high-growth, high-risk startups and scale-up businesses, many of which are in my electorate.

Let me go through these points one by one. Policies around tax and tax concessions are critical questions for this parliament and for the country. When we consider some of the most difficult issues facing this country—intergenerational inequity, housing, productivity and addressing climate pollution—tax reform is a key solution that needs to be on the table. Intergenerational inequity is a critical issue in itself, and our tax policies are contributing to it. A household headed by someone over the age of 65 grew wealth by around 50 per cent in the last decade or so. A household headed by someone under 35 basically didn't move in its wealth. Our communities are diverging, and they are diverging by age. Despite this, older generations are paying less tax than they did in the past, with only 17 per cent paying income tax versus 27 per cent a generation ago. These are the reasons why looking at superannuation in a tax sense is important. The superannuation system, for all its manifest qualities, does contribute to this intergenerational inequity. I accept the premise that the current tax concessions and the current tax system do not currently support young, working-age people who are facing some of the greatest barriers in building wealth, housing and security—higher barriers than previous generations.

My community agrees with this in large part, in the sense that super balances of many millions should be subject to broader taxes. We reached out to the community to ask them what they thought about this policy, bearing in mind that Wentworth is one of the communities with some of the largest numbers of people who will be directly negatively impacted by this change in policy. About 1,400 people responded. The support for the principle of taxing balances of extremely high superannuation was broadly, and very significantly, held by the community. But there were some very significant and very, very clear caveats, which I will go through, and those caveats are why I cannot support the bill in its current form.

The biggest caveat, the biggest concern people had was around unrealised gains and the lack of clawback for unrealised gains. This will not only have implications for asset rich but cash poor self-managed superannuation holders, particularly in farming communities, which the member for Riverina alluded to, but will have a significant impact on Australia's growth and technology sectors, and I do not believe the government has properly thought about the impact of this policy on those sectors when they designed this policy.

For self-managed superannuation holders, this taxation of unrealised gains introduces a high degree of uncertainty and volatility regarding their annual tax liability. For these Australians, the level of tax is unpredictable and charged annually on the investment, which may not be realised at all or for many years. In their submission, the Self-Managed Superannuation Fund Association estimated that around 14 per cent of affected self-managed super fund holders would experience liquidity stress in meeting the new tax obligations. Objections to this bill have been hand waved by many as only affecting a small number of superannuants. Indeed, the raw numbers are not high, but this argument doesn't consider the outsized impact on the sectors that rely on this type of investment.

Let's talk about early-stage investment and Australia's innovative economy. Australia suffers from a chronic underinvestment in early-stage businesses. Australia's pool of angel and seed level funding per capita is some of the lowest amongst our peers. Even on a per capita basis, our angel and seed funding amounts to 50 per cent of the UK and 35 per cent of the US. We have seen repeatedly that Australia struggles to grow and develop early-stage businesses and often loses those businesses and some of our leading lights and opportunities in the future to overseas. And the challenge is that the taxation of unrealised gains will only exacerbate the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in accessing finance in Australia.

My electorate of Wentworth is home to many of the people involved in both the venture capital space and emerging industries, including clean tech and quantum. Speaking to entrepreneurs and members of the venture capital community, they have been clear that the impact of this bill will be unambiguously negative for those high-growth sectors.

The challenge of early-stage investment and private capital is volatility and risk. An investment could be worth $50,000 in one year, $1 million the next year, and nothing in the following year. These investments are inherently liquid. They are investments that often cannot be sold out for five or 10 years, because the need for these young businesses, these young, productive and growing businesses, to have certainty in terms of access of capital. These businesses can't go onto the ASX, and fewer and fewer of them are. More and more are being held in private hands for longer.

When I talk to the sector they tell me that super funds, and particularly self-managed super funds, are absolutely critical to the start-up and scale-up sector, which is not as strong as anyone would like it to be in this country. Some funds are more than 50 per cent backed by the SMSFs. The great danger of this legislation is that it drives people out of that sector and into assets with lower returns but lower volatility. With private capital in these sorts of sectors, having returned approximately 18 per cent per annum in returns in the last 10 years, and the ASX having returned approximately eight per cent, this is bad both for Australian start-ups but also for Australian superannuants who need their super to fund their retirement. We're seeing more and more private businesses stay private for longer, which, again, will lock broader investors out of this market if we continue to tax things like unrealised gains and make these high-risk but also high-return areas of investment unattractive to investors and, particularly, to superannuants.

