Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fisher for the question, and I assure the House that this is not a question I wrote earlier, although it is indeed an excellent one. Labor's policy on superannuation is one which has been announced on early in this term of government, in order to promote exactly the sort of healthy public debate that I know the member for Fisher believes in. We recognise that superannuation changes are not universally popular, and that is why we have begun the community conversation about Labor's changes. Yes, they raise $14 billion over the next decade, but they do so by reversing a Peter Costello change—which I hope the member for Fisher no longer believes was a fiscally prudent one—and by changing the high-income superannuation charge.

But the real question here is where the government stands. It is unusual for a member of the opposition to be saying this, but I honestly do not know. The member for North Sydney does not want to rule out any changes, but the Prime Minister does want to rule out changes. The member for Kooyong wants to stay on the good side of both of them, so he will rule things out or in according to which day the of week it is and which radio interview he is doing at the time. We know indeed that the government was considering making superannuation changes right up until the day Labor announced its policy package. Indeed, plausibly, some of the talented Treasury officials sitting in the boxes today were working on the memorandums that we know, thanks to freedom of information laws, were being sent up to the government during this period. We know that there were four briefs that went to the government in the lead-up to the 2015 budget, but they stop on a particular day. No prizes for guessing which day that is—that is the day that Labor made its superannuation announcement. How is that for a coincidence?

As always, we have the government playing politics over the policy. The Prime Minister rolled the Treasurer on the issue of superannuation tax concessions—admittedly, a feeling that the Treasurer must be getting used to by now—and doubled down against any change, saying, 'We aren't ever going to increase the taxes on super. We aren't ever going to increase the restrictions on super.' As with some of the Prime Minister's statements, that needs a little parsing. What he means when he says, 'We aren't ever going to increase the restrictions on super', is that the coalition will not tackle one of the fastest-growing areas of tax expenditure to get the budget under control. He means that the government will not act to make superannuation fairer and more sustainable. He means the government will continue a system where the vast majority of superannuation concessions go to the most well-off, and the lowest paid Australians get nothing.

Let us be clear. When we are talking about superannuation, as this bill does, we need to recognise the role of the super tax concessions. They do two things. They recognise the public benefit in reducing the number of people who claim the age pension, and they recognise the public benefit in having a larger national pool of savings. That second public benefit is tangible and was important in the global financial crisis but surely must be accorded less weight than the first. For people with multimillions in their superannuation accounts, I say, 'Good luck to you. Congratulations, but you should not necessarily be claiming the same superannuation tax concessions as you did in the past.'

Labor's policy is costed and sustainable and is something which I hope the government will engage on. I hope the government will go back to those excellent briefs, which I am sure were being prepared for them by the Department of the Treasury in the lead-up to Labor's announcement, and come to a bipartisan consensus with Labor on making sure that our super tax concessions can be sustainable in the future. We have no problem with the government's proposal to increase the threshold for collecting lost members' accounts, but we want to make sure that the government engages in the bigger conversation over super concessions. It is such an important conversation, particularly for those of us on this side of the House who were responsible for creating universal superannuation and who will continue to defend a strong and accessible superannuation system. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government's failure to address unfair and unsustainable superannuation tax concessions."

See this speech in context