Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

r SCARR (—) (): At the heart of the motion that we're discussing this afternoon is a broken promise. Those on the other side of the chamber can get up in this place and accuse those of us sitting on the other side of various nefarious things, but it was their Prime Minister who gave a guarantee to the Australian people before the election that there would be no changes to the superannuation system. That's what we're debating here—a broken promise. When we reflect on how the public perceives us, as politicians, as representatives in this place, all of us, collectively, got a little bit hurt when the Prime Minister broke an ironclad promise. This is what our Prime Minister said on 2 May 2022, less than 12 months ago:

We've said we have no intention to make any super changes.

That's not qualified. It's not, 'We'll consider it; we'll look at the budget position.' Everyone knew what the budget position was before the last federal election; in fact, it has improved through the forecasts. The Prime Minister made an ironclad guarantee—'We've said we have no intention to make any super changes'—and he's broken his promise. The Australian people have a legitimate right to expect that, when we say before an election that we're going to do something—whichever party we're from—we'll do it, and that if we say we're not going to do something we won't go ahead and do it anyway. That is the fundamental issue that we're debating here today, and the people of Australia will reflect upon it. They will reflect upon the fact that an ironclad guarantee was given less than 12 months ago and now a promise has been broken.

They will also reflect upon how this has been done. Questions were asked today of the finance minister, and I note she took a number of them on notice, as she's entitled to do. I read the Treasury's five-page 'Better targeted superannuation concessions' paper. From the way I read it, it's quite clear that unrealised capital gains will be treated and taxed as if they're earnings. This is a problem in terms of people's superannuation funds. Let me tell you why. Say, for example, you had a share in BHP—and there would be many, many superannuation funds with shares in BHP. On 30 June 2008, the share price of BHP was $43.76. On 30 June 2012, it was $31.45. The next year it was $35.90. We're talking about year on year capital increases; according to Treasury's guidance, any increase in the value of those shares, even if you haven't disposed of them, will be taxed. That is clearly inappropriate for superannuation funds, where you want to maintain the assets and stability over a cycle. It is clearly inappropriate.

It baffles me how the Treasury could come up with this. The reason they give is that they think it's going to be easier for superannuation funds to administer, but I don't understand how anyone who has any working knowledge of what long-term investment strategies mean in practice could promote an idea where people are going to be liquidating their assets in the short term to fund tax liabilities. It doesn't make any sense. I call upon the finance minister to liaise with the Treasurer and the Treasury department and consult with them on this, because it does not make sense. It particularly doesn't make sense for our farming communities, where many farming families put the family property into a self-managed super fund. At times of drought, the value of the farm goes through the floor. When we have good seasons, beef prices are high, wheat prices are high, and the value of the fund goes up. But if that value is unrealised, it should not be taxed. That is a simple proposition. I call upon those opposite to reflect deeply on that, because it would be a travesty if that system were introduced.