Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House condemns the Prime Minister for:

(1) violating the trust of the Australian people;

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that leave is granted.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well done. Thank you.

That the House condemns the Prime Minister—

I move:

That so much of standing orders—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you do not have to suspend.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

The honourable member will take his seat. Just so we know where we are, leave was sought, leave was granted and there is no need for a suspension. The Leader of the Opposition—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was moving his motion.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lingiari may leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.

The Leader of the Opposition can now move his substantive motion.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you and I thank the Prime Minister for granting leave. I move:

That the House condemns the Prime Minister for:

(1) violating the trust of the Australian people;

(2) raiding the hard-earned retirement incomes of working Australians to pay for his broken promises;

(3) abandoning a promise he has made at least 14 times not to make any adverse changes to superannuation;

(4) freezing the increase to the Superannuation Guarantee which will cut the retirement incomes of all working Australians;

(5) abolishing the Low Income Superannuation Contribution which will make it harder for low income earners to save for retirement;

(6) mortgaging the future retirements of working people because of his Government's dishonesty; and

(7) repeatedly breaking his promise not to do deals with minor parties and independents.

We have seen today, and Australians waking up today have learnt, the devastating news that there has been a disgraceful, destructive and dishonest attack to freeze their superannuation. Australians have woken up to find out that there has been a dirty, devious backroom deal to deny millions a decent retirement income. This deal has been done and the arch culprit is the most out of touch Prime Minister since the top hat-wearing Stanley Bruce. This Prime Minister says in answer to the first question in question time, 'There have been no adverse changes'—remembered his weasel words, 'There will be no negative adverse changes to people's superannuation accounts.' He did not say it once, he did not say it twice, he lied on 14 occasions about this matter. A new land-speed record for a duplicitous government. And that dilemma is—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government has given leave for a debate. It has not given leave for the use of unparliamentary terms and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. He should withdraw it and then he will be allowed to proceed.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the unparliamentary term.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Madam Speaker. We have seen on 14 occasions the nation's greatest fairytale teller, telling fairytales which will harm Australians. What is it about the meaning of the word 'adverse' that this Prime Minister does not understand? Why is it that he speaks weasel language, not the English language? And why doesn't he understand why we believe this is a despicable attack? Of course, there are members of the government who sneer at this debate. Why wouldn't they? They are on much better superannuation than the almost nine million Australians whom they are holding back. And they should not shake their heads. If you do not know how real people earn their income, you are not fit to be here.

We know it is a con job. The government said that they would defer the increase to 10 per cent for two years. That is all they said. But since then we have seen a rushed, botched job where they have now said, 'We will delay it for six years.'

The government either deliberately seek to harm the less well-off in this community or, at the very least, are clueless about how people other than themselves live. They have said, 'This is a good thing for the Australian worker.' We heard this Prime Minister say, 'There's no adverse harm,' with his trademark smirk and shrug of his shoulders. 'What does it matter?' What we know about this Prime Minister is that he would rather put the interests of fewer than 10 mining companies ahead of almost nine million Australians. Those are your priorities, Mr Prime Minister. You have never seen the big end of town that you would not help and you have never met anyone less well-off whom you would help through policies and superannuation. The Liberal Party has got form on superannuation. Some of the historians of the Liberal Party can shake their heads—

Mr Robb interjecting—

The minister for trade! In 1992 they voted against mandating compulsory superannuation. When John Howard ran for power in 1996, he said, 'You can trust us to lift super to 15 per cent,' matching Keating's promise. Then, after 1996, these disgraceful recidivists, these people who have no clue about superannuation except their own accounts, reversed that and said, 'We're not increasing it.' So for many years superannuation was stuck at nine per cent. Then Labor, again, in the last term of office, moved superannuation in incremental amounts to 12 per cent. The coalition voted against it then. But when they got near the election these recidivists, these fairytale tellers of political lies then said—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will—it is all right. Okay.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, I am glad you agree, Madam Speaker. These recidivists, these fairytale tellers of political lies said, 'You can't really trust us on super, but we'll delay it for just two years.' We knew that they were making it up. But they did say that; they put it in black and white.

