Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday, Senator Gallagher, you said to the chamber that the purpose of the government's new doubling of super taxes was to make the super system sustainable. But the Retirement income review, published in 2020, said that the evidence indicates that the Australian 'retirement income system is effective, sound and broadly sustainable'. Isn't Labor's doubling of the super tax simply another tax grab to prop up Labor's rampant spending, one that the now Treasurer explicitly promised not to do prior to the election, because he knew Australians would never support it?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): The answer to that is no, but I welcome the opportunity again to remind those opposite about the mess we inherited from them and the seriousness that we are paying for the first time in a number of years around budget repair. We have a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt that we are managing, that we have to manage. We have pressures coming towards the budget that are increasing, not decreasing, and we can go through them again. Aged care, Medicare, hospitals, defence—they are all areas where pressure is increasing, not decreasing. We have a $50 billion structural deficit that we inherited from you. That is what we need to repair, and that is why there is this very modest change to the concessionality of tax for high-balance accounts over $3 million. It's a sensible change. It assists with budget repair. It means that we can make room for some of those pressures that you ignored but Australians value—things like paying for aged-care workers. How about that? We are making investments in those types of areas against a background of a budget that was riddled with waste and pork-barrelling and a failure to deal with the pressures. Remember the Back in Black mugs? We all remember them. That budget was never going back into balance, because there were a range of pressures heading their way, but they also had this very nifty way of budgeting which was to budget for one year or two years for programs that were ongoing. I mean, the dishonesty in your budget when you were in government is galling, and we are fixing it. We take our responsibility seriously and we will get on with it. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, a first supplementary?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Retirement income review also stated

The home is the most important component of voluntary savings and is an important factor influencing retirement outcomes …

Given this is an important part of the retirement system, will you rule out any changes to, including repealing, the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which helps first homebuyers enter the property market?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've made clear what our position is on the announcement that we made last week. The Prime Minister has made it clear on other aspects that have been raised in the last week. We have been very clear. It is a very small change. It affects a very small number of fortunate people who have managed to save more than $3 million in their super. Good on them. Good luck to them. Their concessionality will be slightly reduced compared to what—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order Madam President: the question was about the First Home Super Saver Scheme and whether the government would repeal it or abolish it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, the question also started with a reference to the family home. Hence, the minister's answer is entirely relevant.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did have a couple of sentences before then, Senator Hume. I think the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen. If the minister isn't being relevant, I will remind her of the question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I did answer the question in my first remarks.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn't.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did. I said we have announced the changes that the government has agreed upon. We have announced them. You have the detail. You're opposed to it. We hear that. We know that you are going to die in a ditch for people with balances over $3 million, regardless of what's happening in other parts of the economy. I have answered the question. We have been clear with what our position is. The change was announced last week. (Time expired)

The:

Senator Hume, a second supplementary question.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you referenced yesterday, Treasury modelling predicts that without indexation 10 per cent of Australians will be impacted by your new tax in the next 30 years. Will you table this modelling?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is information that I had around the indexation. I'll check if there's further information I can provide. But I will say: in 2016 the changes you brought in affected four per cent of people; in 30 years, they will affect 30 per cent. That's what happens. This is a very modest change. It allows for some budget repair to occur because of the budget that we have inherited. We have spent the last nine months going through the rorts, the waste, the unfunded promises, the legacy funding cliffs, the zombie measures and the billions and billions of dollars buried in that budget that you were not upfront about. We have gone through them. We are making sensible changes to assist with budget repair.