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

I rise to speak on the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 and the associated Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. I do welcome this bill, and I welcome the government's approach to the superannuation system in its current form, not in its previous form. I'd like to talk a little bit about why it's important and why I think it is a useful reform, and, at the same time, why I disagree very strongly with the previous speaker and how they characterised that reform. I'm very wary of people setting up reforms as class warfare. I think that that does not help this country stay together. Certainly some of the language that has been used around these bills is not helpful to making reforms which are genuinely useful.

I have spoken to my community a lot about superannuation, about its purpose and about what people want. Particularly when the government first floated changes in the superannuation system, I went out to my community. We had over 1,100 people respond to a survey, and over 80 per cent of people said they do support changing tax concessions on super, reducing some of the highest tax concessions and, indeed, increasing tax concessions for less wealthy people because they see the need for that. It was interesting. I had a number of people write in to say: 'The current tax concessions actually are beneficial to me personally, but I still support reform because I do want to make sure that all Australians can have good lives and I think that this is a reform that is appropriate.' It's that spirit that I do think the speakers particularly on the Labor side, given the language of the previous speaker, need to bear in mind.

I represent a lot of wealthy Australians who are very concerned that people across the country aren't able to live dignified and decent lives. I represent many people who are well off who worry about their kids and their grandkids and, frankly, even if their kids and grandkids are sorted out, they worry that other Australians who are working hard just can't get ahead. So they worry about that. They are open to reforms. I have had many people recently say, 'I'm benefiting from various concessions, but I support change here because it can help other people.' So when members of parliament demonise those people and say, 'It's just the wealthy, so it doesn't matter if we take money away from them because there are only a few of them,' it doesn't help. It's actually not going to help drive the reform that the country needs in a way that the country can stay together on. I just really warn people to consider this as they are considering these bills.

Why do I think this reform is appropriate? It is genuinely because we have a tax system and a broader economic system at the moment which has various features which I think have delivered outcomes that we don't really want. I'm going to talk specifically to some of those outcomes. For instance, in this country, if there are two families living next door to each other, both on 100 grand, the older, retired family, on average, pays half the tax of the younger family. A younger family is likely less wealthy, unlikely to own their own home, or certainly less likely to have paid it off, and more likely to have significant costs to them, such as child care or paying off HECS debts. A wealthier family, on average, pays half the tax as a younger working family. I just don't think that makes sense and I don't think that is fair.

At the same time as we saw from 2004 to 2016 the wealth of households over the age of 65 grow by around 50 per cent, the wealth of households under the age of 35 didn't move. So we've ended up with a bit of a generation gap emerging which I think has only grown since then, although we don't actually have the numbers. And so we have a situation where younger Australians are struggling to meet the milestones of their parents. We have a 20 per cent drop in homeownership for younger Australians compared to previous generations. So we do have real challenges in the social compact that we are offering younger Australians and that we're actually offering the broader Australian group—that sense that, if you get a decent job and you work hard, you should be able to create a decent life for yourself whether your parents can help you or not.

I think it is really important that as a parliament we consider this. This is one of the issues that I have championed the entire time I've been elected. That is why I support the government looking at tax in a way to make sure that all Australians, regardless of background, can afford decent lives for themselves and their families. I think that is something that, as a country, we do want. Let's come to the detail of this bill. There are many causes for some of the challenges in our system at the moment—there's low productivity and the lack of housing supply—but, certainly, the superannuation system has played a part. We do have a superannuation system where the concessions are very generous. It's appropriate to have concessions on superannuation. We lock people's money up for a long period of time. We say that they can't access it until a certain age. So I think it is extremely appropriate that there are concessions in the superannuation system above and beyond the progressive concessions in the working tax system. That is appropriate.

Then the question is: are the levels of concessions appropriate? This is where I have a lot of common ground with, and where I do support, the government's bill. I think it is fair. When I talk to my community about the purpose of superannuation, and the purpose of giving people concessions for superannuation, people very much do agree that the point of the concessions in superannuation is to support people to have a dignified retirement. That's something that the country can unite on: we want people to have a dignified retirement. We do not want people to be in poverty or to be insecure in their later years.

