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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of superannuation for all Australians, particularly younger Australians;

(2) notes that, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, in March 2023, $595,000 is the amount required to retire 'comfortably' in Australia;

(3) recognises that young people are becoming increasingly disheartened at the prospect of saving for their future, given the current government-induced cost of living crisis continues to erode their disposable income;

(4) further notes:

(a) that plans by the Government to impose higher taxes on superannuation earnings from 1 July 2025 will hinder the growth in retirement savings of younger Australians and is an attack on hard-working Australians; and

(b) comments by the Grattan Institute, that within 30 years, about one in ten workers will begin to retire with super balances that will be subject to the Government's higher taxes on superannuation, which is 200 times more people than the Government is claiming;

(5) further acknowledges that young people will be especially impacted by the Government's plans to impose higher super taxes; and

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) abolish plans to introduce higher taxes on superannuation so that all Australians, particularly young Australians, are incentivised to save for a comfortable retirement;

(b) consider enabling young Australians to invest in their super by facilitating them to use their tax advantaged superannuation contributions to buy a first home; and

(c) commit to protecting all Australians, especially young Australians, from a bleak future through better economic management, lower taxes and cutting wasteful and inflationary spending in the current cost of living crisis.

It is a very tough time to be a young Australian right now. We're seeing that, as inflation bears down across the economy, it bears down in an uneven way. There are sections of our society who are carrying the weight more than others, and one of those is young Australians. Those aged between 21 and 29 are the only demographic in Australia to see both their discretionary and non-discretionary spending go backwards. We're seeing this at the time of a housing crisis, when house prices continue to rise and housing availability continues to fall. We're seeing these people faced with a future that is getting worse and worse. They can't afford to save a deposit for a house and, if they're lucky enough to get a loan from the bank of mum and dad, they can't afford to service a mortgage.

At this time, in this context for this group of Australians, we're seeing this government reduce confidence in their super and reduce confidence in their retirement. No doubt, in the course of this debate, we will hear those opposite talk about superannuation as being a great Labor legacy. It is a legacy of the Hawke and Keating government—of old Labor. In that context, I want to speak to how different old Labor is to new Labor in their approach to superannuation.

It's good to remember where superannuation comes from—to go back and to read what was happening when the prices and incomes accord was being made, way back in 1983. This was when we had a Labor prime minister willing—member for Bowman, get this—to stand up to the unions. It was extraordinary. Maybe that's what made all Australians get behind him and understand that he was there for the national interest. He was willing to stand up to the unions, who were demanding continued price rises in the inflationary period. The Prime Minister knew, as the RBA governor of today knows, that this increased government spending will drive inflation harder and make things worse. It's not just a comparison I make with the Prime Minister. Compare that to, unfortunately, the relationship we're seeing between, let's say, John Setka—just to pick a random union member—and the Prime Minister of today. There is no standing up to the unions under this Prime Minister. In fact, he's rolled over on every one of their demands, including the abolition of the ABCC, and given them free rein.

It's not just the Prime Minister. Let's compare the approach of the Treasurer of the day, who supported superannuation and who got it through—Paul Keating—to the Treasurer that we have now. Keating was the last Treasurer to reduce spending as a percentage of GDP for three budgets in a row. Compare that to our current Treasurer, who has increased spending as a percentage of GDP for three budgets in a row. The difference between old Labor and new Labor is apparent across our economy. We're feeling the pain of it now.

They may speak to superannuation as a Labor legacy. It's an abandoned legacy. It's a legacy that they have walked away from, as new Labor needs to fight with the Greens to secure their inner-city seats. This is no longer a Labor that is being fiscally responsible. This is no longer a Labor that wants to reach out to young people who are struggling through an inflationary period, who are seeing the costs of everything go up and who are not yet in a period of their lives where they can save money and get onto that housing ladder. It's not giving them confidence in their retirement; it's the complete opposite. They've abandoned their legacy.

So bad is this abandonment and so full is their new spending that they've had to invent a new tax. It's a tax on unrealised capital gains. There are two groups that have made very, very clear the impact on young people that these changes will have. The first is the National Farmers Federation. Their statement says:

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.