A government member interjecting—

And don't call me 'genius'—you wouldn't be fit to even tie the bootlaces of the people who need this superannuation. Then we go further. Now they have got the chance to lift superannuation to 12 per cent, what do they do? They freeze it again. They do not know what they do. As a classic—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Oh, Morrison, be quiet. They have no idea what they do. Have we heard any information at all from the economic neo-Luddites of the antisuperannuation brigade? Have they said how much it will cost an individual's account? They have no idea what it means to a 25-year-old now, earning $55,000. They have no idea what their change means. I will tell you. It means $9,516 less in their account. What about a 35-year-old who is on $75,000? Because of these changes, they lose nearly $13,000 in savings.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Oh, Christopher Pyne, don't talk to me about wages. You have never seen a wage you wouldn't cut; you've never seen a student you wouldn't harm in terms—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will refrain from talking across the table using terms other than their name.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth hurts, Madam Speaker. They have no idea what is going on with the trajectory of this economy. The pool of national savings has been harmed by hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of this decision. They are going to delay—

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Oh, Fletcher, be quiet. They have delayed hundreds of billions of dollars in accumulation for superannuation. We asked this government a question today: what is the impact—

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Cowan will remove himself under 94(a).

The member for Cowan then left the chamber.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We asked the government today: what is the impact on national savings? They have no idea. We asked the government today: what does it mean for increased Commonwealth expenditure on the age pension? We asked the Prime Minister, in a triumph of hope over experience that he would answer it, but he did not fail us. He did not answer the question. There is no modelling here. I challenge the Prime Minister right here, right now: show us your modelling which indicates the impact on the pension, on people's accounts and on the national savings profile of this nation. They have no idea what they do.

The government are happy to hold back increased superannuation for nearly nine million Australians. They are happy to do that. But what they are also happy to do is extend the tax break for people who earn over $100,000 in interest on their superannuation savings. They are happy to look after a very small number of people but do over nearly nine million people. I repeat that: when it comes to people who have millions of dollars in their superannuation and they earn over $100,000 in interest each year, the government says, 'No worries; you get that for free.' But they will make everyone else work to age 70.

As I said, we now see what is a remarkable act of faith by the Treasurer, not necessarily borne out in today's caucus meeting, I might add. I do note that the Prime Minister, according to Fairfax, had to slap down the Treasurer after a stoush over GST anger. Hang in there, Christian Porter, you will get a promotion eventually!

We now see the government are going to give Joe Hockey, the man who inspires such confidence in the night musings of the backbenchers, especially their marginal seat members, control of when we get superannuation increases. This Prime Minister says, 'You'll eventually get to 12 per cent in 2025.' Thank goodness!

Always with 'tricky Tony' watch the fine print, because I have no doubt that that will change. In fact, from what they have said, it can take as long as 2034.

Why is this government so against improving the pool of national savings? I love this mob opposite for their sheer effrontery. They have got more front than Myers, this mob opposite. If they were at a superannuation conference they would say, 'Oh, it's great the pool of national savings—$1.6 trillion. You'll love it, Joe. You'll love superannuation.' You would beat your chest, you would chomp around and you would blow hard about superannuation. But the problem is that when you have a chance to do something about lifting superannuation you chicken out every time. I have never seen an increase in super that these people opposite have not voted against. What they do is damage the retirement incomes of ordinary Australians.