This change comes on the back of other forces, particularly a focus now in the superannuation sector on fees rather than on net returns, a fear of changes to the sophisticated investor test and complexity in addressing foreign capital, some of which the government has tried to address, that are pushing back on the startup and scale-up sector. Some people might argue: 'The investments will move out of super. That's no problem. People can invest in these areas outside of super.' But superannuation is the dominant form of capital in this country. We have collectively and decisively said this is where we want people to put their money, and for good reason: so that they can hold it and so that they can fund their own retirement. So the bias towards super in so many different things means that people will continue to hold money in preference in their superannuation funds, but they will no longer want to hold high-risk, high-volatility, illiquid investments in these sorts of funds, particularly when there is any increase in funds which might require tax. If the fund then drops in price, they will not get any of that tax back. They could pay tax on unrealised gains on an asset they cannot sell, and then that asset may no longer be worth anything at all. They've already paid the tax and they will not get that tax back unless their own superannuation balance gets over $3 million again, which it may not.

The night before last the government introduced the Future Made in Australia and made a big push to support emerging industries and great innovative capacity as they are critical to our energy transition and security and to our economic future. I just want to make the point that taxation of unrealised gains will stand in direct contrast to the objectives laid out in the Treasurer's vision, because it's cutting off an important source of private sector funding for the companies and industries of the future, which the government on the other side of the ledger is trying to support. Australia has low productivity right now. We know that. We also know from people like e61 that the most productive firms are young firms. These are firms that are otherwise struggling to access capital and these are the firms that rely on these sorts of funds that the government will have a very significant and negative impact on. I don't think this policy is consistent with a government that is trying to focus on productivity or a government that is trying to focus on building innovation and building the industries of the future.

I have raised this issue with the government and have seen no evidence that the government has actually properly assessed the impact of this change on the startup or scale-up sector. That is why I've put forward an amendment for exactly that focus: I would like the government to assess and to table in this House what the impact is going to be on these sectors and what the government is going to do about it. I urge the government to remove unrealised gains from the measurement of taxable earnings and remove the clawback provision. If they did that, I would then support this bill.

That said, I think there are other issues with this bill. There's a lack of indexation, and so I will be supporting an amendment raised by another member of the crossbench to annually index large superannuation balance thresholds in line with inflation. I do not like this idea of gaining more tax effectively by stealth, and indexation ensures that the tax policies of a government are deliberate rather than things that they hope the public doesn't notice.

The second issue is that, while this is an increase in tax overall, it misses the opportunity to do more from an intergenerational inequity point of view in terms of lowering the taxes for young people or doing something that specifically supports young people in this situation. We know those are the ones who are held back the most at the moment in our current tax system.

The third issue, which I know the coalition has raised significantly, is a question of broken promises. I accept that this policy won't be in place until 2025, after the next election, and I think that is appropriate, but I think we can all urge everyone in politics: try not to make promises that you're not going to keep, because it reduces the confidence that the community has in the words of any member of parliament.

The final issue, which many in my community have raised, is: will public sector final pensions be treated in the same way? There is a concern. Some of those public sector final pensions are extremely generous. I'm sure many people would like to be on them. My community rightly says that, if people who've built up their money in the private sector are going to be treated in this way, it is appropriate for the public sector pensions to be treated in the same way. There's still some ambiguity and uncertainty, as far as I can tell, about whether that is going to take place.

That is why I will not support this bill in its current form, though in principle I agree with what the government intends: trying to shift the tax burden away from young working Australians, which is where we should all be trying to shift the tax burden from.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a missed opportunity to tax wealth fairly in this country. People are sleeping in tents while 27 self-managed super funds hold balances of $100 million, with one person holding an obscene $544 million in their tax-sheltered super account. Australia's superannuation system is no longer about ensuring a dignified retirement for workers. Successive parliaments have contorted its purpose so that it is now Australia's premier tax haven for wealth accumulation and estate planning. This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, will not change this trajectory in any meaningful way.

