Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers to all coalition questions during question time today.

I want to talk about three issues arising from question time today in terms of the answers given to questions asked by coalition members: integrity, equity and efficiency. Now, let's talk about integrity first. It is a fact that the Prime Minister went to the Australian people no less than 50 times before the last election and said there would be no change to the capital gains tax regime, said there would be no change to negative gearing and said there would be no change in relation to superannuation tax arrangements. That's a fact. It is a fact that after the election we saw those changes put in place after the Prime Minister said he would not put them in place. That is a broken promise. It goes to the integrity of our political system and, in particular, in relation to superannuation. As my colleague Senator Canavan said on 10 October 2025, the ABC reported that the Prime Minister said in relation to superannuation:

… there are no policy changes, our policy stands.

Yet, just this week, the Labor Party has entered into a deal with the Greens. We heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, refer to 'the terms of an agreement' between the Labor Party and the Greens.

What about the Australian people? Where do they fit into this equation? What about the commitment to the Australian people that was made before the last election? What about their 'agreement' with the politicians representing the Labor Party, who were seeking to be elected on the platform that there would be no changes to capital gains tax, to negative gearing or to superannuation? What about the mandate that the Australian people gave to the Labor Party, based on the false pretence that the Labor Party would stick by the Prime Minister's word that there would be no changes? That's the integrity question, and that will hang around the Prime Minister's neck like an albatross until the next election.

Then we have the question of equity. The point that Senator Bragg made was this: under the current arrangements, before the deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, self-managed super funds had an ability to go into the market and enter into appropriate arrangements to borrow to acquire residential property for investment purposes. Whilst I acknowledge that the Leader of the Government in the Senate referred to David Murray, those arrangements are entered into on the basis of limited recourse loans, which protect the body of the superannuation fund from entering into negative territory, so there are already probity and fidelity arrangements in place. What's changed is that the Prime Minister said there would be no change and there now is going to be a change because of the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens.

The third point relates to efficiency and bureaucracy. CPA—Certified Practising Accountants—Australia have estimated that over $800 million is going to have to be spent before the end of the next financial year on valuing assets because of the Labor Party's change. Because of the Labor Party's broken promise, $825 million will be paid by valuers to go all over Australia and value all sorts of assets that might be subject to capital gains tax. That's over $800 million spent on that compliance activity when Australia is in a productivity crisis. Tell me how that makes sense when Australia is facing a productivity crisis—$825 million being spent on valuers and millions being spent on accountants. (Time expired)

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

There's been a lot of hot air in this chamber over the last couple of days. Certainly, at question time, it's been writ large. Let's be really clear: this tax package is pro-aspiration, it's pro-worker and it is pro-investment. It will build us a better, fairer and simpler tax system. We have significant ideological differences between ourselves and our coalition colleagues across the chamber—that's obvious—but what we are seeing here is an awful lot of hot air being thrown around alongside that.

Let's be really clear. We know that we, the Labor senators over on this side of the chamber, believe that wage earners should have as much opportunity as wealth generators. Our colleagues over there, in the coalition party and however many partners they may have on any given day of the week, believe that those wealth generators are the ones that should have priority in our system. We don't agree. We believe it should be fair and balanced. We believe that everybody should have opportunity. We believe that business should have opportunity. We believe that first home buyers should have opportunity. We believe in a much fairer playing field, and that is exactly what this package is going to deliver.

Like I said, there's been a lot of hot air in this chamber over the last week. What I will do now is not just the shouting, the yelling and the opinions from either side, which we know full well come off the back of a solid ideological difference. Let me share with you some of the comments from stakeholders, from the people who have commented.

Let's start with the Tax Institute, who said:

We commend the Treasurer for the political bravery to tackle some big ticket issues in our tax system and set out on the road to tax reform.

Yes, tax reform. It can be done. I know. You were in government for almost 10 years, and I'm not sure there was anything much done in that. Then we go to Michele O'Neil from the ACTU, who said:

This budget marks a shift that gives workers a fairer shot at housing stability through tax changes that will start to rebalance the rules.

Australian Community Housing said that they are 'strongly and unequivocally supportive of the proposed changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing'. They further commented:

The reforms are a serious attempt to shift Australia's housing system in a fairer direction.

Then we hear from Homelessness Australia. These are some of the people seeing the market at its worst out there, who are dealing with some of our most vulnerable people. They said:

… these measures represent an important structural reform that will help improve housing affordability, reduce inequality, strengthen intergenerational equity, and support a fairer housing system.

Then we go to the McKell Institute, who said:

The bills represent a meaningful step toward rebalancing Australia's tax system …

And so it goes on. The Barefoot Investor, not always our biggest fan, said:

The system lets wealthy families with good accountants pay less tax than nurses and tradies. That doesn't pass the pub test.

It doesn't. The Barefoot Investor is bang on. It does not. We need a balance here. We need to make sure that young people and workers out there across Australia have an opportunity to own their own home. (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to respond to a comment from Senator Grogan about there being a lot of hot air in this chamber about this topic. I wouldn't call it hot air in this chamber; I would suggest that it's white-hot anger in our community, and we are reflecting that, as it is our job to do, because every single day, over and over, we hear from people who are impacted.

Today I asked my question about important family heirlooms. I had my own father pass away a little over a year ago, and he, before he passed away, gifted me his own wedding ring. So it was a legitimate question. That happened a year ago. What happens now? What happens to people who are in exactly the same circumstances as I am? Do we go out and get a valuation for that item? What is the cost base for that item? Why should I even have to now pay, presumably, 30 per cent tax on that item after almost six decades? Why should anybody else? That's just one small example. There are many other such examples that are perhaps more significant in value dollar-wise. But that significance doesn't make it any different or any more stressful for somebody to understand what they need to do.

