Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberals used to pretend they were standing up for working people. Now we know they're only standing up for the 0.5 per cent, and not the fact that 0.5 per cent are paying an appropriate amount of tax for the fact that they should be turning around in superannuation and paying an amount of tax which is appropriate to the amount of money they have. We all know, the country knows it—the people opposite me don't know it—that superannuation was built on the fact that its purpose was to make sure that we have money set aside for every Australian to be able to retire in a good and faithful way.

The Liberals have abandoned Howard's battlers. They're now just about Dutton's billionaires. We've initiated a response to the fact that $1 trillion worth of debt has been placed onto this country because of the excessive and inappropriate nature of how these people recklessly spent without investing to improve productivity in this country. Not only did we see wages go down but we saw productivity go down, because they flopped it, they failed. We as a country are paying the consequences.

What we're saying to those many billionaires is that, yes, there's still a tax benefit but the tax benefit has changed. Someone will have to turn around and look at this minor change to make sure that we have the opportunity to start paying down their debt. The people most capable of paying that down are the ones who are still getting a tax benefit—but not the tax benefit they were receiving for a scheme that they've been rorting, against the intent of the scheme. The scheme was always for making sure there was a fair and reasonable retirement scheme.

What we've been saying is that those people in the 0.5 per cent who have turned around and minimised their tax—not illegally but against the spirit of what that legislation was and because of the nature of what those opposite have done with a $1 trillion debt—should turn around and make a contribution. They still have an opportunity between now and the election to work out how they deal with those changes in circumstances.

I want to point out one of the billionaires these people across the way are supporting. Billionaire property magnate John Gandel has slammed the federal government's proposed change. I'm reading from an article by Ms Sambul on 2 March, in the Sydney Morning Herald. Sambul says:

Gandel made the criticism on Wednesday at the launch of a $70 million entertainment precinct at the huge Chadstone shopping centre in Melbourne's south-east that he co-owns with the Vicinity Centres property group.

The mall magnate was frustrated by the government's decision to double the tax on earnings on superannuation balances over $3 million and said it would inevitably affect more than just the country's top earners.

Gandel said:

A tax hike on the top earners of the country who've worked hard in this country will always come down on the middle class.

This is John Gandel, right?

For those who don't recall some of the history with super, those opposite stopped the lowest paid people in this country—people who were getting the minimum superannuation, on International Women's Day, particularly women who are disadvantaged under superannuation—from getting the superannuation guarantee increase. In fact, from 2014 to 2020, from the Per Capita inquiry into the super consequences of their delay, it cost the average worker on $50-odd thousand a year $4,300. Nine per cent of their entire income for a year was stolen by these people across here. And they're worrying about Mr Gandel!

Of course Gandel is worried about the middle class. No, on second thoughts, I've looked and I've looked and he's never spoken about the fact that the minimum increase for the superannuation guarantee had to be fixed for the middle class. He's conflating his own self-interest. That $4,300 that would have been going to the dozens and hundreds and thousands of people who work in companies that he directly employs or employs through his developments would have got that money. So he pocketed that money. And guess where he put it? I guess he put it into his superannuation scheme. He took it out of theirs and put it into his. That's what he did. Dutton's billionaires won out. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, here we go again—the third day of the three sitting days this week where we're getting a slightly different version of the 'pity the multimillionaires' routine that the Liberal-National party loves so much to run. It's really interesting that they would include farmers in their wording on this motion. I talk to a lot of farmers, and the No. 1 thing, almost universally—the very first thing—farmers bring up with me is climate change. What do we hear from the Liberals on climate change? How to oppose real climate action. That's what we hear from the Liberals.

We've just had 10 successive rate rises by the RBA, absolutely smashing anyone, including farmers, who is carrying debt. And what do we hear from Mr Dutton about that? Absolutely nothing. Yet here we go, when the only people who are going to be affected by the government's very modest fiddling-at-the-margins proposal on superannuation tax concessions are the multimillionaires: suddenly, 'What about the hardworking farmers?' Well, undoubtedly many farmers do work hard, but I want to make the point that just because somebody is a hardworking farmer doesn't mean they're not rich, and it doesn't mean that if they are rich they shouldn't be paying their fair share of tax. If farmers are going to be impacted by the changes that Labor is proposing to the superannuation tax concessions then, by definition, they are at the wealthy and of the spectrum.

