Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer know which of his colleagues told the Australian newspaper, 'I hate the principle of taxing unrealised capital gains', as reported on today's front page? Given so many in the labour movement, including Paul Keating, have similar concerns, how does the Treasurer justify taxing Australians on money they have never actually received?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have problems with the question, but I have some problems with the way it was framed. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the standing orders and Practice are clear about not responding to unnamed individuals, I'm not sure what you do with a question that actually says, 'I'm referring to an unnamed individual.'

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we can get through this pretty easily. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is correct. We don't know which one of their colleagues has made this statement.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House is correct. I'm going to rely on the fact that it was a media report and that you're referring to the media report. Certainly the end part of the question was in order. I'll just remind members to refer to a media report or someone's comments directly rather than the way that question was phrased.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Skills and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just ask for a show of hands!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wright will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Wright then left the chamber.

I want to remind members that question time is an important part of our democracy. Of course, the question is important; so is the answer. They're equally as important as each other, and we cannot have people making comments before and, hopefully, not during the answer.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nobody knew he was on the front bench until you asked him to leave it!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer is now going to get to the answer.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a strange day to get a question like that given those opposite are in a total nuclear meltdown over net zero policy, as the energy minister just ran through. It's a strange person to choose to ask the question given his role in that nuclear meltdown, and the timing is strange, too, given they have just been towelled up by the energy minister on disunity on their side of the House.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what every single person on this side of the House believes in: the fundamental importance of superannuation. And that's why this side of the House has played an enthusiastic role in taking superannuation from 11½ to 12 per cent when it comes to the superannuation guarantee. We won't be taking lectures on superannuation from those who always try to diminish and undermine and vandalise super at every turn. From John Howard on, they've always opposed superannuation. They've always tried to undermine it. They've always tried to take the 'compulsory' out of 'compulsory superannuation'. Every member on this side of the House takes a different view to the view taken on that side of the House.

We believe in compulsory superannuation, because it's all about making sure, when people earn more and keep more, they can retire with more as well. That's our motivation when it comes to superannuation. Part of our responsibility when it comes to superannuation is to make sure that there are generous concessional treatments for people putting money in super, and they will continue. Even after the proposal that we made, the change that we proposed, around 2½ years ago now, the treatment of super will still be concessional, and the concessions will still be generous. We take our responsibilities to the system very seriously, and that includes making sure—

That's what I'm trying to do, if you listen.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it's going to assist the answer that you've asked for if you could let the Treasurer be heard.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason these changes are so important is that we need to make sure the generous concessional treatment for super is sustainable, and that's why we announced this change 2½ years ago. There has been an election between then and now. There are good reasons to make the concessions more sustainable. We need to make the budget more sustainable as well, and this is a part of that effort.

I note, as well— (Time expired)