Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how Australia's current superannuation system can be made more flexible and more sustainable? What is this government doing to reform the superannuation system to achieve these aims?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie for his question, and I thank him—like all other members on this side of the House—for being engaged in a very adult and constructive consultation process over the last few months. They have been listening to their constituents and we have been listening to what their constituents have been saying to them.

Those opposite seem to think this is some sort of problem with the democratic process. This is the job of members of parliament, this is the job of ministers: to ensure we deliver on our commitments in the best possible way. And what we put in the budget was a plan for fairer, more sustainable and more flexible superannuation arrangements with tax concessions so they delivered on their purpose—that purpose being to support retirement incomes that supplement or replace a pension.

Now, that is the purpose. And we put into the budget fit-for-purpose changes to superannuation tax concessions that not only would achieve that but would deliver on the urgent job of budget repair, to the tune of $3 billion. What we have announced today, as the Prime Minister said, is that there were 12 measures in the budget: there is change to one of those measures, the removal of another and the delaying of one. But all of the measures now, as I announced them today, continue to deliver absolutely on what we set out as the objectives in the budget—including on the important issue of budget repair.

I am pleased to say that ASFA today, in commenting on the announcement we made this morning, said quite simply that it makes the superannuation system more sustainable—that it will ensure:

… people approaching retirement will have more flexibility to add to their super.

They said it will provide income in retirement and that it:

… balances the need to ensure enough income for a comfortable retirement with ensuring the level of tax concessions is sustainable in the future.

The head of ASFA said:

This is the responsible thing to do …

But here is a message for those opposite: he said:

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) supports the government’s revised superannuation package announced this morning and urges the Parliament to pass the changes as soon as practical, …

I ask the members opposite, as I offered the shadow Treasurer today—the officials were in the building today, and I am sure they will have their briefing on the rather minor changes, ultimately, that were made today to a package of 12 measures—not to be the authors of uncertainty in relation to this issue, as they were in government: not the authors of uncertainty, but to provide that certainty.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are these ones iron clad too?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the shadow finance minister feeling very chuckly over there. I remind him that he was the one who said:

People will know by the time they go into the polling booth where we stand on superannuation.

And then you vanished! You disappeared! Poof! There you went—you vanished. Completely vanished. This government did not vanish on making superannuation more flexible and more sustainable. We delivered.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The level of interjections is too high. The member for Shortland will cease interjecting, as will the member for Barker, who I have already mentioned. The member for Barker is now warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

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

In his answer, the Treasurer referred to a document—some legislation that he wants us to support. I ask that he table it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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 Prime Minister. The member for Dawson said about the Prime Minister's humiliating super backdown today, 'We put forward all our views, and they listened and they acted.' What happened to the Prime Minister's absolutely iron-clad promise? Isn't it the case that the member for Dawson and the extreme elements of his party are now in charge of the government's economic policy?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member asked me where something was. I would ask him where his PhD in economics has gone, too. Really—what a pathetic response from the opposition! Seriously!

We talk about the pantomime of question time. Here you have a situation where a government consults, a government listens and a government improves legislation—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was iron clad. You said it was iron clad—you said it was an iron-clad policy!

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin is now warned!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One element out of 12, affecting $550 million out of $6 billion. This superannuation package was well designed. It tackles major issues of fairness and major issues of flexibility, and it has been improved.

Does the honourable member suggest that the member to whom he referred should be treated with contempt? Should be ignored? Does he suggest that the only wisdom is on his side of the chamber? The reality is that honourable members opposite—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's the Treasurer now. He's got more say in it than you do!

Mr Pasin interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a). You can leave under 94(a)—I have warned you twice. The member for Barker will leave as well—he was interjecting after being warned.

The member for Rankin and the member for Barker then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would refer honourable members opposite—indeed, all honourable members—to this very important principle of my government: we will seek always to improve our measures. If measures we propose or implement can be improved, we will improve them. We will listen to all those who offer criticism or suggestions for change—we will listen to them in good faith. If we can improve measures we will improve them. We have to recognise that policy making must be dynamic.