This government has form in damaging superannuation. They have gone after the low-income superannuation contribution. The low-income superannuation contribution was enacted by former Treasurer Wayne Swan. He stands up for the low paid in our community. What he said in his legislation and what we say now is: why on earth should 3½ million people—and the government should listen to this; they might learn something—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From you?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Joe Hockey, I would just be quiet and not remind anyone you are here, mate. What do they do with the 3½ million people getting the low-income superannuation contribution? Currently, under Labor's proposal, which we enacted, if you earn less than $37,000, you pay no tax on your superannuation contribution. This is not a bad idea. Once upon a time they used to pay 15 per cent, but the difference is that, if you earn this money in the pocket, if you just take it as pay—as Christopher Pyne suddenly discovered about low-paid workers, other than the ones who serve him a cappuccino at the cafe—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to people by their correct titles.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt. Okay, you got me. The member for Sturt says he worries about the wages of people, even though he has no form guide for ever voting for it. What we see is that people who earn less than $37,000 under Labor's proposal pay no tax on their superannuation contributions. This is actually sensible, because when we go back to what the Liberals and the Palmer United Party have done, people will be paying more tax on their superannuation than they would at their effective marginal tax rate. Only a Liberal! They are so out of touch with how poorer Australians earn their living that only they could dream up having a higher tax on compulsory savings than they would on the money that people take home. These are the sorts of people we are dealing with. But it does not just stop there. Not only have they broken a promise—and believe me, Mr Abbott, you have broken this promise and we will hold you to it; they have cut the tax refund which low-paid Australians get. What they are actually doing is that they want people to work longer and receive less in terms of their aged pension when they retire. This is a government who has never seen a lower paid Australian whom they did not want to slug. I love their false indignation on behalf of ordinary Australians. If they really cared about ordinary Australians they would not be delaying or freezing their superannuation increases. If they really cared about lower paid Australians, ordinary Australians battling to make ends meet, they would not be cutting the indexation rate of the age pension. If they really cared about lower paid or ordinary Australians, they would not be taking away the tax refund. Tony Abbott, though, has form on superannuation.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to people by their correct title.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The author of Battlelines has form on superannuation. He once famously said—and I saw some of his new and neophyte members a bit surprised at the question; remember, we asked the Prime Minister 'Is compulsory superannuation the greatest con job?'—well may you nod, Tony, because we know what you said. He said, 'Compulsory superannuation was the greatest con job ever foisted on Australians.' So, to be fair to Mr Abbott—

A government member interjecting—The Prime Minister.

Yes, the Prime Minister, well spotted. To be fair to him, he did flag in 1995 that he thought compulsory superannuation was a con job. Of course, he has had more twists and turns—he is a weathervane—on superannuation. Late yesterday and now today, in order to look after a few mining companies and in order to work with your great friend Clive Palmer, life member of the LNP and buddy on Senate deals, they made a deal that nearly nine million Australians will miss out. That is why we condemn this Prime Minister. You are not fit to handle the policies of superannuation in this country. If you are seriously putting up that we would let Joe Hockey be in charge—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Treasurer.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Scotty—the Minister for Immigration. If you think that we are going to allow that Treasurer to be in charge of the national savings account of Australia then, as they famously said in The Castle, 'Tell 'em you're dreaming.' We are on to you and the Australian people are on to you, and we will hold you to account for this latest broken promise and lie.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

Yes.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for McMahon, I see that the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal of difficulty remembering to address people by their correct titles. I would ask other speakers in the debate to kindly remember that and to have a better memory than he did. I call the honourable member for McMahon.

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do appreciate the opportunity to address the issue before the chair today. The simple truth is that today the government delivered on a fundamental election commitment. We promised to abolish the mining tax, and we promised to abolish the spending associated with the mining tax—spending that was not sustained by the tax that raised no revenue—and today that is precisely what this government has done. I thank crossbench members of the Senate. I thank the member for Fairfax for the assistance that he has given to the government to deliver on this fundamental election commitment. If members opposite led by the Leader of the Opposition were not in denial about the result of last year's election, the deal that they now complain of would never have been necessary.

The Leader of the Opposition is angry. He is obviously angry. He is understandably angry, because what we have seen today is a government that is succeeding and an opposition that is failing and, indeed, an opposition leader who is drowning. That is all we have seen today. The Leader of the Opposition must have expected his suspension would be gaged, because plainly he did not have a speech to deliver in support of the suspension motion that he moved.

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that this is a government that is delivering on its commitments. We said we would abolish the carbon tax, and the carbon tax is gone; we said we would stop the boats, and the boats are stopping; we said we would build the roads of the 21st century, and those roads are powering ahead; and we said we would bring the budget back under control, and I cannot say it is easy to address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us but that loathsome legacy is being addressed by this government.

