Jamie Chaffey (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. We know the government's finances are in a mess. We will soon hit $1 trillion in debt, with an interest bill of $50,000 a minute. It's hard for most Australians to even think in terms of a trillion dollars. Not so long ago, a billion dollars seemed to be an enormous amount of money. Since the Albanese government came to office four years ago, $100 billion in debt has been added, so this government is obviously scrambling to find a way to keep the boat afloat.

Their initial super plan was to tax unrealised capital gains. We can all see why this is wrong. You are taxed on your earnings, you're taxed on your savings, you're taxed on your superannuation. The latest and greatest idea was to tax people on money that they had not even earnt yet. There is only so much that Australians can take, and this was a tax that went too far. That was super tax 1.0. As complicated as tax and superannuation can be, blind Freddy could see that this was not fair, and our hardworking, innovative farmers and small-business owners in the electorate of Parkes are a long way from being blind Freddy.

Due to inflation, land values have gone up everywhere, and the family farm may now be worth significantly more than it was back when the grandparents first bought the block. That does not mean that farmers who live there have more money. It does not mean bigger income. These are their family homes and their livelihoods. It is essential that farmers get a fair go so that they can continue to grow the food and the fibre for this nation but also for other nations through our exports. Superannuation tax 1.0 was not a fair go.

These days, $3 million is not a lot of money—nowhere near as much as it used to be. As I just stated, Australia is looking at a trillion-dollar debt. More often than not, the family home is up around a million dollars. For most places, that's just the starting point. Superannuation tax 1.0 was a plan to punish farmers and small-business owners by attacking their unrealised gains in superannuation. It was a move that was shockingly ignorant to the way that self-managed superannuation funds work. We're told over and over again how important it is to save for our own futures and to avoid placing the burden on future generations, yet people who have been saving all their lives to do so were looking down the barrel of a tax that would have forced them to sell portions of their property and raided their nest eggs. Again, it would have targeted those who are just trying to do the right thing.

It was only after a sustained campaign from the Liberals and Nationals, when we highlighted over and over again just how significantly this would impact farmers and small-business owners, that the Labor government finally backed down. And now we have this, the new version, super tax 2.0. The coalition and the community forced Labor to abandon the indexation freeze and the taxation of unrealised gains. It was a very quiet admission that they had got it completely wrong and been completely unfair in attempting to go forward with those superannuation changes.

Now we are, as I said, looking at super tax 2.0. This one diverts attention from the crippling guidelines of super tax 1.0, but it does so with a stunning lack of detail. What is this new improved super tax all about? How about a bit of transparency for those it is going to impact, who are still reeling from the threat of being taxed on money that they had not even earnt? How will super tax 2.0 work? Who will it impact, and how much will it impact them? Show us the detail. Show Australians how you really feel about their finances. Show us you have listened and learned from the super tax 1.0 debacle.

Unlike this Albanese Labor government, regional Australians have gone without. They've worked hard, they've saved their pennies and they've made a plan for their own future and for the future of other generations. They have done this while being taxed every step of the way. They've done this while they've faced uncertain seasons, droughts, floods, pandemic, the rise and fall of commodity prices, inflation—it just keeps on going. Australians deserve to know what this latest tax grab to fuel the Labor government's spending spree really means. Spend now, tax later: Labor is looking for more ways to pay the bill, and, as so often happens, the buck stops in regional Australia. Is it fair? Show us how. Is it better? Show us how. Will it mean certainty for Australia's future? Well, then show us how.

Labor has lost Australians' trust. They have lost trust over promises about inflation, about high interest rates, about the cost of living. The Labor government is pointing at increases in the low income super tax offset as great news. I welcome the support that helps people who are on low incomes to build their retirement savings. But this does nothing for Australians who are on a tight budget today. It doesn't put money back in their pockets for the escalating food costs, energy costs or mortgage repayments. A future offset does not help them now. They are also concerned about the removal of the death tax exemption. This will hit families when they're at their most vulnerable. When your loved one passes away, the last thing you need to be worried about is the complexities of a superannuation system.

Of major concern is the additional taxation rate on earnings on superannuation balances above $3 million that will start in the next taxation year. This will be taxed at an extra rate of 15 per cent. That's a total of 30 per cent taxation, or double the current taxation rate. Earnings on the portion of superannuation above $10 million will attract a whopping 40 per cent.

I'd like to give a real-life example of someone from my electorate, from Parkes—Scott, from a property near Forbes. He called with concerns when super tax 1.0 was on the horizon. Scott owns a farm through his self-managed superannuation fund that is now worth more than $3 million. Anyone who owns a farm knows that $3 million doesn't amount to much these days when it comes to farmland. Superannuation tax 1.0 would have meant big changes for Scott in a big hurry. Superannuation tax 2.0 also carries concerns. If a farmer is to retire to town and sell the family farm for more than $3 million, the earnings would be taxed at 30 per cent on the portion above $3 million. That's double the current tax. If it were to sell for more than $10 million, that farmer would pay 40 per cent on the tax of the portion above 10 million. How fair is that? This property might have been in the family for generations. Now Scott will lose a significant portion of the sale price to Labor's new superannuation tax 2.0 and his retirement nest egg.

This is an enormous increase on taxation for people who are banking on that money for their retirement. Australians are struggling right now, and they need to know that they are saving for a reason. That reason should not and cannot be that the federal government is looking for other sources of money to shore up the country's debt or to pay for ill advised promises. If, even in this out-of-control economy, farmers and small-business owners have managed to show restraint, dedication and fiscal wisdom, they need to know that the government can do the same. Labor has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The problem confronting our country is structural spending growth that is outpacing sustainable economic growth.

When government spend beyond their means, they inevitably reach for new taxes to fill the gap and to fill the hole. That is precisely what we are witnessing here. Rather than confronting waste, rather than prioritising programs and rather than restoring fiscal principles, Labor has chosen to hunt for new pools of capital to tax. Trust is fundamental in tax reform. Australians accept reform when it is principled, predictable and based on broad consultation. What they do not accept is the retrospective tinkering and ad hoc changes to ideological experiments dressed up as modest adjustments. This proposal reinforces a broader pattern: higher spending first, then new taxes to pay for it later. That is not reform; that is fiscal mismanagement.

See this speech in context