Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Treasurer has some explaining to do. He really does, because this legislation bells the cat on his failure. On his watch, what we saw was a proposal by the Australian Labor Party to put in an unrealised capital gain. Who would that have hurt the most? It would have hurt farmers, who already do it tough with the vagaries of the weather, of markets and of international volatility. They were going to be hit with an unrealised capital gains tax. Let's call it what it was: a tax, a proposed slug on them, which would have been so very unfair.

With that unrealised gain, what we would have seen would have been farmers whose properties went up in value, increased in worth, then being hit with a tax bill on the price of that land going up even though they weren't going to sell it. Because it had increased in value, they were going to be hit with a tax bill. What were they supposed to do—hive off a paddock or three to pay the tax bill that those opposite wanted to slug them with? Thankfully, public perception and people power has seen that particular element of this particular piece of legislation removed, and thank goodness for that.

The government has agreed to index the $3 million threshold, preventing bracket creep from slowly expanding the tax base over time. What we see through those two concepts alone—the unrealised paper gains, protecting SMSFs holding farms and small businesses from being taxed on gains that they have not made, and the indexation of the $3 million threshold—is the government and its Treasurer admitting they got it badly wrong. Thankfully, they could admit that that error needed amending, and it has been amended. But will you hear any member opposite, in their contributions on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, admit that? No, I don't think you will.

I certainly don't think you will hear any admission that this was going to be an unfair slug on our farmers, who are already, particularly in Western Australia, facing the reality that, if they sell sheepmeat to the Middle East, they won't have a trade in the future, with the live export ban. Farmers in the Murray-Darling are facing the prospect of less water because more productive water has been taken and used for the environmental purposes that this government is pushing. Farmers are already faced with the prospect of paying higher fuel costs because of the situation in Iran, and let's not forget the high energy prices which just keep going up and up. The people that that hurts most are small-business owners and farmers, farmers who grow our food and fibre.

Another thing that you won't hear from those opposite in their speeches on this important bill is the situation surrounding Shield and First Guardian and the collapses in the managed investment schemes. I appreciate that the government is planning to tighten the rules around MISs and to give the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, more power to demand information. But those Shield and First Guardian collapses cost people their life savings. It destroyed some people, unfairly and tragically so. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, being one of those people on the cusp of a well-earned retirement, looking forward to your twilight years, knowing that you had that nest egg there, and all of a sudden having it taken away? It's so very unfair, and it's on Labor's watch—on this government's watch.

In a 10 February 2026 ABC news article, business reporters Ben Butler and Nassim Khadem wrote:

About 12,000 Australians poured $1.1 billion in retirement savings into the two funds, which collapsed in 2024 and 2025 amid what incoming ASIC chair Sarah Court has described as 'industrial scale misconduct'.

They're not my words. They go on:

Investors in First Guardian, many of whom switched from highly regulated super funds into the product, face little prospect of recovery directly from the fund, with liquidators in December saying just $1.6 million of $446 million tipped into it had been recovered—not enough to pay their fees.

In order to recover money for investors, the corporate watchdog has instead launched a series of lawsuits against companies responsible for overseeing the fund.

Have we heard the Treasurer explain what was going to be done for those investors? Yes, many of those investors switched from highly-regulated super funds, but they did it based on good information, and, let's not forget, they did it during a period that Labor was in government.

Labor talks about being the party and the government of superannuation. They're proud to beat their chest about it and proud to spruik it. They condemn us for supposedly not supporting it. I listened carefully to the contributions of the member for Holt and the member for Moreton. The member for Holt talked about $36 billion being taken out during COVID. She said it 'had depleted or emptied' some of their superannuation pools of money. But what she didn't say is that it's investors' money. What Labor people never understand is that it's actually the money of the investors. It's not their companies' money. It's not the unions' money—although she did mention the unions, because Labor members are always beholden to unions. I can say that, having been a member of a union for 21 years; nobody can criticise me in that regard.

See this speech in context