What are we seeing from members opposite? We are seeing the whole gamut from members opposite. They are complaining that we do not keep commitments and then they are complaining that we do keep commitments. The one constant is that they are complaining. This is not an opposition leader who is running an alternative government—this is an opposition leader who is running the national complaints bureau! That is all he can do. Until such time as the Leader of the Opposition remembers that the job of opposition is to be a constructive alternative, Labor will be in the doldrums.

The Labor Party in government could not be trusted with border security. It has learned nothing in opposition. In government it could not be trusted with public finances. It has learned nothing in opposition. This is a Labor Party that damaged our country in government and now is attempting to damage our country from opposition. This government is doing what it can and should to faithfully deliver on its election commitments. We said that we would abolish the mining tax because the mining tax was damaging investments, damaging jobs, failing to raise the revenue that was claimed for it, and involving the spending of unsustainable billions of dollars. Today, the mining tax is gone. We said that we would abolish the low-income superannuation contribution, and it will go. We said that we would abolish the income support bonus, and it will go. We said that we would abolish the schoolkids bonus, and it is going. All this is not because we do not want to see a good deal for the people of Australia but because these things are not a good deal for the people of Australia if they are funded by unsustainable borrowing, if they are unsupported by the kind of economy that we need and if we are to have a generous social service system.

Is the deal that was done with crossbench senators today perfect? No it is not, but it is a better deal than to leave this unsustainable mining tax and the spending associated with it in place forever. This is a government that is prepared to work with the parliament—a parliament that the people of Australia elected—to do the right thing by the people of Australia.

Throughout question time today, members opposite acted as though the superannuation guarantee levy was the perfect answer to every person's retirement dreams. For the benefit of members opposite, let me remind them that there is no nirvana in superannuation guarantee levies, as the Henry tax review reported:

… employees bear the cost of these contributions through lower wage growth.

The Leader of the Opposition himself, in one of his rare lucid moments, admitted this on the Neil Mitchell program in 2010. The Henry report goes on to say—

Mr Shorten interjecting—

I am sorry? Are you okay?

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Henry tax review went on to say this about the superannuation system beloved of members opposite:

This means the increase in the employee's retirement income is achieved by reducing their standard of living before retirement.

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney will desist.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be absolutely clear: yes, this is worth doing, but it is certainly not the nirvana promised by the Leader of the Opposition. That is why it will be abolished by 2025. This is a government that is getting on with the job of governing. We said that we would not form a minority government with Independents. We were not going to make the mistake that members opposite did when they sold their soul to the Greens after the 2010 election.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs will desist or leave the chamber—the choice is his.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we never said that we would not do deals with the parliament. The whole point of being in government is to get legislation through the parliament. If members opposite are determined to frustrate legislation getting through the parliament, we will work with members of this parliament who are prepared to respect the mandate of this government. What we have done today is secretly supported by many members of the Labor Party, because most members of the Labor Party, in their hearts, understand that the mining tax has been deadly for jobs, deadly for investment and deadly for fiscal responsibility. Let me quote the member for Perth, her head buried in papers.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth will desist.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just bury your head again, if you wouldn't mind! What was said by the member for Perth was that 'We do actually have to start listening to the Western Australian representatives about what will work and what won't work in Western Australia.' There was a pretty strong view coming from virtually all the Western Australian representatives about what should have happened with the mining tax.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will desist.

Mr Shorten interjecting—

I said the Leader of the Opposition will desist.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth wanted the mining tax gone—

Opposition members interjecting—

I am sure somewhere in all that bellowing are sotto voce congratulations for doing what she and other members of her party in Western Australia wanted. This government is fixing all of the messes that it inherited from members opposite. They gave us the carbon tax; this government has got rid of it. They gave us the mining tax; this government has got rid of it. They gave us a whole lot of Green vetoes over important projects; the Green veto has gone, thanks to the Minister the Environment. They gave us 10 years of negotiations and no free trade agreements; we have delivered the free trade agreements. They ruined our relationship with Indonesia; our relationship with Indonesia has been restored. I move:

That all words after "that" be deleted and that the following be inserted:

This Parliament:

(1) supports the efforts of the Government to strengthen the Budget and strengthen the Australian economy by:

(a) fixing the budget through reasonable and timely measures;

(b) abolishing the carbon tax;

(c) abolishing the mining tax;

(d) delivering new free trade agreements with Korea and Japan;

(e) approving $800 billion of new projects through an accelerated approval process; and

(f) ending the age of corporate handouts; and

(2) acknowledge the result that the Government is helping to create more jobs, more infrastructure, more prosperity and more opportunity for everyday Australians.

