Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dunkley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The uncertainty created by the Government with regard to our superannuation system

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Speaker. Congratulations on recognising—as those on the coalition side do—that the uncertainty, the chaos and the suggestions of further changes in the area of superannuation is terrifying superannuation savers and those relying on their superannuation for their income at a time when cost-of-living pressures loom large in every household in Australia and every small business. You have got people on fixed and superannuation incomes that they have acquired through putting away savings, preparing for their retirement, who are seeing their costs going up and who are faced with greater uncertainty about what the future will look like for them. Financial security is a concern. It is a concern for many Australians, but at this moment it is of greatest concern to those who are relying on their superannuation or planning for their future.

If you were to characterise the Labor Party's approach to superannuation, it would be tax gouges and tinkering greatly. That is what they do. They have looked at superannuation and thought, 'Here is a cash cow. We will mess with it and we will play with it. We will describe it as being motivated by high ideals and we will even try and generate more class warfare around retirement savings policy.' What it really is all about—from start to finish—is a cash gouge to try to prop up this failing budget that Labor has overseen. This is on the back of the undertaking by the former Prime Minister. Who can forget that undertaking, that solemn promise, that explicit commitment that was made during the 2007 election campaign—that Labor would not change the superannuation laws? Remember: 'Not one jot, not one tittle'. Haven't they failed?

I thank the Parliamentary Library. I asked the Parliamentary Library, 'What does "not one jot, not one tittle" mean as it relates to stability and superannuation?' Look what came! This is 'not one jot, not one tittle'. This is more than 50 major policy announcements about change and about legislative adjustment that has happened on the back of this promise of 'not one jot, not one tittle'. Do people want to know what a jot or a tittle looks like? Apparently, this is not one jot and not one tittle; this is at least 50 tittles, and then some, as they continue to tinker with superannuation, creating great uncertainty for all Australians.

What do we expect in the upcoming budget? We have already seen a little bit of speculation from Labor as they try on different ideas about how to paper over the enormous budget black hole that they face. Even Labor luminaries have come out saying, 'Please, stop messing with superannuation.' But let us think about all of those Australian men and women who are wondering about their retirement, thinking about what will come next and looking for some certainty, stability and predictability on something that is such a long-term investment as superannuation—for those who are saving for it—or something that is so significant for people that are dependent on their superannuation to cover their costs of living at this time.

What can we look for into the future? We know that Labor sees superannuation as a cash cow and that it is viewed as a soft touch to paper over their budget mess. Let us look at some of the changes to date. They have limited the amount that people can save for their retirement by lowering the concessional contributions caps from $50,000 and $100,000 to $25,000. What does that mean? That means a tax increase on voluntary contributions. That means that for those Australians who lost everything under the recession we supposedly had to have, with maybe just a few years of their working life to put aside money for their retirement, here is another brick wall that they will run into as they make choices about their own income and voluntarily commit it to a retirement that is not dependent on the taxpayer but is one that they can shape themselves through superannuation.

Think about small businesses and small business people, particularly in these recent and ongoing years when things have been extremely tough. When are they going to put money aside for their retirement? When there is a good year, you might want to put some away for your retirement nest egg. That is what the Howard government understood, that is what those in small business understood and that is what the men and women who did not have a retirement nest egg understood. We had a higher level of contributions when you could get concessional tax treatment. Why? It was to encourage people to voluntarily put aside their own resources for their own retirement and to relieve the burden on the taxpayer into the future of income support pensions so that people could determine their own destiny and the financial platform from which they could plan with certainty for their future. But, no, Labor has taken that all away—and they are going to do it again. They have done it with the mess they have made of superannuation contributions.

Let us not have any of this cant and concocted outrage about the coalition and its work for low-income people and their superannuation. It was the coalition that introduced the co-contribution arrangements. It was Labor that cut them. Since the election of Labor, you have seen $3 billion taken from low-income people in co-contributions to support them as they build up for their own retirement. You have seen the taxation rates go up for people earning above $300,000 a year. You have seen this extreme crackdown on people who might have just got outside some of these parameters with these tax penalties that are absolutely horrendous. In my own area, someone running a not-for-profit organisation had their accountant plan to make sure that they could make the contributions up to the $25,000. They waited until the end of the financial year to see if they had the capacity to do that. When they were able to settle their own financial circumstances, they then put the contribution in up to that level. But what happens? Your capacity to make those contributions might be based on accrual accounting concepts, but the calculation in the tax office is based on cash. So even if it relates to a financial year—say, 2011-12—and you happen to pay it on 7 July, it actually goes into the subsequent year.

