Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm happy to rise to respond to the motion put forward by the member for Moncrieff. I'm not sure if the member for Moncrieff plays any cricket, but it reminds me of those days when the kid at school, the bowler, would go right back to the boundary, come running in and then slip right at the crease and deliver a complete dud—one of those John Howard dud deliveries. This is the sort of fear campaign that I've come to expect from the member for Dickson. It's a shame to see that the member for Moncrieff has swallowed the Kool-Aid.

Sean Kelly in the Sydney Morning Herald actually reminded everyone of the member for Dickson's long history of dog whistling and running scare campaigns. He is a one-trick pony. Remember that time he said Melburnians were 'scared to go to restaurants' because of African gangs? The people of Aston didn't forget that the other week. There was the time the member for Dickson called refugees 'illiterate and innumerate' but then in the same breath said that they would take people's jobs. Obviously, fear doesn't have to be logical. Of course, remember the member for Dickson walking out on the Apology to the Stolen Generations and his recent declaration to campaign hard for a 'no' vote for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. So, with this long history of dog whistling, including this motion, we need to go to the core of such campaigns, and that's misinformation, because this motion doesn't waste any time getting into its misinformation groove.

I'm not sure who the member for Moncrieff chats to, but I'm not sure there are many 20-year-olds earning the average wage. For those that don't know, the average wage for a 20-year-old is about $24,000 a year, a far cry from the $90,000 used in the motion to make the maths work. I don't know how many part-time or casual jobs there are out there, being filled by 20-year-olds, that pay those sorts of wages. But, if the member does know of any, I'm sure that there are plenty of 20-year-olds who would like to know.

We're also talking about a motion highlighting a proposition that is more fanciful than real, and one which in any case wouldn't really affect anyone until 2068, 45 years away. To put that in context for the member for Hinkler, 1978 is 45 years ago. But, hey, scare campaign sent dog whistling aren't about facts and reality. The member for Moncrieff possibly got a call or two from some of the 17 people in Australia who have over $100 million in their super accounts who are actually concerned about these changes. She would have been nodding along on the phone as they complained about Labor picking on them and treating them unfairly, all the while thinking to herself, 'These poor battlers,' those poor 17 people with over $100 million in their super accounts. 'What can I do to help them?' Thus the birth of this stupid motion as part of the LNP's ongoing dog-whistling scare campaign.

Of course, the member for Moncrieff doesn't mention in the motion any of these people that she's trying to help out. They are those that shall not be named.

No opposition members, no doubt, will mention the notorious 17, but I'll leave it open to the member for Hinkler. Why? Because 99.5 per cent of Australians don't have over $3 million of super and therefore won't relate to the story of people with super balances of $100 million plus. The member for Moncrieff would have thought, 'How can I get people to relate?' So the figures were fudged that pushed the time frames right out to almost half a century into the future to get some scary numbers at the end. I'm surprised she didn't talk about people who were a year old now and how their super balances will increase. How disingenuous. This is from the same mob who rail against the evils of compulsory super any chance they get—an industry that Labor created that now has around $3 trillion invested around the world and in Australian infrastructure.

In reality, the changes to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances of above $3 million is the right thing to do. Labor was focused on saving for retirement when we invented superannuation, not rorting the tax system. The $3 million threshold strikes that right balance between incentives to save for retirement and strengthening the super system by making it sustainable into the future. Labor built the superannuation system, and we'll always protect it and work to make it stronger for all Australians—not just those poor battlers who have balances of over $100 million in their super accounts!

Like night turns to day, the LNP will blow their dog whistles. I even see the Leader of the Opposition blow the dog trumpet every now and then. I know that the leader does it better than anyone, but I hate to see him infecting his frontbench—that same fear campaign, that misinformation campaign. That's not what the people of Australia care about. Obviously, if we extrapolate long enough into the future, all Australians will have super balances of over $3 million, but that is a hundred years away. Ridiculous.

See this speech in context