What we have done here with the superannuation changes is that we have presented a set of changes in one of the most complex areas of law imaginable. Very few Australians understand the operation of the super system. We all know that. The Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue presented 12 measures, all of which made substantial changes. Their advocacy and that of our colleagues secured support for all of them. One remained subject to considerable criticism from many parts of the community—from the opposition, from those stakeholders in the industry, from constituents and from colleagues.

We listened carefully to that and we thought, 'How can we achieve the objects of the package and meet those concerns?' It is a great credit to my colleagues that they have done that, and that they have done that in the constructive, modern way we operate government in 2016. (Time expired)

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister advise the House how the government's superannuation reforms will make Australia's superannuation system fairer?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Chisholm very much for her very first question in the House. She delivered a brilliant maiden speech just before question time today. I know that she has a number of supporters in the gallery—and that is because she is a very proud advocate for her community. She is someone who has lived the mantra of aspiration. And this is why we are making some modifications to our superannuation policy to make sure that it is fairer for all Australians, to make sure that they can achieve their aspiration to provide more for their retirement balance so that they can live a great retirement.

We have made some changes by not proceeding with the $500,000 non-concessional lifetime cap and instead taking it back to a reduced annual cap that will have an eligibility attached to it that means that they can only contribute those non-concessional or after tax amounts at a point where they have less than $1.6 million in superannuation. The reason we have done that is that we do not want to put a handbrake on their aspiration to get to the transfer balance cap.

Unlike those opposite, we on this side still believe in aspiration. We also believe in flexibility. We believe it is very important that we help and encourage people to provide for their retirement. We give them a level playing field for them to be able to make concessional contributions to their retirement. We do not think it is right that somebody who is employed by a small business that does not offer salary sacrificing cannot take advantage of their full concessional contribution. We do not think it is right that somebody who might have a part-salary income but also might have a small business also cannot contribute fully to their concessional contribution.

Those opposite would stamp out their aspiration and their flexibility to be able to contribute. We on this side believe it is important to make that contribution and to give them that aspiration. But we also think it is very important for working mothers—like Julie Banks, the member for Chisholm, who has lived this—to be able to have catch-up contributions. For those people who have spent time out of the workforce caring for their children and come back into the workforce, we believe it is important that they can catch up on their concessional contributions. So, from 1 July 2018, they will be able to do that on a rolling five-year basis.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, those opposite are carping. They would stamp out that aspiration, they would stamp out that choice, they would stamp out that fairness and they would stamp out that flexibility.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today Senator Abetz issued a press release claiming credit for the Prime Minister's humiliating backdown on superannuation. Are the extreme elements of his party so powerful that they can force a Prime Minister to abandon his 'absolutely ironclad' promise? What happened to the Prime Minister's absolutely ironclad promise?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. I am happy for every member of the coalition party room to claim credit for every decision of the government. The truth is it is a team business. Of course, very often members are too modest to do that. But I think it is good. I want every member of the coalition party room—House and Senate—to claim credit for the government's decisions. It is very important—every decision that has been endorsed. That is the team spirit that we see, which is so important in politics. But let me deal with another point in the honourable member's question.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a).

The member for Chifley then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we are going through what I have described as the pantomime of politics, which is one of the reasons why her constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents get fed up with what politicians do and say. A government improves a measure—consults, changes it, improves it, makes it work better. In the real world, where all our constituents live, people say: 'That's good. They listened and they tweaked it. They made a change. Good on 'em. That's great. They're listening to us. It' sensible'—but in the pantomime of the 70 minutes of this parallel universe of question time it is a humiliating backflip! We have to get real about the art of policy making in this parliament, and that involves our side, your side and the crossbenchers working together constructively, honestly, openly and objectively to achieve the best policy outcomes. So perhaps we can suspend that for 70 minutes—it is a bit of entertainment—but I would say to the honourable member that, if she believes any of our measures can be improved, she should let us know. We will look on what she says in good faith. All suggestions are gratefully received. We are determined to consult, negotiate and achieve for the people of Australia in this their 45th Parliament.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite.