We now have Ted O’Brien complaining that the government hasn’t ruled out taxing more unrealised gains and Anthony Albanese gets excited because there is nothing that excites Albanese, Chris Bowen and Jim Chalmers more than getting to respond to an O’Brien question. Now that Steven Hamilton is his chief of staff, there is going to be a lot more enjoyment in certain Labor quarters in stepping up to that plate.

Albanese has some sport and then O’Brien has a point of order. Milton Dick asks if Albanese has concluded his answer, to which Albanese responds:

We might give him a go.

But Milton Dick is trying really, really hard to have some sort of order so he defends O’Brien:

It’s not about giving anyone a go. The deputy leader is entitled to a point of order, and he’ll now make it.

But Ted O’Brien has to Ted O’Brien:

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. And we have had over two minutes of a preamble from the Prime Minister..it’s on relevance. He hasn’t actually answered the question. He has dodged the same question the treasurer has dodged. What do you….

Alex Hawke tries to jump in to help, but Dick shuts everyone down to try and save all of us from this:

Albanese:

The policy that we have is the one that we took to the election and the policy that we have is for lower taxes. The policy that they have is for higher taxes.

The independent MP for Curtin Kate Chaney asked Anika Wells (communications and sport, because there is NO conflict in those portfolios! (sarcasm, obvs) about the gambling ad reforms.

Wells said nothing we haven’t heard before.

Senior economist Matt Grudnoff chimes in here:

There are few things that unite Australians more than stopping gambling ads. Despite this, a gambling ban can’t get through parliament. The Coalition have indicated they are in favour of restrictions. Basically the entire crossbench are in favour of it.

The damage that gambling is doing to our society, partiuclarly young men, is well known. But still no action.

This is something that the parliament, civil society, and the general public, needs to push the government on. We need change.

“On 28 February 2023, the Treasurer said, ‘Labor’s unfair super tax on unrealised capital gapes would apply to’ Around 80,000 people.” Does the Treasurer stand by that number?”

Not sure what Wilson is on about here – other than he thinks he is really good at asking questions.

The 80,000 numbers is still pretty much the ballpark number – and it remains around 0.5% of everyone with super. It might be a slight touch bigger now given we’re using 2022-23 figures.

Nine media reports ASFA using ATO tax stats to find that “about 77,400 – or more than nine in 10 affected individuals – have super balances of more than $3 million but less than $10 million.

The remaining 7 per cent have between $10 million and $50 million banked up in super, while about 100 Australians – less than 1 per cent of those affected and less than 0.005 per cent of the population – have nest eggs exceeding $50 million.”

Wilson is probably trying to suggest that in 30 years this will rise to 10%? But given he has not followed up his question with a “gotcha” question. I remain mystified by his point.

My GOD this is low energy. Come on guys, you haven’t done this since March. Where is the pizazz? Where is the zsa zsa tsu? The RIZZ?

Someone get some more Gen Zs in the chamber STAT.

Tim Wilson is back and asking his first question and it is 2019 all over again.

Wilson asks about the super tax concessions as well – “my question is to the Treasurer. On 28 February 2023, the Treasurer said, ‘Labor’s unfair super tax on unrealised capital gapes would apply to’ Around 80,000 people.” Does the Treasurer stand by that number?”

Probably a good time to remind our gentle readers that Wilson ran the anti-franking credits change campaign in the 2019 election, even chairing an inquiry into it. At the time Wilson was also an investor and shareholder in Wilson Asset Management, which was founded (and from memory, chaired) by Geoff Wilson, a relative of his.

Jim Chalmers answers:

First of all, Mr Speaker, I didn’t describe it the way that the honourable member has said. That’s the first point. Second point is that when we announced the policy the expectation was that there would be about 0.5% of people in the superannuation system impacted by what is a very modest change in terms of the impact on individuals but it would make a meaningful contribution to making the superannuation system more sustainable, that remains our view.

About 0.5% of people and that obviously varies from fund to fund. If you think about the fund that was in the paper today, their expectations at host plus is that 57 members out of 1.86 million members would be impacted by the modest changes that we are proposing.

As the Assistant Treasurer said a moment ago, we are the big believers in superannuation. We’re about strengthening superannuation and those opposite are about weakening superannuation. For evidence of that, Mr Speaker, think about the fact that on 1 July this year we completed the journey to 12 per cent compulsory superannuation.

That’s something we’re very proud of on this side of the House. So, too, are we proud to be paying the superannuation guarantee on government paid parental leave for the first time ever, Mr Speaker. I shout out the Minister here for the work that we did on that in the last term of Parliament.

Part of our responsibility to the superannuation system is to make sure that it is treated in a concessional way, that those concessions are generous but also and that they are sustainable. After these changes are implemented, there still will be generous tax concessions for everyone in the superannuation system but for the 0.5% of people with balances more than $3 million, remembering the average retirement ball about is about $340,000…

(Wilson has a point of order that is not a point of order)

Chalmers:

It remains our expectation about 0.5% of people in the superannuation system will be impacted by this modest change.