These poor people are paying an enormous number of penalties for trying to provide for their own retirement. The Labor changes combined have added $8 billion of tax revenue to their budget. This is what they are looking at again to have a crack at. Think about those people looking for certainty. Think about the promises that have been given before not to mess with superannuation—the 'not one jot, not one tittle' undertaking from former Prime Minister Rudd. Think about Prime Minister Gillard's undertakings not to disadvantage people with the way in which superannuation is played with and the reassurances that co-contributions would not be messed with. All of that has proven to be completely false.

So when the Prime Minister tried on this potential tax gouge of taxing people over 60 as they were receiving their superannuation, it leaked out. Everyone was briefed and told to talk about it just to see what the reaction was. Well, there was outrage, so that got dropped. But have we heard any other assurances about not messing with other aspects of superannuation? Not at all.

I say to the Australian public: get onto your Labor member of parliament. You might not know who they are because they might be hiding from you, but get onto them and say, 'Don't mess with my super.' This is something that is important. It is something that we have seen changed time and time again. That is what 'not one jot, not one tittle' looks like—50 changes. We have got more adverse changes on the way as Labor looks to superannuation, particularly self-managed superannuation funds, as the soft touch, the cash cow, to paper over its inability to manage its budget. As we all remember, the Prime Minister said: 'If you cannot manage your budget, you cannot manage the economy.' Sadly, the cost of that is coming right on top of ordinary men and women in Australia.

Let us look through what has been going on with these changes. We, in the coalition years, established more generous contribution caps so that people could put that nest egg aside, even if they had only a very narrow window of working life to provide for their own retirement. This is particularly significant for mature age workers who might not have had the benefit of a lifetime of work and superannuation contributions. It is particularly significant for a small business owner. We also tried to put in place, and we did put in place, the co-contribution scheme for low- to middle-income earners whereby they were encouraged to save towards their retirement. They would be rewarded for making the decision to contribute additional amounts, and they were supported by co-payments from the coalition. We abolished tax being paid by retirees when they withdrew their money from superannuation. Let us remember, it was taxed on the way into the fund; it was taxed in its earnings. We wanted Australians to benefit from that income at the end, when they were drawing it out to support their own retirement. That was sound policy. That was policy that worked.

Now the Gillard government is planning another tax increase in the May budget. If they are elected again, they will do it again. After 14 September, if Labor creep back, they will do it again, because they eye superannuation as a soft touch. Self-managed super funds have a value greater than the entire GDP in the Australian economy. The government want a crack at that as well. They have already started by putting in new requirements on registering the auditors that are looking at it—and there are fees there, and we are yet to hear what the fees actually are. The government are ready to jack that up as well.

There have been constraints on activity in self-managed super funds, and the government describe this as all part of some kind of class war, where they are looking after low-income people and getting stuck into the rich. But when one asks what the rich person is, they seem to be pretty average Australians. Their income is not some biblically huge amount. It is a modest income at a time when their households are facing cost of living pressures as well. When you look at superannuation, it is where the vast majority of the Australian public fund their retirement. The really super rich have got other avenues. The vast bulk of the Australian public use superannuation.

When you start messing with the super rules, you start moving those goalposts and it affects everybody. It certainly affects younger people. They become more reluctant to contribute because they are uncertain about what is going to come next. They are not confident that the arrangement they are entering into now will be the one that will be sustained throughout their working life, and that instability causes them to be less attracted to superannuation. For the mature aged, they are worried about those cost of living pressures. When you see another tax attack on them that eats not only into their retirement nest eggs but potentially into their income as well, they are getting cost of living pressures coming at them as well as the government taking away more of their retirement income capacity from them.

Concessional tax treatment is an incentive. It is an encouragement. It is actually an investment in the future affordability of our three-pillar retirement income system, where you have the age pension as an income support net; you have the compulsory superannuation framework, which is something that all employers are contributing to—not as the government would have you believe. Remember that nine to 12 per cent superannuation contribution? They sat there and said: 'You know, the mining tax is paying for that.' This maybe one of the most cunning observations of my 17 years in this place, but employer funded superannuation is funded by—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—Employers!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Employers. There you go. So that is funded by the employers while the government runs around as if there is some magic pudding with the mining tax funding that superannuation increase. You hear the shadow Treasurer—and perish the thought that it was coming from somewhere else—say that employer funded super comes from employers. What happens there? The government actually gets tax out of that contribution. Rather than say the government is paying for it out of the mining tax, they are actually grabbing a chunk out of it. As every small business is paying more into superannuation, the government is there getting a clip on the way through. So it is actually a revenue earner for them. This is quite bizarre, but that is part of our system.