(Time expired)

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to the precedent you set on 26 February this year, when you ruled out an amendment which had been moved by the opposition to a motion that had been moved by the member for Denison. In that ruling you stated:

I am looking at the terms of the motion as it was moved and I am looking at the amendment and there is a requirement that the amendment be relevant to the substance of the motion. There is no relevance of the amendment to the substance of the motion and I rule the amendment out of order.

Given the relation on 26 February between the amendment and the motion on that day, it would be a very long stretch for the Prime Minister's amendment to be anywhere near being ruled in order.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Herbert is warned. I recall making that determination. However, there is ample precedent in this place where a censure motion is moved and where it is turned around by the opposing group. Indeed, if I recall, I have even had it happen to me.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, a point of order.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A further point of order? I have not ruled yet.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, but before you do—it might be helpful. If you do not want me to, I will sit down.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we will proceed.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment in order or not?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment is in order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The words that I said immediately before you made that ruling in February were these:

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There have been many occasions where amendments have been moved and accepted and much precedent for amendments which look at the issues contained within the resolution in a different way.

You then ruled that point of order, almost identical to the words you just uttered, as out of order. I ask you to establish the new precedent that you established on that day.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, the point of the amendment is to rebut the issues surrounding the mining tax as put by the Leader of the Opposition. The original motion is about the mining tax. The amendment is about the mining tax. The Manager of Opposition Business might want to detract from the debate because of how poorly it has been going for the opposition, but the reality remains that the amendment is clearly in order and that these are just delaying tactics for goodness knows what purpose.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, if that is the argument from the government, there is no mention of the mining tax in the motion at all. If that is how it is relevant the arguments from the Leader of the House cannot be held.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that in the case of where there is what amounts to a censure motion and the government has moved to reverse that, effectively, there is ample precedent within the Practice to do it. It is in order. The original question is that the motion be agreed to. To that the honourable the Prime Minister has moved an amendment. If it suits the House, I will put the motion in the terms: that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Today says it all about this government and today says it all about this Prime Minister in particular. He is a Prime Minister addicted to breaching election commitments. Even worse, he is a Prime Minister who insults the Australian people by denying it and who insults the intelligence of the Australian people by refusing to admit a blatant truth. We saw it just a few moments ago in question time when the Prime Minister claimed a mandate for his freezing of the increase in the superannuation guarantee. I am holding a copy of his superannuation policy from the election. Remember when he used to hold press conferences and hold pamphlets under his head, point to them and say, 'This is our plan for Australia.'? They had a plan. It reads 'The Plan'. It gets better: point 1 is 'Certainty and Stability' for superannuation. It says 'the gradual increase will be delayed by two years'. So says the Liberal Party's policy at the last election. Today two years became six, and the Prime Minister does not even have the grace to admit this breach of an election commitment.

A year ago, tomorrow, the Prime Minister said:

I expect that people will be very harsh on a new government that doesn't keep its commitments.

It can count on that because the Australian people are harsh on a government that does not keep its commitments; and this government has broken more than any other. Today we have seen a deal done in the other House. We saw the Treasurer up doing the deal in the Senate—very proud of his handiwork; very pleased with himself. Then there is the commitment from the now Prime Minister:

There will not be deals done with independents and minor parties under any political movement that I lead.

That says it all!

More than anything else, Madam Speaker, what today tells us about this government is this government's warped values and twisted priorities. This is a government which says, 'Work longer.' This is a government which says, 'We can't afford fair indexation of the age pension.' But this is a government which says, 'We are not going to help you save for your future retirement; we are going to make it harder.' Today the government has achieved the trifecta: they have made Australians work longer, they have made the pension less fair and they have put more people on the age pension by their short-sighted policies.