What a damning indictment of this government's approach to securing the future of Australians. The Financial Services Council said:

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

These changes will hurt.

I want to put this in, once again maybe drawing some contrast between old Labor and new Labor in the context of today's fiscal situation. We have just seen a surplus brought forward at the expense of 10 years of deficits. Not only are you paying more for things now under Labor; you will pay more for things into the future as their policies play out and make things worse. The people who are going to hurt the most from this, of course, are those young Australians struggling to get through a very difficult period without the support of the government, who said that they would make things easier for them.

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

Do I have a seconder for the motion?

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, if you needed any convincing that it's Monday, I think that contribution would be it. There wasn't really a lot on the motion. He said 'unions' about 50 times. He's clinically obsessed. They say 'Hawke and Keating' a lot, but it's really unclear what the rest of the point of that speech was. But I did see a media article about the member who moved the motion—thank you for bringing the debate. The media article said that he's one of the great hopes of the future of the Liberal Party, that he's one of the smarter ones and that really what they need to do is cut the deadwood away on the front bench and give that bloke, whatever his name was, a guernsey leading the team. Well, God help us if this motion is his best work. It's a word salad of utter nonsense. I mean, Member for whoever you were, do better.

The core complaint in this motion—and it's interesting that he didn't actually address the core point of his own motion in his speech—is that the government is making a modest adjustment to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances over, wait for it, $3 million. That's right. All the screeching and shouting and hyperbole in the motion is to champion tax breaks for people with millions and millions—in some cases tens of millions—of dollars in their superannuation accounts. The fact is that 99.5 per cent of Australians will keep the same tax break that they have. The 0.5 per cent of Australians who have been lucky enough, worked hard enough—it's a bit of both; some of it is because they've worked hard enough; a lot of it is just inheritance tax avoidance, frankly, where mummy and daddy give you millions of dollars to put in the super account so you don't have to pay tax on it. But that 0.5 per cent with more than $3 million will still receive tax breaks, just slightly less generous. And there is no change to the amount that people can accumulate in super. So, for anyone at home who has got a sleeping disorder—I get a bit of insomnia myself—you could google the motion somewhere on the Notice Paper and note the fact that the member didn't actually talk to the core complaint he's making, because it is ridiculous.

I give him full marks for comedy, though, for trying to dress up with 'concern for young Australians' his championing of a tax break for people with more than $3 million in their super accounts. The biggest risk to superannuation for young people, though—let's be very clear—is not a modest change to tax breaks for people with more than $3 million in their super account. No. It's what I've termed for a long time the gold medal for policy stupidity, which goes to those opposite—he mentioned it somewhere in the motion, near the end; I don't think he's really backing it in. But it's the super-for-housing policy. That's right. Their only housing policy is to allow young Australians to raid their superannuation and push up the cost of housing. That's why I gave it the gold medal for policy stupidity, because it's a double whammy: you trash your retirement savings and you enrich the people selling the house. Indeed, the modelling shows a $75,000 increase to the median house price if you let people unleash their superannuation savings in this way. Here's a tip for the bloke opposite who moved the motion: you don't make housing more affordable by making it more expensive. If you actually took their super-for-housing policy seriously—it's the kind of housing policy you have when you don't actually want a housing policy. It's a bit like the energy policy they announced last week, which was not a policy; it was a pamphlet with a cut-and-paste picture from the internet, with no costings. That's the kind of energy policy you have when you don't actually want to have an energy policy. So there's a bit of commonality here.

But it is a difficult challenge now, because, until last week, super for housing was their only policy. The only policy of the alternative government of the country, in two years, was to push up the cost of housing and enrich people who already owned houses. But now they have a second policy: the nuclear energy policy to push up power bills and rack up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt—and then God knows what: tax rises and cuts to other services?—in their nuclear fantasy. So it's a difficult competition—the member for Bennelong, I'm sure, would agree—as to which is the dumbest of their two policies: to push up power prices or push up house prices? That's all they've got out there at the moment.