It is not just the Greens saying it. The co-architects of the compulsory superannuation system, the ACTU, say the same:

Superannuation was not designed as, and should not be, a tax haven for the wealthy nor a way for the wealthy to receive tax handouts. Instead, superannuation tax concessions should provide assistance to those who need it, to save sufficient income for their retirement.

Current superannuation tax concessions are unfairly targeted, regressive and unsustainable.

As a result, superannuation is soaking up lost public funds that should be directed to properly fund aged care and lifting people on the age pension and income support out of grinding, demoralising poverty—lest we forget that the age pension is still below the poverty line. In this financial year, $9 billion will go to the highest tenth of the population in superannuation contribution tax breaks and $8.5 billion in earning tax breaks—$17.5 billion a year in tax breaks going to this top 10 per cent of people, who will never need to rely on the age pension, which ostensibly was the entire purpose of superannuation. If we lowered this government's proposed cap from $3 million to $2 million, it would still only touch the wealthiest one per cent of the population, but apparently that's too much for Labor.

Public school funding, removing student debt, supporting women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and pulling families out of poverty are all things the government isn't investing in enough, precisely because there is too much timidity in taxing excessive wealth. Think of the potential of our country if we invested money in our people instead of letting the obscenely rich park their assets in Australia's homegrown tax haven, known as superannuation. The Greens are withholding our position in the Senate, but, even if this bill did pass, it would not change the fact that superannuation is skewed to the benefit of the wealthiest over everyday working people, and it will not change the ever-growing economic inequality that has infected Australia since the 1980s.

The other point the Greens make is about self-managed super funds' capacity to borrow to buy investment properties. Self-managed super funds are overwhelmingly established so that investment properties can be held or transferred within a tax-sheltered superannuation framework. Self-managed super funds are using limited-recourse borrowing arrangements to buy investment properties that renters can no longer afford. In 2014, the former head of the Commonwealth Bank, David Murray—hardly a friend of the Greens—was handpicked by the Abbott government to lead a Financial System Inquiry. He said super funds should no longer be able to borrow money to finance investments because it creates too much financial risk. Scott Morrison, as Treasurer, accepted all 31 recommendations of that review except for that one. They sent it to the Council of Financial Regulators to report back. The council reported back in 2019 and said, 'Yep, get rid of that ability for super funds to borrow.' Minister Frydenberg stayed silent but shadow Treasurer Bowen listened to the experts in the RBA, APRA and ASIC and committed to removing this borrowing arrangements pre-2019. Unprompted, with a new Treasurer, they reported again, highlighting the financial risks.

In the time since the original review, loans by self-managed super funds to buy property have gone from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014 to $22.6 billion in June 2022. That is $22 billion flooding the property market essentially as property investments. This unsustainable growth in tax-sheltered borrowing is not just turbo charging financial risk in the super system but it is fuelling the property speculation and pushing aspiring first home buyers out of the market.

Three independent reviews to government have said end borrowing by self-managed super funds. It shouldn't have been ignored for a decade. The proposed taxation of unrealised capital gains in this legislation has brought the issue to the surface. Taken together, the combination of accrual taxation and a 156 per cent increase in limited recourse borrowing by self-managed super funds since the Murray review presents a very real risk to the individual super funds as well as to the financial stability of the superannuation system as a whole. If the government wants this timid legislation to pass, it is going to have to end super tax breaks for property investors.

(Quorum formed)

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023. What bad bills these two are. I can't believe that anyone on that side can agree to breaking one of the essential provisions of our taxation system—that is, taxation of unrealised capital gains. Paper gains are going to be taxed in your super fund, even though it may be an illiquid asset, like someone's farm or a business bit of real estate that is essential and that can't be sold, or the family business would suffer. Also, imposition of a higher tax rate, once the value of the super fund is above $3 million, sounds a lot now but it is not indexed. The whole purpose of superannuation is to make lots of investments that compound in value. The government says this is going to affect only 80,000 people, and they trot out, way out of left field, the one person in Australia who's got over $500 million in their super fund. Trust me: I think people with that amount of money have their accumulated wealth in lots of other things. I would say he or she would be a very, very small example, which they use to justify changing all the rules around superannuation.