They’ll still get very generous tax concessions in superannuation, it will be slightly less generous. For example, someone with $3 million instead of getting a $14,000 tax break they’ll get a $13,000 tax break for their investment. So it continues to be concessional. I think the respected financial commentator Noel Whittaker has made a similar point, it remains concessional for everyone but a bit less so for people with more than $3 million.

I think what this question shows apart from the fact that that Shadow Treasurer has already been benched is this side of the House cutting taxes for 14 million Australians that, side of the House going to the House for 0.5% of people in the superannuation system who already have more than $3 million in super.

Let’s take a look at the chamber thanks to Mike Bowers:

Deputy Liberal leader Ted O’Brien now gets a chance on the big floor and he looks very pleased with himself as he asks Jim Chalmers:

Will the government rule out ever taxing unrealised capital gains on anything beyond superannuation?

This is all so ridiculous. We already tax unrealised capital gains. It’s land tax. You can build wealth on unrealised capital gains. That’s called equity. This is the unrealised capital gains for people who have more than $3m in their superannuation.

This is what the Coalition are focusing on. The tiny percentage of people who have obscene wealth and have used the vehicle meant for retirement to build more wealth for their children to inherit. If you are worried about your farm, don’t put your farm in your super fund!

Greg Jericho

Remember the changes only apply to super balances above $3m. And people with more than $3 million in super have an average income of $381,000, so they are pretty cash rich as well.

And also remember the changes will not actually mean most people even with more than $3m will have to pay much more in tax.

Under the govts changes if you have a $3m super balance and it goes up 10% to $3.3m you will have to pay just $4,091 in tax – a mere 0.9%

If someone with $3m in super can’t find $4,091 in cash, then their problems are not with the govt’s tax changes but their own way of managing finances.

David Littleproud is allowed to ask a question now and he asks:

Can the Assistant Treasurer clarify how Labor’s super tax on unreal capital gains would operate for a farmer who has their farm held in a self-managed superannuation fund when they’ve had a failed season with no income?

Oooh, oohh – I know this one! If they have had a failed season with no income, then they probably wouldn’t have to pay because there wouldn’t be earnings above the $3m, because the super fund would have had no earnings!

And if there were, then why is the farm in the self managed super fund? Is it just a tax dodge? Because that is not what superannuation is meant to be for.

The independent MP for Bradfield (pending the federal court recount decision) Nicolette Boele asks her first question:

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment. One of the first act government was to approve the extension of the north-west gas project knocking in millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas in this century. Whenever she has made unpopular decisions in the term the Minister for the Environment said she was simply following the law. Minister, you are the law. When will the pro-fossil fuel Albanese government stop gas lighting the Australian public and implement the changes it has long promised on our environmental reforms?

(The environment minister Murray Watt is in the senate, so there is a house representative for him)

And it is Tony Burke (the busiest man in the parliament after the PM)

The first thing to say with respect to the north-west shelf is there are two sets of legal provisions. There are the legal provisions that we have made on environmental law, which go to a range of environmental treaties, that’s their basis and they are handle primarily by the Minister for the Environment and there’s a series of other pieces of legislation handled by the minister for climate change that make sure that we are doing what the government has said we will do with respect to emissions.

The project on the north-west shelf that the member for Bradfield refers to is subjected to both.

So in terms of the impact on climate change it is subject to the Safeguard Mechanism. It’s subject to the Safeguard Mechanism because it’s a high-emitting project. The laws that we passed with respect to climate change apply to that project. But at the same time when the Environment Minister considers environmental law, that’s where they consider a series of other issues, including threatened species and in this case quite specifically having to consider issues around heritage and in particular issues relating to rock art.

There are specific conditions that the proposed decision – at the moment it’s a proposed decision, the final decision hasn’t come down but the Environment Minister has put forward a proposed decision and with respect to the concerns about potential impact on the nearby rock art, there are conditions on air emissions which have been put forward in that proposed decision. In terms of the impact on climate change, it’s affected by the other legislation we have put in place and in terms of the heritage impact it’s affected specifically by the EPBC act, what’s known as our environmental legislation.

The member would be aware of the different things that have been said already by the government and particularly by the Environment Minister in terms of the work that the government is doing both with industry stakeholders and with environmental groups to try to make sure that we can bring environmental law reform together in this term.

They negotiation is happening that, work is happening because at the moment until we’re able to get environmental laws that are fit for purpose, we have a situation where no-one wins in terms of business wants to be able to make sure it can get decisions in a timely way, and from the environment perspective we wanna make sure we’re able to protect our precious environment and our often heritage. The has made clear that work is being done and it’s being done by the government.

Now Burke mentions the ‘conditions’ there – but we don’t know what they are. That’s being kept secret. So do we get to hear them now they are being mentioned in parliament?