There is only one thing that is consistent about this government and it this: it is the people who can least afford it who pay the price for their broken promises. It is Australia's low- and middle-income earners who pay the price for their breach of commitment. During question time we saw the Prime Minister show that he did not know how many more people will be reliant on the age pension because of his policies. He had no idea how many more people will be on the age pension. He has no idea by how much Australia's pool of savings has been reduced today. He has no idea what the long-term impact on the federal budget will be. Let's help him out. During question time, financial services counsellors helped the Prime Minister out: they said that by 2025 there will be $128 billion less in our national pool of savings, thanks to this Prime Minister and thanks to this Treasurer. The Treasurer who puffs himself up to full height, beats his chest and lectures Australians that they should work longer than anybody else in the world, that they should have a less-fair pension, that they should have a pension which is not indexed fairly and properly—a Treasurer who dares to say that it is strongly arguable that pensioners could be better off under his budget. By his actions he will have made Australia's working population $128 billion worse off by 2025. That is the only thing consistent about this government.

They say to high-income earners: 'Oh, look, those terrible tax changes the Labor Party put in—which were modest—we're going to reverse those. We're going to look after you, but for low-income earners—people earning less than $37,000 and some of them might even drive a car—we are going to give them zero tax concessions for their future. They commit no crime other than to work hard, but we are going to give them nothing.' I say this: the vast majority of those low-income earners—people in Australia's factories, cleaners, people in manual labour—are women, who deserve a chance to save for their future through superannuation and to receive some modest tax breaks for doing it. But this government just does not get it. They do not understand the impact of their own policies; they certainly do not understand the impact of their values and their twisted priorities; and they certainly do not understand the impact of their budget on Australians.

But there is just one more reason that today says it all about this government. Yesterday we all saw the farce of the government introducing a bill into the House with no speech—the bill with no speech. The government forgot to explain to the House what they were voting on. There was a clause in that bill yesterday which said that the Treasurer should have the ability to change the superannuation guarantee rate himself—and need not come back to the parliament. We pointed that out to the House, when we eventually got the bill, but I can report to the House that it lasted less than 24 hours, because even the government acknowledged the error of their ways—and now they have not done that. So this is calm, methodical government by this government of grown ups, who have had three positions on superannuation in the last 24 hours—the last one just negotiated in the Senate. I wonder how long the cabinet meeting went to discuss that one! We were told, of course, by the Prime Minister:

The main commitment I want to make tonight is to restore cabinet government.

That was on 22 June 2010.

As a general rule all significant government decisions should be considered by cabinet before they are announced, rather than subsequently presented as done deals.

We hear a lot about methodical, calm government, don't we? We hear a lot about it, but we do not see a lot of it.

They have adopted three positions in 24 hours on a matter of some importance to the Australian people—their retirement incomes. It is a matter that actually counts to Australians who are saving for their retirement and who care about their future. They want to know that this government has a plan. They do have a plan, apparently—in fact, they have three, and we have seen them all over the last 24 hours. But today's is the worst, because they have frozen the increase in the superannuation guarantee for six years. As the Leader of the Opposition said, 'They have got form. This is what Liberals do, because Liberals don't believe in working people having the ability to save for their future.' Liberals do not believe in working people receiving some modest assistance to do so. Liberals won the 1996 election promising to increase the superannuation guarantee. They won the 2013 election promising to increase the superannuation guarantee, and what we have found is another point of consistency—breaching their promises on superannuation. Why? Because they just don't get it.

It tells us something even more about this government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. It tells us about their prejudice—their prejudice against working people. If this was an ideology, Madam Speaker, I would have a little bit of respect for it. If this were an extreme right-wing ideology, I would have as much respect for it as disagreement, but I have no respect for prejudice. I have no respect for the prejudice which this Treasurer implements in his budget and his policies. I have no respect for the prejudice which this Prime Minister implements in his blatant disregard for Australian people and his election commitments to them. We have no respect for your prejudice, and the Australian people have no respect for your prejudice, because your prejudice hurts working people. People around Australia go about their daily business hoping that somebody in Canberra is looking out for them—somebody in Canberra saying, 'I wonder how we can help people save for their retirement,' or somebody in Canberra saying, 'Let's care about the long-term future of Australia.' They hope somebody in Canberra is saying, 'Let's give the working people of Australia a hand.' Right around Australia, millions of Australians are saying, 'Is somebody in Canberra looking out for us?' Well, not over there. It is not that Prime Minister and not that Treasurer. We have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who have such contempt and prejudice for working Australians that they scoff, they smile, they snarl, they sneer—

Opposition members: They smirk!

