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—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.
And then it is a fact that, after the election, we have seen—just, we have seen—those changes put in place that the Prime Minister said he would not put in place.
That is a broken promise that 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 last year, the ABC reported that the Prime Minister said, and I quote, “In relation to superannuation, there are no policy changes. Our policy stands.” End quote.
And yet, just this week—just this week—the Labor Party has entered into a deal with the Greens, and 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.
Well, 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 a platform that there would be no changes to capital gains tax, to negative gearing, or to superannuation?
What about the mandate—the mandate that was given by the Australian people to the Labor Party on false pretences: the pretence that the Labor Party would stick by the word of the Prime Minister 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: that under current arrangements, before the deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, self-managed super funds had the ability to go into the market, enter into appropriate arrangements to borrow to acquire residential property for investment purposes.
And 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.
But 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.
And then the third point—the third point—in terms of efficiency, in terms of bureaucracy.
The Certified Practising Accountants Australia have estimated that over $800 million—$800 million—is going to have to be spent before the end of the next financial year valuing assets because of the Labor Party’s change—because of the Labor Party’s broken promise.
$825 million will be paid to valuers to go all over Australia and value all sorts of assets that might be subject to capital gains tax—over $800 million spent on that activity, that compliance activity—in a situation where 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—millions being spent on accountants.