This effectively will double superannuation for one in 10 Australians. That's a significant number of people, and many of them will be small and family businesses whose whole life is wrapped up in their business. When they sell their business, multiple decades of family effort will be taxed at a much greater rate than they thought it would be when they made these long-term decisions. All these superannuation decisions are long-term decisions that have huge ramifications if the playing field is changed when you are 20, 30 or 40 years into accumulating your retirement savings.

It also stops companies from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities. At the last election, and since they've come into government, this government has said they would not change superannuation rules. They lost the election back in 2019 because they did exactly that, and they've come into government now and done the same thing! The voters will catch up with you on this. They are catching up at light speed. I suppose that's why we've just had the budget that we've had, which will drive inflation and will drive up interest rates. For those who have cash invested, interest rates will go up, and superannuation balances. So, if these changes aren't indexed there'll be plenty of young people—my children, your children—who will become adults, like us now, getting towards the time when they will rely on their super funds, who will I suspect have $3 million superannuation balances. I suspect that by then many of this current young generation that is just starting work will have $3 million superannuation balances; it won't be exceptional. It will be way more than 80,000 Australians.

Taxing unrealised capital gain is so out of left field and so illogical. It's been floated before; we've heard it discussed. Most people who are financially literate think: 'How does that work? How can you tax something that's just a paper profit?' Assets go up and down in value. Does that mean that if the asset goes down in value then at your next tax return or your next superannuation reporting the government is going to give you a tax refund? It's absolutely crazy. They should just stick with the principle that has been running accounting in this country: that capital gains are taxed at the time that the gain is realised, in hard cash. There are so many other things that are really long-term bad outcomes for investment and business in this country.

Now, the government haven't totally gotten rid of franking credits; they're just going around the back way. When they're having capital raisings and people are making large investment decisions, Australian people who are looking to invest in big companies might think: 'Well, if we invest in Australian companies we'll get franking credits, which means we won't be paying twice. The company will pay the tax on the profit and then when we get the dividends the tax has been paid on it.' That is a big driver of people investing in Australian companies, particularly Australians. But the government want to get rid of that—through the back door.

We need to realise that when bad legislation comes before this place you don't try to short-circuit the process. At least they're not guillotining the debate on this one as they did on the last bill. But this is a bad bill. It can't be supported. If they were to amend some of these rules then yes, we would consider them, if it was for the good of the economy. It's just a question of a tax-hungry government who will tax you more for longer, and you'll have less of your money if you vote for this bill.

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

Isn't it a joy to see what a couple of quorum calls do to lift the atmosphere in the chamber! I remember all the wonderful times on quorum duty that I spent listening to pearls of wisdom, and I'm happy to dispense some back, because there's much to talk about with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Goodness me: what an affront to the economic credibility that the Treasurer strives for—the idea of taxation of unrealised gains. Goodness me.

But to put this into the context of the time where we find this: this is the highest-taxing government in 23 years and—a wonderful little pearl that I picked out—outside of COVID, the highest spendings of potential GDP since 1986-87, which, for those of you who remember, were Keating's 'banana republic' years. Isn't it wonderful the way things just come back? We find ourselves in another era of spiralling spending, causing a giant threat to interest rate rises. But that is where a bill like this comes from: Labor needs to find a new tax. You've heard of Farmer Needs a Wife. Well, Labor needs a tax. That's what this is about. They need something to feed this constant appetite for growing spending that we've seen.

And they've gone ahead with a new one. They're flouting all our taxation history and coming up with taxation on unrealised gains, and I'll speak about where this will hurt. This is beyond just the usual redistribution of wealth that we've come to expect. This is now a redistribution of wealth that you don't even have. This is stretching into realms of fiscal thought police, economic re-education programs and monitoring the market for signs of aspiration to nip it in the bud and make sure we can snuff out the slightest thought of prosperity in this country.