Time doesn't permit the deconstruction of the last bit of the motion. It talks about the need for lower taxes. Well, here's a tip: from 1 July, every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut under Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts—something that those opposite were not going to do. They were just going to shove it to those earning the most. On cutting wasteful spending, here's a tip: we've cut over $70 billion of wasteful spending. That has led to the first two surplus budgets this country has seen in nearly 20 years. The bloke who spoke before me said, 'We need a surplus,' and spoke of 10 years of deficits. You know where the 10 years of deficits were? They were under their government. Under their government, they racked up a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, with nothing much to show for it.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this important motion from the member for Groom. I know that Labor is a party that enjoys higher taxes and higher cost of living; we have certainly seen that play out over the first couple of years of this government.

But, come 1 July, Labor has yet another tax for the Australian people. It's a tax on superannuation—a direct attack on all Australians who work hard. Superannuation is important for all Australians. It has become, of course, an essential contribution in assisting Australians to retire comfortably. At its heart, super is a reward for a career's worth of hard work, but this Labor government sees superannuation not as money belonging to hardworking Australians but as another opportunity to raise revenue. This tax will hurt Australians.

Labor claims it will only affect a few—and we heard those arguments just before—but the Grattan Institute rightfully points out that it has found, through its analysis, that, within 30 years, one in every 10 workers will be stung with this tax when they retire. Given the amount of inflation we've seen over recent years, who knows how many more will be affected over the course of those three decades. That number alone is 200 times more than the number Labor is predicting it will impact.

In Monopoly, there's a square you can land on called 'Super Tax'. It sits between the two most sought-after properties on the board and just before you collect $200 for passing go. Just when you thought you might get ahead, the super tax on the Monopoly board is, of course, a kick in the guts. Similarly, Labor's super tax is a kick in the guts to all hardworking Australians, because it means that the superannuation that they have accumulated to retire on is reduced.

The future of super, which this Labor government threatens, is important to all Australians, but especially so, of course, to younger Australians. We heard from the member for Groom about the impact that this will have on some of our farmers. But of course the massive impact will be on future generations of Australians who will have to face the impact of this unindexed threshold.

In the coalition, we believe in the importance of young Australians being empowered to utilise their super. We want young Australians to be able to save and build their super for retirement, if they choose. But, as a housing crisis has emerged, as we have seen under the failure of this government—and of state governments, I note—to boost housing supply, we want those young people to have the option to use a small amount of their super to help towards a housing deposit, so that they can break into the housing market.

Every time the topic of superannuation emerges, our Labor opponents immediately try to take some sort of moral high ground on this front, and we have seen that already from the member for Bruce. They claim we're coming after young Australians by daring to give them the financial freedom to utilise their own money for what they need. We've seen the studies: we've seen that the major factor that impacts on or influences an Australian's ability to have a comfortable retirement is whether they own their own home.

That's what our coalition policy is about, in allowing people to access their super. Once they've realised that asset—once they've sold the asset—they have to add the funds, plus a return, back into their super account. It's a policy that makes sense. It's a policy that's actually implemented in super schemes across a whole range of other Western nations that have similar arrangements to us. It's certainly a policy whose time has come. It's a policy that I'm sure many young Australians are looking forward to casting their ballot on, whether it be later this year or early next year, in relation to having the opportunity to use some of their funds to climb that first step on the housing ladder.

Labor are playing with Australian workers' futures to try to fix the shambolic economic mess they presided over. They continue to tax so that the Treasurer can get up on budget night trumpeting about a surplus budget. But, as the member for Groom noted, it's a short-term surplus for long-term pain. While Australians struggle, the taxes pile up and inflation will increase. Of course, this isn't just a tax on the richer end of Australian society. As we head into the coming decades this will be a tax on every Australian. It's a tax on the future of young Australians. As this tax will only really become apparent to many Australians once they reach retirement age, Labor's plan is to covertly welcome super taxes into our system. We know that the current economic situation is tough, and we know it's only going to get tougher under this government.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion, while wrapped in concern for young Australians and their financial future, is nothing more than another example of the Liberal Party's ongoing attack on our superannuation system. It's an affront to the principles underpinning the security and dignity of retirement for millions of Australians. But, to be honest, it shows the consistency of the Liberals' attitude towards super and its purpose.

