Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Independent analysis shows that couples on incomes of $62,000 a year, who are still in the workforce and due to retire in 10 years' time, stand to lose over $8,000 a year from the Prime Minister's cuts to part pensions. Why is the Prime Minister making hardworking Australians, who are in their 50s and 60s, pay for the Prime Minister's broken promises?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to this question relating to the Rice Warner analysis, which I assume the member is referring to. Rice Warner is who the opposition is relying on for their policy advice in terms of making criticisms of the government If you look at the Rice Warner submission to the tax white paper, this is what they say in relation to social security and the age pension:

We believe the part Age Pension should be phased out.

Out! They want to abolish the part pension.

Retirees should first spend their own assets and be eligible for a full Age Pension when they fall below a threshold.

We suggest that retirees should be allowed some exempt assets.

That is kind!

It would be appropriate for a couple to keep the family home up to a value of $1.5m …

That is it. They want to include the family home in the pension assets test. They are the advisers that those opposite are relying on. It goes on and says that they would allow a maximum amount of assets of just $500,000.

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

I call the member for Jagajaga, and it had better be a proper point of order.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a proper point of order, Madam Speaker, on relevance, because what he is saying is not relevant to the question.

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

The member will resume her seat. It was not a proper point of order. The minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very relevant to the policies of those opposite. They go on to say:

If people run out of income but still have a valuable home, they have the choice of downsizing or requesting a government pension …

What they are saying is when you hit it, they want to force them to sell their house. Those opposite have been exposed on this matter as being political junkies. They are relying on advice from people who are telling them to reduce the amount of assets someone can hold to be on a pension—

Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—

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

The member for Kingsford Smith is warned.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to just $500,000 for a couple. The policy that will be supported in the Senate has a threshold of $823,000.

Ms O'Neil interjecting—

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

The member for Hotham is also warned.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If they are going to come into this place then they need to do their homework on policy. It seems that those opposite when it comes to this issue are only interested in the politics—and they are not very good at that either.