This is just another example of the LNP using farmers to run their 'pity the multimillionaires' argument. But of course this is more than just a 'pity the multimillionaires' argument we're hearing today. Calling on Labor not to break election promises is of course the way the Liberals are defending their much-loved stage 3 tax cuts for the top end—defending a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts that the top 20 per cent of earners get 80 per cent of the benefit of—and, on International Women's Day, defending a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts where men get twice the benefit of women. Happy International Women's Day, everyone on the LNP side of the chamber! The are coming in here and defending the stage 3 tax cuts, where women will get only half the benefit that men do. Shame on you all.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just heard it: the Labor-Greens alliance never met a tax they didn't like. We've just heard it from Senator McKim, claiming to know the views of farmers. Well, I do talk to farmers, Senator McKim. I talk to farmers every day, and I have talked to a number of farmers on this superannuation issue, and I can tell you right now that they are concerned about these issues.

Senator Ayres interjecting—

You laugh, Senator Ayres, but farmers are concerned about these issues, and I'll explain to you why, because I don't think you understand, and I don't think this government understands. I certainly know the Greens don't understand. Farmers are not necessarily cash rich. They have significant assets at various times, but they are not cash rich. One of the legitimate ways they prepare for their retirement is to put farming property into super funds. And this is not just true of farmers; this is true of small-business owners, particularly in regional areas, where they will put their premises into their super fund. It is true of professionals, not just in—

You're laughing at the farmers again, Senator Ayres. These are professionals, not just in regional Australia but also in our capital cities, where professionals put their offices into their super funds, and then the farmer will retire. Their super fund may not be generating large amounts of cash. In fact, it may be generating only enough cash to pay a pension. So, what happens then, when they get this tax bill from the government? What happens when they get this tax bill? I want all Australians out there to understand that a $3 million landholding in a super fund is not a massive amount. A property that was purchased, say, in the 1980s and placed into a super fund could easily have appreciated. So you've got a super fund—

which has got a large physical asset in it, Senator McKim, but it's not generating that much cash. It's only generating enough cash for the person involved to take out their pension. So what do they do when they get the tax bill from the government? Either they have to pay the tax out of their own pocket or they have to sell assets. That is the reality of what the government is proposing here today. This doesn't just affect farmers; this affects small-business owners who have their property assets and possibly their business in their super fund. Again, these are people who don't necessarily take an income directly. They don't necessarily have a lot of cash to put in super. They have a physical asset in super. This is the first time that the appreciation in the value of that physical asset is being taxed before the asset is realised. Before the sale of an asset is turned into cash, it is being taxed. That is grossly unfair. We're seeing this from the government, in alliance with the Greens, and we can see the Greens trying to push them into even more taxes, and the Labor government will pretend they're resisting, but they'll go along with it in the end, because they've never seen a tax they don't like.

Farmers are worried about this. I've spoken to farmers. I've said to farmers, 'You're in this position, but how many of your fellow farmers would have property in self-managed superannuation?' The words that were said back to me were, 'Definitely the majority.' This is not an unusual practice. This is not a big-end-of-town practice. This is not something that only highly wealthy farming families do. This is a legitimate way of planning for their retirements in a way that is completely legal and completely allowed. They plan for their retirements by putting this property, whether it's farming property, residential property, real estate property, business premises or professional offices, into their super funds to plan for their retirement. They don't necessarily have a lot of cash. That's the reality of a lot of small-business owners. They're not cash rich; they may have assets. They may have assets that, in those opposite's view, put them in the big end of the town, but they're cash poor. If you're taxing an unrealised asset, then the only way to find the cash to pay that tax is either to take it out of your own pocket or to sell the asset, which is a disgrace.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really glad to be here again to respond to the ridiculous claims being made by the opposition. I'm happy to explain, in detail, exactly the modest proposal we have made. Apparently some of you still don't get it. First, I want to ask where this passion and concern was when you were in government. You have left us with a trillion dollars of debt and nothing to show for it. So why now is there hysteria as we propose these modest changes to repair the budget? The hypocrisy from those on the other side is astounding, and Australians can see right through it.

Our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has always been honest and open with Australians, and we're happy to continue having this conversation. We're making modest adjustments to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances above $3 million. This change won't come into effect until after the next election. Ninety-nine point five per cent of Australians with super accounts will keep receiving the same generous tax breaks and 0.5 per cent of people with balances above $3 million will still receive tax breaks, just slightly less generous. There will continue to be no limit on the amount of money that people can put into super in the accumulation phase, and it applies to future earnings. It's not retrospective.

Since coming to government, we've been upfront about the challenges facing the economy and the budget. We inherited a trillion dollars of debt as well as growing spending pressures in defence, health, aged care and the NDIS. This is about responsible economic management, something I think those on the other side have yet to wrap their heads around. Right now, Australians are making hard choices around the kitchen table about their priorities, and it's important that the government does the same thing around the cabinet table.