To reinforce my humble contribution today, I'm going to add a few statements that we've received—all on the public record—that I think all very much agree on what a ridiculous proposal this is and on what an affront it is to the basis of economic credibility. The National Farmers' Federation made a fantastic comment. They said they hold significant concerns about the impact of the government's proposed changes to the treatment of superannuation holdings and what effect it will have on operations across the country. The NFF is particularly concerned with respect to the proposed taxation of unrealised gains on holdings and what this will do to farming businesses. They point out quite well that the smaller the farming operation the bigger the impact this will have—the less likely you will be able to cover the new tax.

Regarding that $3 million threshold, I've got to point out that in my part of the world a $3 million holding is not a big farm anymore. We're not talking about big guys. These are family farms. And we have seen the value of the land increase, particularly around cities like Toowoomba and those beautiful black soil plains stretching out towards Dalby and beyond—these are reasonable, modest family operations. Their value has increased. The concerns that the National Farmers' Federation raise about this legislation are significant. They point out that most of these farms nowadays use a self-managed super fund to hold that operation.

This is not new. When the NFF raised this to this side of the House we knew this. This is not new. These are our people. Sadly, it seems to be coming as quite a shock to the government. I think the National Farmers' Federation put this clearest. They said that, given that agricultural land values can experience high growth, as they did in 2022 and 2023, land price per hectare increased by 28.6 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. They continue to generate only modest cash income. This new tax may see an increased obligation that represents a significant proportion of their annual retirement income derived from leasing arrangements with their children or even exceed it. What we're seeing here is capital growth, paper capital growth, but no growth in income coming in. So the ability to service this new tax is simply not there. In fact, it's quite the opposite, because, whilst that growth in income isn't happening, we're seeing inflation across the board making every one of those dollars worth less. As inflation cripples the country—I know governments come up with forecasts to suit their spending habits, but it is out there and hurting us in the regions—as that continues, a farmer's ability to service this new tax will decrease year on year.

I'll go to the Financial Services Council. This was covered in the Australian. They've criticised the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold for tax structures and being unfair to future generations of super members. We've heard this covered before. The acting chief executive, Spiro Premetis, told the Australian that more than 500,000 current taxpayers would be adversely impacted, and this included '204,000 Australians under the age of 30'. I point out that this is the only demographic, 21 to 29-year-olds, who are experiencing a decline both in their discretionary and their non-discretionary spending. They are losing out every which way. House prices are going through the roof. Their ability to save is completely reduced. If they're renting, they're seeing rents going up. Now, thanks to this wonderful tax, they are again disadvantaged. Mr Premetis went on:

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

It's a very fair point. Under this government, it has become harder for these young people to own a home. We've seen house prices continue in this cost-of-living crisis. We've seen the ability for people to save reduce. Now, thanks to this, we're also going to make it harder for them to retire. They're going to get it as they come to adulthood and as they retire. We've just made that harder as well with this fantastically poorly-designed piece of legislation.

I'll go to the next on my list of people who have reasonable concerns about a very unreasonable bill. Writing in the Australian, Robert Gottliebsen makes an excellent point. This was covered by the member for Wentworth as well. He wrote:

After July 1 2025 it will be virtually shut down because a major source of local funds—large self-managed funds—will withdraw.

He's speaking of the ability of venture capital to support new industries. This is fascinating. He goes on:

The current participants in the venture capital market raise high risk money from a variety of sources, but one of the largest is big self-managed superannuation funds.

…

That tax is clearly unfair and goes against all principles of Australian and global taxation. But, when applied to unlisted venture capital investments it is a disaster.

This is a wonderful point. When we hear a government talking about Made in Australia and wanting to see things made here, this is fantastic!

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

I love that the dots aren't able to be joined by those on quorum duty today, but, when you take away the investment here, what you get in the end are fantastic investments—like getting a Silicon Valley company to build a computer, owned in America, and slapping a 'Made in Australia' sticker on it. You beauty—a billion dollars—what a great idea! Australia has mocked it and rejected it completely. But that's where we'll go if we continue down this path of making self-managed super funds less and less attractive.