Labor built the superannuation system. We have always been, and will always be, the party that stands for a fair and secure retirement for all Australians through a fair system of compulsory savings. The superannuation system was created by Labor in 1992. It is one of the great economic and social success stories of our nation. It has grown into a nearly $4 trillion pool of savings, making it one of the largest pension funds in the world. This system is not just a collection of individual accounts. It's a collective promise that every Australian should have a dignified retirement.

The member for Groom's motion notes the importance of superannuation, especially for young Australians. I couldn't agree more. However, the actions of those proposing this motion speak louder than their words. Time and time again the Liberal Party have shown that their true intent is to undermine the very foundations of what makes our superannuation system great. The Liberal Party's track record speaks for itself. They opposed super when it was first brought into this place, arguing that higher contributions would reduce take-home pay and burden employers. They have opposed increases to the superannuation guarantee rate. They've frozen it, and they've delayed planned increases. They have continually tried to undermine and interfere with industry super, attacking its governance and fund arrangements, all while industry super outperforms its competitors.

Then, during the pandemic, they allowed the early release of super—against advice—resulting in around $36 billion being withdrawn from super accounts in a matter of months. They let young people raid their retirement savings to underpin their flawed response to the pandemic. It will cost these young people, and it will cost our country in due course. A young person who took advantage of Scott Morrison's scheme is estimated to be $120,000 worse off in retirement. But what those opposite failed to acknowledge is that these contributions are essential for ensuring that workers have enough savings to retire comfortably. They suggest that we should allow first home buyers to do the same—to use their superannuation savings to purchase property—which sounds like a nice idea on the surface, before you take a second to look at the facts.

Analysis has shown that such a policy not only would fail to increase housing affordability but would likely inflate median city property prices by around $75,000. This would make homeownership more out of reach for many young Australians—the very opposite of what the policy claims to achieve. Moreover, and most importantly, it would erode the retirement savings that these young Australians will rely on in the future. This is not a solution. It's a disaster in making both housing affordability and retirement security even harder. It would strip away the future financial security of young Australians under the guise of homeownership. Instead of creating a pathway to owning a home, it would drive up house prices and deepen the housing affordability crisis. If the coalition were serious about housing affordability, they would support measures in the parliament aimed at increasing supply. Instead, they propose this reckless policy time and time again, one that they took to the last election, which they were defeated at, that seeks to attack compulsory superannuation.

Our government, on the other hand, is acting to protect the integrity of the superannuation system for all Australians. We want to protect and strengthen it. We are focused on legislating the objective of super to ensure that it remains a robust system that can't be dismantled in short-term political interests. We are committed to policies that support Australians in both their working lives and their retirement. The superannuation system is not just a financial mechanism; it's a cornerstone of social equity in Australia. It ensures that people from all walks of life can build a nest egg that supports them in retirement.

The Liberals' repeated attacks on the system are not about protecting young Australians; they are about undermining a collective system that they have historically ideologically opposed. This motion is just a thinly veiled attempt to justify policies that would harm the long-term financial security of Australians, particularly the young. Their continual attacks on super, where they want Australians to raid their balances, must be opposed at every turn.

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

Thank you to the member for Groom for putting forward this very important motion in response to yet another one of the Albanese Labor government's harebrained ideas. Let me set the scene for you: the year is 2024, and, instead of living the Australian dream, we're stuck in a Labor created nightmare. Every Australian is struggling through this Labor created cost-of-living crisis. Inflation has skyrocketed. Groceries and fuel are becoming increasingly impossible to afford. The energy future of this country is in jeopardy, and those opposite won't even have a mature conversation about it. Our rural and regional roads are in disrepair. Our primary industries are warding off attack after attack. Hardworking young Australians everywhere are barely able to afford the necessities, let alone save for a house deposit or make any real plan to safeguard their future, because under Labor their future looks bleak.

