House debates
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
Questions without Notice
Superannuation
2:43 pm
Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. The Australian Financial Review reports that the government has not released draft legislation for its $500,000 lifetime non-concessional super contribution cap because it is 'difficult to draft'. Why hasn't the government released a draft of this retrospective measure? Is 'difficult to draft' now government code for problems with the member for Warringah?
2:44 pm
Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I very much thank the member for his question. I am very pleased with his interest in superannuation policy because one of the great concerns we on this side of the House had during the election period was that those opposite did not actually have a superannuation policy.
Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
They, in fact, banked the savings that we had announced in our budget—
Opposition members interjecting—
Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
and then they said to the Australian people, 'It's going to be a big surprise.' We have been very clear. We have been exceptionally clear with our policy. We want a superannuation system that is affordable, that is flexible and that will be sustainable. We know that our population is ageing. The number of people aged 65 and above is growing and the number of people of working age is diminishing, and we need to have a sustainable retirement income system that will support them in their retirement. The government is consulting on the implementation of the budget measures that were announced. We are consulting with stakeholders on that, which is exactly what you would expect a prudent government to do. That is exactly what you would expect a prudent government to do—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Gorton will cease interjecting.
Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
because, unlike those opposite, we are not making it up on the spot; we are going through a methodical process that ensures that we can deliver on our objectives.
Those opposite would actually punish people through the superannuation policy settings that they would deliver. They would say to those people who have time out of the workforce—for instance, young mothers who might take time out of the workforce, who will not be able to take full advantage of their concessional contribution—'You know what, we don't care about you being able to catch up on your contributions.' On this side of the House, we say, 'You should be able to take full advantage of your concessional contributions and we will allow you to do that on a rolling five-year basis.' Those opposite would stand in the way. We believe on our side of the House that it is important to have a level playing field for all of those people who would like to contribute into their super, no matter what their employment circumstances are—those people who, for instance, might be employed by a small business, who do not have access to salary sacrificing. We think they should have the ability to contribute concessionally to their superannuation. Those opposite would block them from being able to do that. They would block self-employed people from being able to take full advantage of their concessional contribution. On this side of the House, we believe in a sustainable superannuation system, and that is what we are delivering.