James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, you have to give them points for chutzpah. You have got to give the Labor Party points for chutzpah. There's only one political party in this chamber—maybe two if you include the Greens—who have an actual plan to cost retirees and pensioners money. There's only one political party or political movement proposing to take money away from retirees and to make their retirement less financially secure, and that is the Labor Party. By contrast, the Liberal and National parties, through a successful election victory, have saved 900,000 older Australians from a severe financial hit to be perpetrated by those opposite if they were successful at the election.

You took a policy to the election proposing to take away from 900,000 Australians the franking credits they had planned their retirement for and upon. They were reliant on those franking credits for their security in retirement, they made their plans when the rules were set and you planned to pull the rug from under them. You didn't even have the decency to protect those who are currently in retirement and well advanced in their years, who have no capacity to change their financial affairs to accommodate these changes, by grandfathering it. You didn't even have the decency do that. You wanted to smash and grab their bank accounts—raid their bank accounts for your own spending plans. We won't be taking any lectures from a political party that was proposing that 84 per cent of the people to be affected should earn $37,000 aa year or less and could lose up to a third of their retirement income.

By contrast, the Liberal and National parties under Prime Minister Morrison are actually improving the retirement security and financial security of older Australians. We have announced in just the last fortnight that older Australians who are on a part pension and who have investments will now be assessed as having received a lower deeming rate. That means real money into the real pockets of real Australians on the pension. They will be better off financially as a result of a decision this government has made, not as a result of any rhetoric you have brought into this chamber. That's a million Australians who can be up to $800 a year better off if you're a single, and up to $1,000 better off for couples.

I want to address one other question from question time today. That was by Senator Gallagher on the question of superannuation. She mentioned me in her question. It's entirely appropriate that the government has commissioned a retirement incomes review as a recommendation of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission rightly recognised that it is no good putting more money into superannuation if that superannuation system is broken, as we believe it currently is. My good friend and colleague Senator Hume will be presenting legislation to this chamber soon to help fix some of those problems. I hope that in this parliament, in contrast to the last one, the Labor Party and the crossbench are more willing to work with the government to fix those problems, and that they're more willing to work with us to make sure that fees don't eat up the low balances of many Australians' superannuation. I hope they're willing to work with us to make sure that inappropriate insurance isn't given to people in their superannuation accounts, which also eats up their meagre balances. The government is rightly acting on the advice of the Productivity Commission on that.

I also think it's worthwhile for the government and for the retirement incomes tribunal to examine the wisdom of increasing the compulsory superannuation contribution from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent. We know that when those opposite were previously in government the Treasury department under secretary Ken Henry advised against increasing the superannuation guarantee because, they advised, it would hurt the take-home pay of working Australians. That research has been replicated again in recent weeks by the Grattan Institute. I have to confess that I'm not always a fan of the work of the Grattan Institute. It was founded by Kevin Rudd and John Brumby with $30 million of taxpayers' money. Nonetheless, in this instance, I think they've done some very compelling work. Unlike the group that Senator Gallagher quoted in question time, they're not a vested interest that stands to gain from increasing superannuation contributions. The truth is that in this game, whether it's industry super, retail super, any super, they and their associations are not good sources of independent advice because they seek to reap the rewards of billions of dollars of more money of Australians' retirement savings. The truth is that we need to very carefully consider whether it's a good idea for Australians to potentially receive lower take-home pay, and maybe not even receive a higher retirement benefit as a result. The government will take no lectures at all from the Labor Party on the question of protecting the interests of older Australians.