In times of hardship, a reasonable person might start thinking about how they can help a person who's struggling, but we know that the Labor government is not reasonable. Instead, while Australians everywhere are doing it tough, they have decided to bring in legislation that would take more money away from them. Because those on the other side of the House can't manage their own money, they come after yours.

So what have they done? By introducing the Treasury laws amendment bill 2024, the Albanese Labor government has broken yet another one of their promises. Despite making promises of no changes to superannuation before the election, the Albanese Labor government are doubling the amount of tax that Australians will have to pay on their superannuation, which now takes that tax that they will collect from the Australian public's hard-earned superannuation from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. But don't worry; they're only doubling the tax for people who have $3 million in their super accounts. 'It won't impact that many people,' said the Prime Minister.

The single biggest issue I have with this bill is that there is no indexation. According to comments by the Grattan Institute, within 30 years about one in 10 workers will begin to retire with super balances that will be subject to the Labor government's higher taxes on superannuation. That is 200 times more people that will be impacted by this bill than the government is claiming. Who are the people who are retiring in 30 years time? Those young Aussies who are barely making ends meet because of this Labor created cost-of-living crisis—the very same Australians struggling to pay their bills, struggling to put fuel in their cars and struggling to put food on the table, who have no money left over by the end of the week to put into savings, let alone being able to top up their super from time to time so they don't have to rely on the government as they get older and can't work anymore.

Just doubling the tax wasn't enough, though, because those opposite want to impose this tax on unrealised capital gains as well. So, even if the younger generations can afford to break into the investment market through a self-managed super fund, they might be asset rich but cash poor, and if their land valuation increases they have to pay tax on it. They will be paying tax on paper gains, and that is absolutely ridiculous. This does not happen anywhere else in the world—nowhere. But that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government's going to do.

This bill is a blatant cash grab from those opposite, and that is why I need to be on the record supporting the member for Groom's motion today. Those of us on this side of the House get out of bed every day and try to make lasting and positive change for the people of Australia, and that's why we're calling on the government to abolish their plans to introduce higher taxes on superannuation. We're calling on the government to enable young Australians to use their tax advantaged superannuation contributions to buy their first home, which at present is so far out of reach, and we're calling on the government to protect all Australians from a bleak future as a result their economic mismanagement. We need to lower taxes, cut the wasteful, inflationary spending and end this current Labor created costs-of-living crisis.

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

Above all else in this country, we believe that all of those who call Australia home deserve a fair go. This idea of fairness and egalitarianism should be so ingrained in us as a people that it is part of our national identity. Superannuation was founded on this idea. We believe that those who've worked all their life to build this country for the better deserve to be well looked after in their retirement. Labor established the universal superannuation system, and, like Medicare and the NDIS, this nation-building policy continues to improve Australian lives. The superannuation system now has a capital pool of nearly $4 trillion, which represents one of the world's largest pension funds, despite us being only the 13th-largest economy. The average Australian now receives around $200,000 from their superannuation fund to support their dignified and comfortable retirement. I'm sure the member for Dawson would realise that not many battlers have got $3 million in their superannuation fund.

However, the superannuation system could be even fairer, and that's exactly what the Labor government is focused on delivering. Superannuation rightly gives generous tax concessions to Australians building up their retirement savings, and it encourages the magic of compound interest. Our proposed changes would impact the 0.5 per cent of people with a superannuation account balance over $3 million. These changes do not remove tax concessions for the 0.5 per cent of people with over $3 million in superannuation but would reform them to ensure that it's fairer and more sustainable. If you've got $3,000,0001 in super, that dollar over $3 million would be taxed at 30 per cent and the dollar below $3 million would be taxed at 15 per cent. Our changes do not alter the amount of money that can be invested in super funds, and they only apply to future earnings.