And they smirk. Even more importantly than that, they are hurting people with their policies. I have to confess, I am not sure whether the Treasurer just does not understand the impacts of his policies or he embraces his policies because of this government's prejudice. I suspect that it is a bit of both, because he does not understand the impact of his budget on the Australian people and he does not understand the impact of his retrograde superannuation policy either.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing I say in response to the shadow Treasurer is that we do not take all credit for winning the last election. I think the Labor Party helped us along the way. I want to personally thank the honourable member for McMahon for his contribution to us winning the last election. It was very generous of him and of all his colleagues. That help was primarily based on the fact that, after six years in government, the Labor Party just did not know what it believed in. The Leader of the Opposition is a great example of that. He does not know what he believes in. He is a man with loyalty to no-one but himself. He is a man who has been loyal to no-one in his life. He was not loyal to Kevin Rudd and then he was not loyal to Julia Gillard. Then, in the end, he was not even loyal to the Labor Party but he became the leader of the Labor Party—and he is not even loyal to the policies that they took to the last election.

They come in here and give us sanctimonious lectures about improving the budget when the Labor Party itself is opposing $5 billion of policies it took to the last election to pay for its own promises—spare us the hypocrisy! They come in here and lecture us about superannuation and yet the Labor Party increased taxes on superannuation by $9 billion in the last six years. There were $9 billion of increases in superannuation taxes. They could not do that with a mining tax they designed, yet they managed to find $9 billion of new taxes on superannuation after Kevin Rudd promised the Australian people in 2007, in writing, that they would not change superannuation 'not one jot, not one tittle'. That is what Labor said in 2007 and that is what they promised the Australian people, and then they broke that promise.

We went to the 2010 election and the 2013 election saying that we were going to get rid of the mining tax and the associated expenditure. Labor does not want to hear this. They do not want to hear this because they are embarrassed by their own policy failures. They are embarrassed by their own political failures as well, because they can hardly complain about us when they will not let us keep every single initiative that we took to the last election. When we come to a deal with reasonable senators in the Senate to get our election commitments through, they complain that we are breaking election commitments. The hide of them! The Labor Party does not know what is right and what is wrong, because they do not believe in anything. Bill Shorten has no core values. He is a man who blows in the wind. He is an insipidly weak man.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have been very consistent today in pulling up the Leader of the Opposition for not addressing people properly. Three times you gave that ruling earlier this year when the words used by the Prime Minister were not someone's correct title. Now, again, the Treasurer is using the incorrect title for members. He should be brought into line like the rest of us.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do precisely that. Thank you, member for McEwen. The correct title for me is Madam Speaker. I would ask the Treasurer to also use the correct titles.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition is an insipidly weak man. He has no principles. He blows in the wind, as his loyalty blows between many people. That is reflected in the fact that he is moaning about us keeping our election commitments and each day he comes in to complain that we may be breaking election commitments. This is a Leader of the Opposition who has successfully dealt Labor out of any activity in relation to policymaking during this term of government. They thought they could paint us into a corner in relation to the debt limit. We did a deal with the Greens to remove the debt limit that Labor created but Labor could never keep. They thought they painted us into a corner on the repeal of the carbon tax and then we managed to do a deal with a number of senators to pass the repeal of the carbon tax. They thought they painted us into a corner in relation to FOFA and then we did a deal to get that through. Then they thought they painted us into a corner on the mining tax, and we managed to do a deal with reasonable senators as well.

I said last week that the Labor Party is travelling at high speed down into a cul-de-sac. I am proven absolutely right today. They are driving at high speed down into a cul-de-sac—a policy cul-de-sac but also a political cul-de-sac. Why so? That is because their only friends in this parliament are the Greens.