My favourite part though, amongst all of this—because there are always different views—was from a silk, who was quoted in the SMH, that great bastion of right-wing thought:

Appearing before a senate select committee, Michael Black KC, said there was 'no doubt' there would be a constitutional legal challenge to the tax change.

So here we are. Not only is it poor, and not only does it present an affront to our entire taxation history; it's completely risky. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention. When you have a high-spending government like this, they need to find new ways to raise taxes, and this is a great invention. It's outside anything we've had before. They've invented a tax unlike anything we've had.

The government cannot say it hasn't been warned of the consequences of this tax. We've heard from speaker after speaker, particularly on the impact on farming. I guess it's okay; we don't expect Labor to be across the issues that farmers face—it's not their thing. But, when you have the NFF speaking out as clearly as it can on the impact of this; when we have local farmers raising their concerns to their members consistently about the impact this will have on their operations; and when we bring those concerns here and get them completely rebuked, laughed at and mocked by the government, you know they're not listening. They're not listening to the concerns about the consequences of this legislation—and they are significant, and they will play out. The government has been warned, and they now own every single outcome that will play out across farms in Australia. When this comes through, and your operational income hasn't increased, but the paper value of your land has, and you can't service this taxation—this is what the government wanted. That is the situation that the government is deliberately creating for farmers of Australia. They have been warned, and they refuse to listen.

They could have addressed it. They've had plenty of time to address this, and they haven't. It's a very simple calculation. There is no increase in the capability to service a new tax. In fact, we're in a period of time where inflation has driven the cost of living through the roof, across every aspect. We can complain about new taxes on biosecurity laws that are unfairly put onto farmers and that should be distributed to those importing the risk, but this is such an affront to the farming community because there is no reason whatsoever why this concern should not be addressed. The government have walked away from their responsibility on this one.

We can be very clear: the impact of this will be that the smaller the farm or operation the more hurt it will cause, because they have less ability to pay a new tax. Once again, the small family run farms will be pushed out, and we'll see farming run exclusively by corporations in Australia. That's where we're heading. It's an absolute shame. I think about my electorate, where we still have the settlers' blocks, the blocks that were given to the soldiers who came back. They're small for a reason: so that a family could make a living on these farms. Because of their proximity to growing cities, these farms have grown in value, and they are now right in the firing line of this new tax. That is who is getting squeezed out. And who's getting rewarded? The giant multinationals, who can afford to pay a new tax. They can afford to cover it. They've got the operational costs. The small guys don't have the operational money coming in.

Government members interjecting—

I love to hear the laughter from those on quorum duty at what's going to happen to farmers. It's okay. I get it. You don't have them in your patch. You don't understand them. They're not yours.

Government members interjecting—

I am angry. Absolutely. I want this point to be on record because I want to be able to say: 'You guys turned your back on these people. You turned your back on them, every single one of you. There was a chance you had to change these ridiculous laws, and you didn't.' This is completely on the government. They've ignored the experts.

What we have here now is a clear separation. There could not be a clearer choice for regional Queensland: those who have chosen to tax farmers in an unreasonable and unfair way and those who have stood up for them. I'm very happy to be able to say that I have stood up for my farming communities.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to once again speak about a bad bill put up by Labor, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. No surprises here. What sort of message does this send to our younger people? For the people who we want to work and to save their money for retirement, what's $3 million going to look like in 30 to 40 years time? There is no indexation to this bill. That is one of the single biggest issues with this whole bill. And the move from a 15 per cent tax to a 30 per cent tax straight up—how was that designed? Is that just typical Labor Treasury mystical and magical stuff, where you just lick your finger and hope it all works out? Where is the place of aspiration?

Listen up, folks: this is the side of the House where we understand reward for effort, where you actually get out of bed at the start of the day, where your wage isn't guaranteed and where you've actually got to turn up, plant something and grow something—actually do something. There's no turn-up pay on this side of the House. Those opposite are very confused by that. But it's typical of Labor—when you can't manage your money, you come after ours. That's what you do. You've got form for it. That's no big surprise to anybody. We've seen it time and time again.