As the super system is dedicated to the principles of fairness, I'm not surprised that those opposite are completely incapable of understanding the purpose of superannuation: a dignified retirement. But the utter contempt that we've seen from those opposite for the idea of working people having a dignified retirement is quite amazing. I do know that those opposite allowed Australians to withdraw super during the pandemic, and that cost Australians nearly $40 billion in savings—savings that were meant to last them a lifetime. It was private stimulus that was good for the economy, and it certainly helped a lot of sectors during the pandemic, but it wasn't without great private cost. A young person could be as much as $120,000 worse off in retirement because of the financial recklessness of the coalition. We heard about ending the weekend and we've heard that the member for Dickson now wants to end your retirement.

Make no mistake, the coalition is engaged in an all-out attack on the rights of Australians to access a good, healthy retirement. They did this while in government, and now in opposition they're vowing to do it again by facilitating Australians to dig into their retirement savings and use their super to buy their first home. Let's be clear: there is no aspect of the member for Groom's plan that is good for Australians. Firstly, the coalition's housing plan would not actually build any new houses, when we know that supply is the issue. Secondly, the Super Members Council has shown that the coalition's plan would drive up the cost of housing by around $75,000—nice work, geniuses! Thirdly, it would have a devastating impact on the retirement savings of millions of Australians, as I said, by demolishing the magic of compound interest. No new homes, increasing the cost of existing housing and destroying a comfortable retirement. It sounds like this policy was cooked up in one of their nuclear reactors!

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12 : 25 to 12 : 35

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

John Kerin, when he delivered his 1991 budget, said superannuation is the cornerstone of encouraging greater self-provision that will help improve retirement living standards and will reduce the budgetary cost of the pension system as the population ages into the next century. I do rise to speak on this motion, brought by the honourable member for Groom, which concerns the way that the Albanese Labor government is now taxing superannuation, bringing in taxes that were not announced or discussed during the election period and that will particularly affect younger Australians. At the moment, younger Australians are already facing a current cost-of-living crisis, with less money in their pay cheques each week. Now this government is going to ensure they have less money into the future as well, because this government is now increasing taxes on our superannuation.

Since 1992, in Australia we've had an enforced savings scheme with compulsory superannuation, but governments—and this government in particular—need to remember that this is Australians' own money. It is Australia's money to deliver quality of life in retirement, not a piggy bank for governments to tax and spend. Despite the promise of no changes to superannuation before the election, the government is now proposing to effectively double superannuation taxes on one in 10 Australians by the time they retire. When the government brought the legislation in, it said, 'There will only be a few of you affected.' That is not true, because the government has failed to index the taxation threshold, which means that, at the moment, the average 25-year-old in Australia will be paying this tax, double the tax that is currently being paid on superannuation balances over $3 million. Analysis of ATO and census data reveals that more than two million Australians currently under the age of 25 will also be slugged with this tax. How can this government in any way say that it is trying to look after younger Australians now and into the future? It should be empowering and incentivising younger Australians to save for a comfortable retirement.

Confidence in our superannuation system is always eroded whenever governments come in and make ad hoc changes to superannuation that were not accounted for. When people are planning for retirement, they do it as a long-term strategy. They get advice and then, without anything being said about it before the election, this government comes in and is effectively doubling the rate of tax on superannuation.

Even worse than that, this government is also going to tax unrealised capital gains. This means that Australians will be paying tax on paper gains. This will especially affect farmers and also a lot of small-business owners, who may move assets into their superannuation scheme. They will now be paying tax on that even though those assets are not, in fact, income generating. This is an abhorrent use of the tax policy. Taxation of unrealised gains is particularly unfair to people such as farmers and small-business owners. We can look, for example, at what Mr Peter Burgess of the SMSF Association said:

Taxing unrealised capital gains is a tax on market movements and changes in asset values, not on income …

This government, in bringing in this tax, is in fact going against all of the usual principles for the way that taxes should be imposed.

While we're on superannuation, I've previously spoken about the links between superannuation funds and the union movement. I particularly commend the work of Senator Andrew Bragg in the other place, who has recently pointed out that superannuation funds paid $10 million in political payments to unions from 2021 to 2022. Superannuation needs to be looked at, but not in the way that this government has taxed it in this latest budget.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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