Ms Ryan interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor is not in her seat and is not entitled to speak.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are the only friends of the Labor Party in this parliament, as was the case in the last parliament and the parliament before. Their only friends are the Greens. They are soul mates and political mates with the Greens. They have not learned anything from the last election. They have learnt absolutely nothing.

Ms Ryan interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Lalor interjects one more time, she will leave.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a result, we are getting on with our agenda. If nothing had been done about the budget, we would have been facing $123 billion of deficits over the four years. We would be facing $667 billion of debt over a 10-year period. That is $25,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. I will tell you what is unfair: Labor's legacy of $25,000 of debt for every man, woman and child is unfair. I will tell you what is unfair: $1 billion a month in interest, just on the debt that Labor left behind. Seventy per cent of it goes overseas to repay the money to people that we borrowed from. I will tell you what is unfair—that that we leave Australians with a lesser quality of life in the future than that which we have had. When you borrow money today, you are borrowing from the future. The money must be repaid, in principal and interest, into the future. What have we done? We have started by identifying the mess that was left behind. They left behind record deficits and record debt. They left behind 93 announced but unlegislated taxation changes and we are fixing that. They left behind unfulfilled agreements on trade with Korea and Japan, and there was China as well. We have delivered two of the three, with one yet to come—a great credit to the minister for trade.

We said we would end the age of entitlement, starting with corporate Australia, and we have done that. We know it is not painless. We know that. But we have delivered, and it took enormous courage. We stood up to people because it is the right thing to do. Whether it is an industry or whether it is a business, we cannot take money from the battlers of Australia paying tax and give it to corporate Australia. We cannot do that. We said we would clean up the mess in taxation that Labor left. We got rid of the carbon tax for pensioners and middle Australia—$550 per household per year. It is a burden lifted off manufacturing, and a burden lifted off exports. We said we would get rid of it, and we got rid of it. We said we would get rid of the mining tax and associated expenditure. Every day during the last election Labor kept saying, 'show us your costings.' We did show them the costings, and we provided in detail every single bit of the abolition of the mining tax package. We gave every single detail in full, and Labor did not like it. We had the guts to go to the election and give the people the facts, and the electorate voted for us, just as they voted for us to get on with the job of fixing the economy.

There were $800 billion of approvals for projects held up under Labor, and we have gone on and done the job with those. We are also getting rid of red tape—$800 million a year in red-tape burden on business. We have got rid of that as well. We are getting on with the job of strengthening the Australian economy. We are building the infrastructure of the 21st century. We are laying down plans and delivering on $125 billion of new infrastructure for Australia. We are creating tens of thousands of new jobs, because ultimately it comes down to jobs. Under the former minister for workplace relations, Job Creation Australia was tracking at 5,000 new jobs a month. Under us that figure is 15,000 new jobs a month. Under us, even Labor economists like Stephen Koukoulas recognise that business expectations are at decade highs, that business confidence is at highs and that consumer confidence is back to highs. The bottom line is that we are building a stronger economy. We are building a stronger budget. We are determined to build a stronger Australia. I say to the Labor Party: you are irrelevant; you have put yourselves in that place—don't blame anyone other than yourselves for your own political and policy incompetence.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 67, relating to the question we are about to vote on. The copy of the amendment that has been circulated has a point (2), which refers to delivering a simpler, fairer tax system. That point (2) has been crossed out on the amendment copy that we have been given. When we vote on the amendment, I want to know whether or not the Prime Minister has actually moved point (2), or whether they are not claiming that the government has delivered a simpler, fairer tax system in their amendment. If it is of assistance, my recollection is that the Prime Minister did not refer to a point (2) when he moved the amendment. He went from point (1) to point (3), but given that we have a copy with a point (2) crossed out, I wondered under standing order 67 whether you could affirm what the detail of the amendment is that we are voting on. Who crossed it out would be another question.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the best evidence on what we are voting on is the amendment which has been circulated—as it stands, with (2) crossed out. All that means is that it was not debated, and it was not dealt with. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.