Today, on International Women's Day, I also want to acknowledge that gender inequality exists within super. Women retire with less than men, and the average super balance of a woman is in the order of $140,000. The Labor Party is serious about doing more to address inequality while also repairing the budget. Part of addressing that is dealing with wage rises for feminised industries in which women are typically underpaid, such as aged care, which we have delivered already.

Our highest priority is targeted cost-of-living relief in the budget, while the Liberals' highest priority is bigger tax breaks for people who already have tens of millions of dollars in super. I think it's about time the opposition had a look in the mirror and got serious about helping Australians who need it. You could have chosen to rise to the moment and get serious about working for all Australians, but, instead, you've jumped straight into stoking fear and division.

The Liberals know, as well as we do, that they've left us with a trillion dollars of debt, and so it really astounds me that they now want us to borrow more money to subsidise people with millions of dollars already in their superannuation accounts. Is this really the hill you want to die on? Is this really more important than energy bill relief for pensioners, than more affordable housing for women fleeing domestic violence, than supporting manufacturing jobs? What about cheaper child care for families? I certainly don't see it that way. And, after hearing the contributions from senators opposite, I am even more thankful that the adults are back in charge.

We have to address the challenges in the budget. There's no getting around that, no beating around the bush and no burying our heads in the sand. We could make tax concessions for people with millions of dollars more sustainable, making the system fairer for everyone, or we could go after the most vulnerable like the Liberals did with robodebt and attacking Medicare.

I'm proud of our choices and I'm proud that our Treasurer and Prime Minister have been upfront with the Australian people. Don't forget that it was the Australian people who voted for us to clean your mess, the decade of delay, denial and destruction that you left them in.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (): Thank you, Senator Payman, for opening the way for me to remind people what they voted for. They voted for a government who said that they would cut electricity bills by $275—broken promise; that people would have cheaper mortgages—broken promise; that there would be no changes to superannuation—broken promise; there would be lower inflation—broken promise; and that they would not touch franking credits—broken promise. They said there would not be industry-wide bargaining as 'It's not part of our policy,'—broken promise. We will be doing our bit to assist real wage rises—broken promise. I could go on and on and on about broken promises. In fact, the only promise they won't break is the promise to go out and buy water from innocent farmers. But, I digress, on the real issue today.

The real issue today is that, while Senator Payman is talking about people with tens of millions of dollars in super and over in the other place the assistant treasurer is talking about people with hundreds of millions of dollars in super, the reality is what Labor want to do is tax people at a threshold of just $3 million. Why won't you talk about the $3 million, Senator Payman? Why won't the Assistant Treasurer in the other place talk about the $3 million? Because, as we learned this week, it's not 0.5 per cent of the population that these super taxes will hit; it's a minimum of 10 per cent of the population. In 30 years' time, someone who is 37 today, will be hit by these taxes when they're ready to retire.

Now we are learning that, when asked in question time today, the Assistant Treasurer basically admitted that, yes, farmers or family businesses who have their assets in self-managed super should have just put more money aside for liquidity fluctuations. He said, 'Super is about providing a retirement income stream,' but in the same breath said that the very people who've put assets in their super for their retirement income stream should have put more cash aside to pay their taxes. The Assistant Treasurer basically said that farmers holding farmland or family businesses holding their assets in self-managed super funds could be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes under Labor's superannuation changes due to nothing more than fluctuations in volatile commercial property prices.

We are not talking about the few people with mainstream super who have balances over $3 million. We are talking about the very same hardworking people who have planned for their retirement. As the Assistant Treasurer said today, 'Superannuation is about providing adequate retirement savings,' and that's exactly what these people we're talking about have been doing. Now they're being told, 'If your paper valuation of your assets goes up, you need enough liquid cash to be able to pay your tax.'

The National Farmers Federation have warned that these superannuation changes could cool investment in agriculture. I, for one, have been talking ad infinitum about the need for Australians to invest in Australian agriculture. We need Australian super firms to invest in Australian agriculture. Indeed, overseas super firms think Australian agriculture is a great investment. Look at the Canadian superannuation funds. They invest over here. They won't be hit by these taxes. But we will cool our own investment in Australian agriculture through these changes.

For many farmers, their farm is their superannuation, and it's not uncommon to hold land assets in superannuation. What we've learnt today is that Labor will tax unrealised paper gains. If that's a 'yes' for property, it's also a 'yes' for shares. If it's a 'yes' for shares, it must also then apply to defined benefit funds, which means it must also apply to the hundreds of Commonwealth public servants who have high superannuation pension funds. They will also be quaking in fear at what we are learning, drip by drip, just like water torture, every time we hear more about this Labor super tax.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Davey. The time for this discussion has expired.