Then there is the voluntary system, where people are encouraged to apply themselves and to make choices about their discretionary income to provide in a more accommodating way for their retirement. So what you have got is a rather stark and vivid choice. You have more of this uncertainty, more of this lack of long-term perspective, more of this monotonous nonsense from the Assistant Treasurer.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've never voted for superannuation in your life.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will have his chance.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will throw a cold pie at me if I keep going. But I will persevere, because this is significant for all Australians that are either saving for superannuation, anticipating being able to rely upon it or wondering how they are going to finance their own retirement. I again come back to those small businesses. We know that small businesses know a lot of about superannuation—they are having to pay for the increase. It was interesting, wasn't it, that the Henry tax review recommended against lifting the employer contribution? They said, be a bit smarter with the way you tax the contributions and the earning in the fund and you will achieve adequacy. Well, no, you would not have that from Labor. He never missed a chance to have a go and gouge at a small business.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even though you voted against it. Put it on the record.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they have introduced this. We voted against it, saying there are better ways of dealing with this, but now that is in, in the name of certainty, predictability and stability we have undertaken not to rescind it, because that is the confidence people are looking for. A competent government provides certainty and it provides continuity, and we have done that even though it was an unnecessary move.

We have even got this government saying to small businesses: 'Self-managed super funds—you might have one of those. Well, we're not sure about that either. That sounds like a lurk we can't get our hands onto.' They have tried to structure the superannuation industry rather than enhance competition and improve the options available to people. They have structured it for those union dominated industry funds—what a dream run they have got. Those that are living off the industry super funds, those that Labor have loved for so long, are now saying, 'Please, don't keep messing with this superannuation arrangement.'

I have a very strong commitment that I would like to see from the government. If you are going to break another promise about superannuation, if you cannot maintain the assurance of not messing with it, please at least take it to the Australian public. This is too important for this short-termism, self-serving, self-interested government to mess with people's longer term planning requirements for their retirement. Those approaching retirement are relying on their superannuation. The right thing to do is to follow the coalition's lead—offer stability, be clear, no surprises. But if the Gillard government cannot manage that, it should at least face the Australian public so that they know what they are doing and can make their own judgement. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a load of hypocritical rubbish from the member for Dunkley. Never once have the Liberal Party of Australia ever voted to increase superannuation. It is almost like the tort of passing off. How dare they pretend that they have ever done anything for workers in superannuation. We have never, ever seen it and never, ever will. Look at the crocodile tears the member for Dunkley cries. He is on a defined benefit pension—he will be all right. He is okay no matter what happens. But most Australians do not have the deal that the member for Dunkley has.

He complains, he cries tears, about the co-contribution scheme he said was 'marvellous'. Only one in five eligible people was able to claim the co-contribution, because you have to get up pretty early in the morning to out-crafty the Liberals when it comes to not looking after low-paid workers. Only one in five was able to claim in this Rolls-Royce scheme that the member for Dunkley says was so marvellous and he misses it so much that he holds a requiem mass for it every year. Only one in five low-paid workers could get it. What a scheme! To get the Liberal Party co-contribution, you had to have $1,000, and not a lot of people earning under $37,000 a year have $1,000 just sitting around in the bank. Only Labor stands to look after 3.6 million low-paid Australian workers. Over 25,000 of them live in the member for Dunkley's electorate.

How happy must the people in The Pines be with their member of parliament! Say you are a part-time working mum and you earn less than $37,000. Gee, they must be happy knowing that the member for Dunkley says, 'And I'm going to put a new tax on you.' Shame, shame, shame.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're putting a tax on them.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How dare he interject and say we are putting a tax on them! We are cutting it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dunkley will cease interjecting!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had your go and it was not a very good go. It was full of crafty doublespeak. You are normally better than that, Dunkley. Let us go through the attitude of the Liberal Party to superannuation. I love it when they get up and say—actually, I do not love it; it sticks in my throat—'We love superannuation.' Do you, really? Unfortunately, there is a thing called Hansard. Do you know what the member for Warringah, now the Leader of the Opposition, this great white knight of superannuation, said? He said:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

Do you know what he said in Eureka Street volume 5, No. 3, April 1995? He said:

Compulsory superannuation is possibly the greatest confidence trick of the last decade.