What you have to realise when you're talking about how those same Australians are going to get a tax cut is that those Australians are going to have to think about whether they have to sell that asset at some point in order to ensure that they can pay any commensurate tax on that or any other assets. This is the consequence—unintended, perhaps—of the terms of the agreement that the Albanese Labor government has entered into with the Australian Greens, and I think that is a really important thing for us to think about. Among the other things that we've heard about is that this wasn't even something that the Albanese Labor government wanted to do. They were only going to apply the removal of the CGT discount to residential investment properties, but Treasury told them to apply it to everything else, and now we have the Australian Greens dictating terms to them. It's extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary.

I think the other thing that's really important to note is that Minister Wong said that the Prime Minister has been upfront with the Australian people. No, he has not. He has misled the Australian people, and that is why they are furious. He has misled them over and over again. We also have the Treasurer now coming out and saying that the tax treatment that previously applied to assets in relation to negative gearing and CGT will no longer apply to those assets post the death of one partner or the divorce of a couple. Have a guess who that's potentially going to impact the most in relation to divorce? Women. They might have to think about whether they can actually afford to leave a marriage, perhaps an abusive marriage, based on the recalculation of what assets might be there, because, whether we like it or not, they are the calculations that women make out of necessity. You should be ashamed. (Time expired)

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

For those tuning in at home this afternoon, they might have been a little mistaken that they'd wandered into an episode of Antiques Roadshow and not the Senate question time. But here we were. Was the first question off the bat from the Liberal Party today about cost-of-living relief? No, it wasn't. Was it about housing? No, not even close. Was it about health? No, you'd be coming up short again. It was about vintage cars, collectable cars, and personalised number plates. The burning issue for the modern Liberal Party coming into this question time today wasn't about Australians struggling to get into a home of their own and wasn't about Australians struggling with the cost of living. It was about Australians worried about their vintage cars, their collectable cars, their personalised number plates, their vintage jewellery, their watches.

While young Australians can't get into a home of their own—cannot get a foot on the property ladder—when older Australians are struggling to hold on to their rentals due to the rising cost of rentals, this lot are talking about vanity plates on collectable cars and vintage Rolexes. Nothing says the modern Liberal Party quite like personalised number plates. Honestly! If an out of touch vehicle had a number plate, that would be it.

We also heard a lot of mock outrage from the opposition during question time regarding the passage of these Treasury laws through the Senate. There was much talk about an agreement. We would all love to see the modern Liberal Party be able to get an agreement on anything—anything! They can't even get internal agreement in the coalition, let alone on the Senate floor. We know they've had a chequered history—on again, off again, on again—and I would be really annoyed, too, if I was the party of business, the party of commerce, and I was being outclassed by the Australian Greens on the ability to do a deal. I'd be a little annoyed about it, too, because we all know the Liberal Party couldn't even pass a note in class, let alone a piece of legislation in this Senate. They have been unable to come to the table on a single piece of legislation in this parliament.

It's a bit rich to hear the Liberal Party talking about us changing positions on anything. This is a party that cannot land a consistent position from breakfast to lunchtime on net zero. This is a party that takes more positions on that issue than a Bikram yoga class, so we're not going to sit here and be lectured to by that lot about changing positions. In fact, there are frontbenchers in this very chamber who promised the Australian people and the media that, if their party walked away from net zero, they would walk away from the front bench. But they're still here lobbing up on the front bench, pretending that none of us remember what they said. But we do and we do keep receipts.

But this week, this chamber gets a chance to come one step closer to delivering a tax system that gives a fair go for all—I know that those opposite can't stand the thought of a system that tips the scales in favour of working people and that gives working Australians an opportunity to get into a house of their own—to deliver a fifth round of tax cuts: $2,800 in the back pocket of working Australians. When they vote against these tax cuts, they are voting against 14 million Australians getting a tax cut.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's bring this debate back to what it's about. This motion is about Labor's broken promises to the Australian people in relation to their tax policies at the last election. Labor went to the last election promising that they would not change the tax on capital gains. They went to the last election promising that they would not change the tax on superannuation. They went to the election promising they would not change the tax on other elements of the economy. Then they came in here and did exactly that in this budget.

How can any Australian believe anything that this government says in response? How can the Australian people take anything that the Labor Party says at face value anymore? We saw that in question time again today. We saw Labor senators come in here in this debate and try and portray it as being about something else. This debate is about the tax treatment of the assets of the Australian people—their super and other assets that they own—which the government promised they would not change. But they are now changing the tax treatment through a dirty deal with the Australian Greens. That's what's happening here. We have Labor senators coming in and trying to deflect. They are going personal against members of the opposition. What this is genuinely about is Labor's word and what it's worth.

This government has, following the 2022 election and the 2025 election, broken its promises to the Australian people so many times. The broken promise with respect to superannuation is not their first broken promise on superannuation. At the 2022 election, they promised they would not change the tax treatment of superannuation. They then did that, again with the support of the Greens. So they're breaking that promise for a second time today because they made the same promise again at the 2025 election.

You cannot believe a single word that this government says, including in question time, when it's trying to push back on questions from the opposition on concerns raised by our constituents legitimately. They have lost the value of their word. The Prime Minister went to the 2022 election and the 2025 election saying, 'My word is my bond.' Those were his words. What do those words mean now? As a member of parliament, your word is one of the more paramount things that you have. When you sacrifice that—through the promises that this government has broken—what do you have left? You have absolutely nothing left.

These budget measures are a betrayal of the Australian people and the promises that this government made to the Australian people at the last election. The Australian people know it. The word of the Labor Party and of this government now has zero value in the Australian community, and the Labor Party deserve every element of that.

Question agreed to.