Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It did not last long. The Prime Minister came out the next day said no. We are used to these backflips. They are getting faster, in fact. It took a few years to have the backflip on paid parental leave; it took about a week to have the backflip on the iron ore inquiry; and it took a day yesterday to have the backflip about the GST on sanitary products. On coding, it took a question, because putting coding in the national curriculum for primary schools was a terrible idea in answer to one question and a great idea in answer to the very next question, according to the Prime Minister.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

As the shadow Assistant Treasurer points out, the cycle is speeding up. When it comes to backflips, the backflips happen more quickly every time. The Treasurer did call for bipartisanship, so we took him at his word. We put up a plan, a costed and detailed plan, a plan we had consulted on. This Prime Minister, so lacking in vision and courage, shot down the debate to engage in a good old-fashioned scare campaign. I acknowledge the Prime Minister has political skills, and that is what he does best—a good old-fashioned scare campaign. It is not one befitting the Prime Minister of Australia, not one befitting our nation, which is crying out for vision, for honesty about the challenges and opportunities of the future. No, this Prime Minister just engages in a scare campaign.

Let's have some facts on the table about Labor's plan for superannuation. Firstly, 94 per cent of Australian people in their retirement phase are completely unaffected by Labor's plan. Ninety per cent of the revenue raised by Labor's plan comes from people with balances of more than $2 million in their superannuation account; 97 per cent comes from people with more than $1½ million in their superannuation account. He does not like these facts. Of course, the Prime Minister takes a completely misleading approach when it comes to his scare campaigns. He says he does not like increasing tax on superannuation. 'I don't like increasing tax on superannuation.' Well, we know he actually does like it, because he has done it. He has increased the tax on low-income earners when it comes to their superannuation savings. He abolished the low-income superannuation contribution, which is a tax increase on the superannuation of people on low incomes.

There are about 180,000 people across the nation affected by Labor's plan. Do you know how many people are affected by the Prime Minister's tax increase on superannuation?—3.6 million Australians, the majority of whom are women and all of whom are low-income earners. The Prime Minister is more than prepared to be tough on them. He is more than prepared to take away their tax breaks on superannuation. He is more than prepared to abolish the superannuation tax concession for low-income earners. But when it comes to high-income earners—'Oh, no, we're not going to touch that,' says the Prime Minister. 'That's off limits; that is out of bounds.' The fact is this Prime Minister does increase taxes; this Prime Minister is seeing tax increases as a percentage of the economy every year on his watch. This Prime Minister wants to increase the petrol tax, which will raise $19 billion over the next decade. He called a $14 billion plan from Labor 'a tax grab'; he pretends his $19 billion plan does not exist.

We remember the litany of mistakes, errors and insults we have been subjected to by the Treasurer of Australia, but perhaps the low point came when he told us that 'poor people don't drive cars in Australia'. That came as a surprise to those poor people—those people around Australia who are on low incomes and who are using their cars to get their kids to school and to themselves to work. That insult from the Treasurer was particularly hurtful.

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are quick to tell Australia's pensioners that their payments are unsustainable, that their modest pension cannot be afforded. That is what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would have us believe. They do not point out the fact, which is in their own intergenerational report, that the age pension costs will increase to $3.6 per cent of GDP by 2054-55. We on this side say that Australia's pensioners deserve to have at least four per cent of our economy spent on them. This government says, '3.6 per cent of GDP is unsustainable and we can't afford it,' but they leave untouched the tax concessions on superannuation, which are the fastest growing tax concessions in the entire federal budget. In four years the cost of superannuation tax concessions will outstrip the cost of the age pension. That is what unsustainability looks like; that is what unfairness looks like. This government says, 'Well, the age pension, which is growing more slowly than the tax concessions on superannuation and will be smaller than the tax concessions in four years, is unsustainable, but the tax concessions are perfectly sustainable.' That is the argument put by the government; it lacks any logical consistency.

The government is planning to make the most sustainable part of the retirement income system, the age pension to just 16 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have looked into their eyes and that is what they want to do—it is their preferred model. There are plenty of people who have pointed out that the superannuation tax concessions need to be addressed. The government's own Murray inquiry into financial systems said that:

… the majority of tax concessions accrue to the top 20 per cent of income earners. These tax concessions are unlikely to reduce future Age Pension expenditure significantly. … Giving high-income individuals larger concessions than are required to achieve the objectives of the system also increases the inefficiencies that arise from higher taxation elsewhere in the economy, including differences in the tax treatment of savings.

What the Murray inquiry is really saying there is that a tax concession for somebody is paid for by higher taxes on somebody else—on the mums and dads of Australia, on the lower-middle-income earners of Australia.

Even the National Commission of Audit, which the government used to tell about a lot, but which we do not hear much about these days and which gave us the GP tax and $100,000 university degrees, thought that the tax concessions for high income earners needed to be dealt with. The commission of audit said:

… many superannuation tax concessions disproportionately benefit higher income earners, when compared to taxation at marginal tax rates under the progressive income tax system.

Then we had the government's own hand-picked new Secretary of the Treasury say:

…substantial tax assistance is provided to superannuation savings. We need to consider whether the level and distribution of these tax concessions remains appropriate.

It does not remain appropriate and it needs to be fixed.

This side of the House is prepared to show the courage to fix it. That side of the House does not have the courage and is sticking to their business model of misleading the Australian people before an election and then doing something completely opposite in delivering their budget after the election. This tells us about the government's values. They are prepared to be tough on Australian pensioners, but they are not prepared to show the courage to tell Australia's high-income earners, 'It's time to pay you fair share.'

See this speech in context