Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

based on the rules that existed at the time. For some, those goal posts have been shifted right as they approach retirement.

Another concern is the precedent this sets. If a government begins changing the rules after people already have made long-term financial decisions, it creates uncertainty across an entire system. Today it might be superannuation. Tomorrow it could be investment properties. One day it could even be the family home. If we're going to change the goal posts for people during their working career, then maybe we should change the rules for members in this place elected before 2004 on the defined benefit scheme. If it's about fairness, this shouldn't happen, but, if it's about revenue raising and saving taxpayers money, then it should be done even though it would be unfair to those affected. Australians expect that when they make decisions set by government that those rules will not be simply changed after the fact. Regardless of the amounts involved the principle must remain. The government should not change the rules halfway through the game.

There are also economic consequences to consider. If people believe the rules around superannuation can be changed at any time, confidence in the system will erode. Many will choose to move their money elsewhere, including offshore, rather than invest in super. If that occurs the policy may well have the opposite effect to what it intended to achieve which is higher tax revenue created by a higher tax rate percentage. If investment shrinks the net result will be worse. A higher percentage of a lower number is worse, not a better outcome. Last time I checked, 40 per cent of zero is zero.

If we are talking about fairness, then fairness must apply in practice. That is why I've moved this amendment. My amendment will simply ensure that existing superannuation balances are grandfathered. Australians who make long-term financial decisions under the current rules will not have those rules changed on them retrospectively. Under my amendment, the legislation would apply only to new superannuation arrangements created after the law comes into effect.

This amendment is a litmus test on whether this legislation is actually about fairness or whether it's simply a revenue grab to repair the economic damage created by this government. If the legislation is really about fairness, then protecting those who made decisions under existing rules should not be controversial and my amendment would be agreed to. If, however, this measure is simply about raising additional revenue, then this amendment will not pass. Sadly, I suspect it'll be the latter because at its core this proposal is not really about fairness at all. It's about raising revenue to deal with the consequences of out-of-control government spending.

I note that this amendment does not remove the suggested low-income superannuation tax offset which I, of course, support as anything that assists low-income workers in this cost-of-living crisis is welcome even though they will not see the benefits now when it is needed but in the years to come. Anyone who votes against this amendment will show by doing so that this bill is not really about fairness and is instead about revenue raising. Australians expect fairness. They expect stability in the rules that government their financial future. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.

See this speech in context