There is a financial benefit to the country as well. If we have a decent superannuation system, where people can have a dignified retirement, then they also have less recourse to the public purse and to age pensions. There is a sense that that is the purpose of super. I then look at my community and how they look at superannuation concessions currently and ask, 'Do they support that?' They do support a dignified retirement, but, in some cases, the concessions well and truly go beyond what is needed for a dignified retirement. That is why, on balance, I support pulling back the concessions on high-value super funds: because the concession should be directed towards supporting a dignified retirement, but it is unnecessary to give additional concessions that go beyond supporting that dignified retirement.

I want to flag a conversation I had with someone in my electorate about this. A man came up to me—he was probably about my age, in his 40s—and he said, 'I'm concerned that what we're doing is giving concessions to people who have significantly more wealth in retirement than the childcare worker who looks after my kid every day.' That really stuck with me, because I think that is the question. Tax concessions are a choice. We don't have a lot to go around. The question is: Are they being applied in the way that we think is best for the country? Is it fair, consistent, economically efficient and predictable? Those are some of the themes we should consider with regard to our tax concessions.

I think, in this case, where the government has landed is appropriate. And I will say that if the government had been taxing unrealised gains—as it had initially intended to do—I wouldn't have supported this bill, even though I do support changing tax concessions. I made this point in various forms to the Treasurer and to others and played a significant role, I think, in working with others so the previous form of the bill did not go ahead in the last parliament. When I talk to my community, people do steadfastly support pulling back superannuation concessions, particularly when they can support people with lower balances to build more effective super. But the taxation of unrealised gains is bad policy.

It is inappropriate and would certainly have unintended consequences, particularly in the innovation sector—in the startup sector—as well as for other groups. That is why I strongly opposed that part of the policy. I want to recognise that it's not easy to change your mind publicly and that the Treasurer changed his mind publicly, restructured the package, indexed the thresholds and removed unrealised gains. I think that this is a much better policy and package for it. I will give the Treasurer enormous credit for being able to do that, because I'm sure it wasn't easy. I'm sure it wasn't necessarily what he wanted to do. But he listened to feedback. I think that is actually what people expect from us here in the parliament.

That's really where I want to leave my comments. The only thing I would say further is that what I do want to see, and what I think this government should be doing, is linking any changes—any reductions in tax concessions—to meaningful reductions in income taxes for working-age people so that it's not just more money in the government coffers. I think this is really important. When you listen to Australians talk about tax—and we're talking about tax, which is a really positive move—there is a great deal of concern that tax increases, and this is a tax increase, just go to government coffers and that governments can sometimes spend without as much oversight as you would like and sometimes, frankly, on things that are pretty political as opposed to what best benefits the country. There is a distrust around government spending—that it isn't as effective as it could be and that government doesn't always use every single dollar as well and as thoughtfully as we do in our homes.

Again, I'll comment on the words of the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, who I have enormous respect for. He said something like 'it's not many people whose money it is and so it doesn't really matter'. I don't want to verbal him, but I want to acknowledge that it's not the government's money that they're touching. It's somebody else's money, so we need to show respect. We need to make a strong case if we are going to make changes to the money that people have and those tax arrangements. I think that is really important.

The government, if it is contemplating any more tax changes in the budget, should keep the covenant with the Australian people that, for any additional tax that it raises, it should give it back in income tax concessions. It's not only important on principle; it is important because younger working people are really hurting right now. They are really struggling with the cost of living. Tax concessions is a way that you can actually make a real difference to people's lives, and in a quick way. It is important because government spending has grown at a rate that I think most Australians have some concerns about. It was just over 24 per cent when the government came into power. It is now at 26.9 per cent. That is a significant growth in government spending. Honestly, it is important that government spending is pulled back over time, because I think that that level of growth and spending is definitely unsustainable.

These are the core reasons why I think it is really important that the government uses any sort of money that is raised to give back to Australians who are struggling, particularly younger people who really feel like they can't get ahead. The numbers bear them out. They can't get ahead. They're spending less on non-essentials than previous generations did. They're not building wealth like they used to. They are not meeting the milestone of buying a house like they used to. They're not having kids like they used to. We know that money and economic circumstances are playing into this.

So I do support the bill, but I think the government needs to link any tax increases to tax reductions. I forgive the government in this case because they did announce a tax cut for the lowest tax level before the election, so I'm letting them balance this one out. I'm giving credit for that. But I think any credits after that should be returned to the people as tax concessions on working because that's where they are really needed.

See this speech in context