Secret modelling into just how many Australians would be affected by a proposed superannuation tax change has been ordered to be handed over.
The government has been given a week to hand over the Treasury forecasts or risk being in contempt of the Senate.
Last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced plans to double the tax rate on superannuation balances over $3m from 15 to 30 per cent.
He described it as a modest change that would only impact 80,000 people, or 0.5 per cent of the population.
But he did not provide modelling on how many people in future years would be drawn into the higher tax rate, given the $3m threshold would not be indexed.
The Senate agreed to the order on late Wednesday afternoon. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage
On Monday, the government revealed the Treasury had forecast that one in 10 people retiring in 30 years time would have a superannuation balance above $3m.
The Senate order, agreed to on Wednesday afternoon 40-17, would require the government to hand over both sets of modelling.
The Coalition and the Greens voted in favour of the motion, alongside One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network and independent David Pocock.
Labor senators voted against the order. United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet did not vote.
If the government fails to table the modelling, the minister representing the Treasurer, Katy Gallagher, would be required to provide an explanation.
NCA NewsWire has contacted the Treasurer’s office for comment.
Peter Dutton has slammed the government for breaking an election promise. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Nikki Short
It comes as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton ramped up his attack on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, accusing him of “lying through his teeth” and reheating policies from Labor’s 2019 election defeat.
“People now are seeing the agenda that basically (Bill) Shorten had, that they voted against in 2019, Albanese’s now rolling out,” he told 2GB.
“It is socialism. If your desire is to take money off people who have worked hard, sacrificed, put a bit aside for themselves and their kids – particularly for their retirement … if your view is ‘well they’ve done too well, we’re going to take it off them’, well that is wealth redistribution.
“They don’t realise how many younger people are affected.”