How can we trust the Liberals when they say, 'We love superannuation; don't trust Labor,' when, in fact, whenever we try to increase superannuation they vote against it? The mob opposite have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity on superannuation. The unions and employers and the Hawke government in 1985 agreed that workers would forgo a three per cent wage rise, and that is the only reason Australia has compulsory superannuation. Not a bead of sweat from those conservatives opposite has ever helped working people get retirement savings.

Of course, they had an opportunity in 1992 to say, 'Actually, we've realised we were wrong and we will in fact back superannuation.' Unfortunately, the historical record shows that they did not learn from their mistake in '85—because they are not historians and have never stood up for compulsory superannuation. David Connolly was a former member for Bradfield and opposition spokesperson on superannuation. Do you know what he called compulsory superannuation, which the member for Dunkley would throw himself on barbed wire and wade through boiling mud to protect now? He said it was a 'gross and iniquitous system'. At least Wilson Tuckey MP, former member for O'Connor, knew to speak his mind, even if it was not always right. He said:

I have to say of this superannuation guarantee legislation … it is both stupid and dishonest.

Where was Bruce Wilson when Wilson Tuckey was saying these things? Senator Alston, Liberal Party senator, doyen of the Liberal Party, great elder statesman and one of the thought leaders of the Liberal Party—do you know what he said?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With great respect, I believe that the minister has inadvertently defamed the shadow minister by calling him Bruce Wilson.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a cheap shot—you are better than that, Greg. Senator Alston, statesman from the Liberal Party, said—

Opposition members interjecting—

Do you know why the Liberals interrupt? Because they hate the truth of this matter. You have never voted for superannuation. Thank goodness that you are not in charge of this government, because you would not have voted for the increase in superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent. In fact, as memory serves me, you did not. Senator Alston said:

… imposing compulsory superannuation on individuals does not increase total savings.

Oh, no? Facts got in the way of a stupid remark. We now have compulsory savings in Australia bigger than our GDP, and none of that is due to you guys. Senator Watson from the Liberal Party said, 'Unemployment is going to rise from superannuation.'

I love Senator Crichton-Browne. He did not give only one wrong reason; he gave six wrong reasons. Let me recount for the newer members of the House what some of your great past champions have said on superannuation. Senator Crichton-Browne said the Keating government's proposed compulsory contribution scheme would reduce economic growth—wrong. Economic growth went up the whole time superannuation was in place. He said it would add to unemployment—wrong again. It fell. He said it would create inflationary pressures—wrong again. He said it would reduce savings. How that flat-earther could get away with that theory I do not know. He said it would reduce living standards—they have gone up. And he said it would lead to lower retirement incomes. Lower retirement incomes? The quotes go on from the Liberal Party. What is most disturbing is not that they were wrong in 1985—I can live with that. It is not that they were wrong in 1992—I can live with that. They were wrong last year when they opposed the increase from nine to 12 per cent.

Then came the hypocrisy. The member for Dunkley said, 'It's a bad idea, but we'll keep it.' Be fair dinkum. If it is a bad idea, repeal it. If you think it is as bad as you say it is, as you carry on about it in that mistaken fashion of yours, repeal it. If you have the courage of your convictions, repeal it. But you know in your heart of hearts, all you defined-benefit brigade in particular and you 15 per centers, that superannuation is the best vehicle for our retirement savings. That is why to get a lecture from those people opposite about superannuation does stick in our throat, because they have never backed it. They have never backed it in the system. They have never backed the increases. They have spread fear and they have spread untruths. They have spread mistaken facts and they have passed them off as policy. In fact, they do not have a superannuation policy. For instance, we abolished the age limit, allowing people of any age to get superannuation. We could call that the Bronwyn Bishop clause, fair enough. But do you know what those opposite did? They voted against it. They did not vote to support people over the age of 70 getting superannuation. The parliamentary record reflects that uncomfortable truth.

What we have also tried to do is improve the standard, the quality and the confidence of financial planning advice in this country. I tell you what, if Australia was ever invaded by enemies and those enemies were intent on reforming financial services, I want the best battalion of the opposition to defend us. The enemy would never get off the beach. I have never seen so many conservatives fight so hard for so much vested interest as we saw in their disgusting performance on financial planning, and in the way they want to protect rotten commissions. It was an outrageous performance. Furthermore, we were the ones who introduced MySuper, which will make the cost of superannuation cheaper. Again, those opposite opposed it.