But it's not only the young folks. You've betrayed the older folks as well, the older generation to whom it's been said: 'Go and work hard. Put your money aside. Save it for a rainy day.' The rain probably doesn't affect those opposite because they get their money anyway. But they've got to just save their money for their retirement.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know you're a politician?

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Definitely, member for Blair—definitely a farmer. I know fully about it. Thank you very much for the interjection. 'You need to save your money for retirement'—that's what we tell them. Then those opposite, with a stroke of a pen, just decide, 'Oh—bang! We'll have a bit more of that.' That's particularly important to farmers. Those opposite probably don't know much about farming. They don't actually know what it's about. I don't know why you're so hard on primary producers. Why don't you like the miners, the farmers and the fishers?

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many businesses have you run? I ran one.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot more than you, champion! But look at the fishing industry. Are you across the fishing industry? You've just banned the gillnets and wiped out the fishing industry. That wasn't a scientific decision; that was a political decision. It's exactly the same as the live sheep trade. You've just taken out the live sheep trade.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You ran down the car industry!

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder you're not getting preselected next time, champion; you have no idea! It's very true. The live sheep trade—what's happening with that? Yes, shutting it—well done to you. That was going to put a base on the bottom end of the sheep—

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A hundred per cent! And you're from over there. Don't worry; they'll come looking for you as well. Yes, you should back the people that you're putting up. Don't worry about that. But don't worry; they'll be used to broken promises, and this again is another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises. Despite making promises of no changes to superannuation before the election, the Albanese Labor government is proposing to double the super taxes of one in 10 Australians by the time they retire; stop companies—

listen to this, Dr Gordon—from offering franking credits to Australian investors, super funds and charities; tax unrealised capital gains in super, meaning Australian retirees will have to pay tax on money that they haven't even made yet.

But we're used to broken promises from those opposite. Remember the $275 that those opposite promised was going to come off the power bill? After the 97 times—that's not a slip of the tongue—those opposite said, 'You will be $275 better off on your power bills,' what has happened to power? Just like everything else, it's gone through the roof. But don't worry; we all heard, 'My word is my bond.' Remember that? 'My word is my bond.' That was solid, folks. And then, 48 hours later, bang—total change around. They do more backflips than the Moscow circus, but I'll tell you what: don't worry. I'm sure that you're all right into that. There's no problem at all.

What I don't understand is why you just don't like farmers. This tax is an affront on farmers.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't know what a farmer is!

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. It's really, really tough to understand. With taxing unrealised capital gains, you're paying tax on paper gains, which is absolutely ridiculous. I will give you a real-life example, because on this side of the House we live in the real world. This will be something new for you. When an evaluation is made on a grazier's property and it goes up in value, you're asking them to pay tax on the unrealised gain. That is absolutely ridiculous. That happens nowhere else, and that's exactly what you're asking to do.

A person who owns a large block of land, one large parcel, might be asset rich and cash poor, but, if a valuer comes along and makes that increased valuation, they will have to pay tax on that. So what's the answer to that? Do they have to subdivide a block, or do they have to cut it out? Do they have to sell the family farm or property? Is that what they have to do?

Have a good think about this, and I hope you listen up because this is very, very important. These are the people that provide food and fibre for the country. They're the ones that feed you. I don't know why those opposite are so hell-bent on making life difficult for farmers, but I know where some of the money is going to go. Once you get this money, it's going to go towards the 36,000 bureaucrats that you're going to put in Canberra. Well done! How productive will they be!

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are they going to do?

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a good question, Member for Nicholls. I know what they'll be doing. They'll be lying awake at night thinking of ways of getting more red tape and green tape to wrap around the productive people in this country. That's what they'll be doing. They'll actually be making sure that it's harder for all of the people who actually contribute. That's who you should be looking after: the people who contribute, the people who feed us, the people who clothe us and the small-businesses people who've got to get up every morning and make a dollar. Their dollar is not guaranteed.

Now, let's look a little bit more at indexing. Let's look back a few years ago. I'm getting a little bit older now, but what was a house worth, say, 30 years ago? You could buy a house in my neck of the woods for 100 grand, and now they're close to 500 grand. So $3 million in 30 to 40 years is not going to be a terrible lot of money, and yet you want to tax them. You want to tax them on that and tax them on the unrealised gain. It's absolutely ridiculous that you would do that.