So what do we have in the debate about superannuation in this country at the moment? We have a Labor Party that has backed compulsory super and has increased compulsory super. We have a Labor Party that says if you earn less than $37,000 a year, why should you pay tax on your contributions? After all, the marginal rate of tax if you earn between $18,000 and $37,000 is the equivalent of the concessional rate that you pay on superannuation tax. I believe that if you are going to put a portion of your money into compulsory savings, some of that should be a tax concession. That is fair otherwise there is no arbitrage advantage and there is no concessional advantage in being forced to save for your retirement. This is logic.

What we see instead from those opposite is that they want to reinstate a tax we have abolished. There are thinking members of the opposition and they need to think carefully about this. What is the point in putting a tax back on low-paid people's superannuation contributions? What is the point in putting back a 15 per cent tax on 3.6 million people's contributions to superannuation? What is the point in taxing 3.6 million people who earn less than $37,000? What is the point in making them pay several hundred dollars more in concessional superannuation tax? What is the argument? The only argument we have heard—and points to the member for Dunkley for trying to run the unarguable argument; I do not doubt his courage—is a co-contribution scheme. That was a ripper. That was the Rolls-Royce, the whole car. And they do not like what we are doing. But what we say is the facts unfortunately contradict that. For the benefit of the member for Dunkley, who is quickly texting up facts, I have this fact: one in five people who are eligible to claim the co-contribution can. There is a reason for that. They do not have a spare lazy k hanging around to put into super. So what you were saying is if your dad or your mum is rich enough to give the part-time worker a thousand bucks, that is good. Fair enough, good luck.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is class warfare.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not class warfare. It is just a recognition that not everyone has a thousand bucks in their bank account if they earn less than $37,000. Get out and doorknock in The Pines and I will tell you there are a lot of people out there who do not have $1,000. So we improved upon their penny-farthing bicycle of a scheme and have given something much better, which goes a lot faster and goes a lot better.

Opposition members interjecting—

I have already spoken about our support for older people. We are proposing a scheme where if you earn less than $37,000 you do not pay tax. You get the money put into your super. That is what it is.

But I do like the consistency of the opposition. Only two nights ago they had a look at one million people who were on allowances such as Newstart, Abstudy and other allowances such as the farm household help allowance, and they said: should we give those single people $210 or couples $350? Should we? No, sorry, thumbs down. There are one million people that the coalition could give a hand to. No, sorry, they are not going to do that but they will give money back to mining companies because geez they like mining companies. We on this side like mining companies too but we also happen to like the one million people on allowances.

We keep giving those opposite the chance to not go ahead with reintroducing a tax on the superannuation concessions of people earning less than $37,000. We are waiting for the light bulb to go off but it is not happening. What we on this side stand for is making sure that people have superannuation. We on this side stand for making sure it is universal. We on this side stand for lifting it from nine to 12 per cent.

Mr Van Manen interjecting—

I would not go there, Bert. Think wisely. In this group of 3.6 million beneficiaries who will not pay tax there are 2.1 million women. We recognise that women have broken periods of service. We recognise that sometimes women are not paid what men are paid. We recognise that it is harder for them to save money for their retirement. That is why we are looking after 2.1 million women.

When you think about it, what have we seen from the coalition this week when they say they love superannuation? They have never seen a multimillionaire they will not go into bat for. So far this week, they have not met anyone who earns less than $37,000 that they will even make a fist for. What we need to do is have superannuation certainty.

It is not going to win you the election, which is all you care about, by slapping a tax on 3.6 million people. It is just not worth it; $1 billion in tax concessions to 3.2 million of Australia's low-paid working people. That is a group of people you should get behind. We understand that superannuation requires fairness and sustainability. We understand people are living longer—we only have to look at those opposite to see that. We understand the need to have a good system but we want to start looking after the punters at the bottom, not just the punters at the top.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important matter of public importance because superannuation is indeed an important aspect of Australia's economy. It is worth around $1.5 trillion, but it depends on some key factors. Two of those factors are not present with this government. It depends on trust; the Australian people certainly do not trust this government. It depends on confidence; the Australian people have no confidence in this government. If people are to participate in the superannuation system, they have to make a commitment from a relatively young age and put in reasonable contributions to have the sort of retirement benefit which will deliver the lifestyle they expect and deserve. The only way to encourage people to put money into superannuation is to assure them that the rules under which they deposit the money will retain some degree of consistency during the time they have the money invested. This government is eroding that trust and that confidence.

The Prime Minister has a deep trust deficit. The very same Prime Minister would not be affected by the sorts of changes she is proposing to implement, being one of the defined benefit people that the minister, Mr Shorten, was alluding to. The member for Griffith—the other Prime Minister in waiting—is also in a defined benefit scheme, so he would not be affected by any changes the government is proposing to implement. It is important that we encourage young people to put money into super. It is important that older Australians who have worked hard and saved hard and put money aside can feel confident that, when they retire, they will be able to live off the proceeds of their superannuation and that the Prime Minister will not change the rules at a minute to midnight. If she changes the rules, she will destroy their dreams and will adversely impact on their position.

What does that mean for people? It means that people have no confidence in this government. It is absolutely vital that we provide confidence in the superannuation system. When you look at everything this government does, you see that it is a confused model. When you look at the statements that this government makes, you see that it cannot be trusted. We had the never, never carbon tax, the mining tax that gains no money, the government's assault on private health insurance and the promise of a surplus—all promises made by this government, which cannot be trusted—and assurances in relation to superannuation which cannot be relied on. We see this government attacking superannuation again and again, despite their claim that they would not make one change—'not one jot, not one tittle.' There have been lots of jots and tittles.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a big jot.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Dunkley has pointed out, they have been jotting and tittling everywhere. We have had the reduction in the concessional contribution cap. We have had the reduction in the co-contribution. We have seen the double contribution tax for high-income earners. We have seen the increased capital gains tax revenue from super and now they want to further increase tax on superannuation. What are the government themselves saying? In May 2010, Wayne Swan said:

We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system, and we want people to have the confidence that they can save in the way in which they have in the past.

I do not often agree with the Treasurer, but I agree with him on this one. It is a shame he does not keep his word. What about the industry? A certain person, who is certainly not aligned with the coalition, Garry Weaven, one of the architects of the superannuation system and chairman of Industry Funds Management, said it is 'time for a pause', that it is time to stop making changes:

I think you should proceed with caution if you are the government in an election year. I would have said it is the first cardinal rule here.

John Brogden, CEO of the Financial Services Council, said:

The government does not understand that this undermines the confidence of everyone because they think that they're next.

That is right, they could be next:

Short-term budget decisions are undermining the foundation of the super system.

How true that is. Pauline Vamos of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said:

Undermining the provision of long-term capital could have a significant impact on the economy, which should greatly concern any Australian.

These comments go on and on. Andrea Slattery, CEO of the Self-managed Superannuation Fund Professionals Association, said:

The continual erosion of super tax concessions to meet short-term fiscal goals is in danger of being permanently damaging to the effectiveness of super as Australia's key retirement savings vehicle.

At every turn the government is reducing confidence in the system. At every turn the government is going to penalise Australians with regard to their superannuation savings. Why is that? Simply because this government cannot manage its own budget. This government is not sufficiently financially competent to manage its budget. Australian families have to manage their own budgets. Australian families could not run deficits five years in a row, which this government is going to do with no prospect of a surplus in sight. Clearly, Australian families know better how to manage their budget than this government. There are more comments on superannuation. Peter Collins, trustee of the $1.1 billion Hostplus scheme, said:

To start to dismantle super concessions can only be an electoral negative. The electorate will not swallow super as middle-class welfare.

That is right. It is not middle-class welfare; it is a sensible provision for retirement that every Australian has a right to. Nick Sherry is a familiar name in these halls. Nick Sherry, hardly a supporter of the coalition, said in the Financial Review on 6 February 2013:

You've got the appropriate framework for tax treatment of super.

So take Nick's advice. Do not fiddle with the super system. Give Australians confidence to invest in superannuation. Do not slug self-funded retirees. Do not leave people who are approaching retirement in fear that their retirement plans will be dashed at a minute to midnight. It is absolutely outrageous that the Prime Minister would countenance taxing superannuation payments for people over the age of 60. It shows a blatant disregard for people approaching retirement and those who have retired. It shows a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted. It shows a government which cannot manage the budget. It is absolutely outrageous and it is about time the government took heed of what the coalition is saying. Do not mess with super. People need certainty and you need to manage your own finances before you slug superannuants.