But we understand the taxing, and look at what happened today: you gagged the debate on the new vehicles tax, on the family car and ute tax. You gagged that debate today because you didn't want to see that. It's absolutely ridiculous. Even a Corolla is going to have an extra fee of more than 1,000 bucks, let alone a LandCruiser. And lots of people in my area drive LandCruisers—you have to—as well as HiLuxes and Ford Rangers. You all want us to jump into EVs. I'll tell you something very simple about EVs. They can't carry the weight, they can't tow the load and they can't cover the distance, so, once again, it's just another tax and another shot at hardworking Australians.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no debate.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No debate at all—I don't know what you're all so frightened of. Why don't we have the discussion? Let's have the discussion about what we actually need to do here.

This whole superannuation bill is absolutely abhorrent. What happens if people don't have enough money? Are they going to be forced back on the pension? That's not what we're trying to achieve here. We're trying to encourage people to save for their own retirement so they don't become a burden on society. I know those opposite are very familiar with being a burden on society, but we on this side of the House actually need to make sure that we—

I tell you what, no wonder you are not getting preselected.Anyway, let's move back to the bill, without the help from those opposite because it's certainly not helpful.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep going, Andrew. They're getting rattled.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand. I can understand why they don't want to hear this about farmers when we've got people on this side of the House who are sticking up for farmers each and every day. That's exactly what we're doing.

So why would you want to do this? Why bring this bill in, apart from it just being a tax grab? I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to kill off all the self-managed super funds—kill them off and make it all too hard for them—so you can have all of big business unionised so you can clip the ticket and get your money as it goes. That's a little cash cow that those opposite have been milking for a very, very long time. But you don't want to worry about self-managed super funds, like people on this side of the House who get out of bed and make a difference every day. No, let's look at putting it all back into big business and then unionisation! We see that all the time, whereas, on this side of the House, we're always supporting small business because they are the backbone of the nation. They're the ones that have to take the risk and get out of bed in the morning and actually make sure things happen.

What happened to the idea in Australia of a fair go? That's what we need to do—have a fair go. This is certainly not a fair go. Someone further down the track, which is what's happening here, can at the stroke of a pen change all the rules. I've got three children. They're coming through and they're looking at this and going: 'Gee, I may as well go overseas and take it easier. Why should I be saving my money for my retirement when we're going to get the absolute life taxed out of it?' It makes no sense whatsoever. So I encourage those opposite to have a good look at this, particularly schedules 1-3. In the rest of the schedule, there's some stuff that is not too bad. That's the schedule—that's actually what the bill is. You probably haven't actually read the leg, but have a good look at that. It's schedules 1-3 that are certainly—the others have got a couple of whiskers on them, but 1-3 is an absolutely shocking area.

Government members interjecting—

Thank you for your help! Thank you very much for your help. Just to go over it one more time, let's make sure that we fully understand how bad this bill is. You need to put it back on the drawing board. This bill will do absolutely nothing. The only thing it will do is undermine the integrity of the superannuation system, the system that was absolutely designed so you could save money for your retirement so you don't become a burden on the system. Once you then start changing legislation willy-nilly, whenever you feel like it, after those opposite promised that they wouldn't do it—at least Mr Shorten had the guts to run for election with it and say, 'Well, I'm going to make these changes.' Of course, the public didn't want to do that, and that's why Mr Shorten is not sitting there. But, no, this current sneaky Prime Minister—what did he do? He decided, 'Oh, I'll get in and tell a few little porky pies, and then I'll just slip this through and then just see how we go.'

This is bad legislation. It's bad for farmers. It's bad for the graziers. For young people, it instils no confidence. I don't think young people have got confidence in this government anyway, and rightly so. That lack of confidence is very well founded. But please get behind this. Make sure you vote against it. Come on, fellas. You can do it. Vote against it. Stand up to your party. That's it.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time being almost due, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member's speech was interrupted and if you wish to continue your remarks, you'll be granted leave to do so later.