David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked today.

I rise to take note of answers by the government to opposition questions Nos 2 and 3. What we see in question time day after day is rhetoric as opposed to reality. Before the election, the rhetoric of the government was about no changes to superannuation. But after the election—it's not just comments from the opposition. If you look at some financial services media on 28 February this year, they said:

Labor's super tax reform 'moves the goalposts' again

What the industry sector is saying is that this is a broken promise and the goalposts have been moved again.

I note that, when it comes to goalposts, Labor has form on this. In the area of national security and defence, the former Defence secretary, in a speech here in Canberra, highlighted that the then Labor government made such a number of changes to strategic guidance and funding for defence that, in his words, 'The goalposts weren't just moved; they were cut down and used for firewood.' So, when Labor come into this place and talk about 10 years of wasted time, of the worst government ever, and try and refer to things like defence, you have to compare the reality of what the former secretary highlighted about their poor governance, broken promises and inadequate funding with the record of the coalition, which actually increased funding from a record low since World War II up to in excess of two per cent and brought about things like the Integrated Investment Program to make sure that we had not only the headline capabilities but also all the enabling things, like the infrastructure that we need to have a capable Defence Force. In estimates this year the defence department confirmed that that was the first time a measure like that had taken place, which was actually some of the best governance they had seen in the area of defence.

This rhetoric we see from those opposite about poor government—which also goes to manufacturing. They talk about the fact that manufacturing was downplayed, but what we saw in reality under the coalition government was that things like the Modern Manufacturing Initiative actually led to a huge amount of investment and more apprentices in training than at any other time in Australia's history.

The reality under Labor now is that one of the most promising sectors in Australia's industrial sector, the space sector—which the coalition invested in heavily and, in fact, established Australia's first space agency to give a focal point for investment that this government, in its industrial funding and its plan, has omitted. The space industry is alarmed at the lack of continuity and support from the government in this area.

The other rhetoric we saw before the election, like super, was around power prices. We heard time and again '$275' from the government—that their policies would drive down prices. But what we see in reality is that prices are going up. They went up 18 per cent last year. Today in the paper there were indications that there will be more pain, with the standing offer plan to go up by nearly 20 per cent because of this government's policies, which are run largely on ideology and rhetoric.

To compare it with other nations, let's take the Biden administration in the US. Their Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed last year, looks to reduce the cost of living and particularly one of the energy measures. Unlike the government here that says, 'Variable renewables will get us to net zero and will drive down prices,' the Biden administration has taken the engineering and the science of people like the International Energy Agency, the OECD and a Princeton University report and has said, 'The science tells us that the cheapest way to get clean and reliable energy that will drive down emissions is to increase nuclear power in your economy.' So they have brought in tax measures to incentivise their industry to increase the nuclear power in the States from 92 gigawatts to nearly double that by 2050. That is policy that is based on evidence and science, not on rhetoric.

Whether we're talking about superannuation, about national security, about manufacturing, about the cost of living or about having clean, reliable and affordable power, don't listen to the rhetoric of those opposite. Look at what they've done and compare it with the successful outcomes from people who base policy on engineering and science.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that we've been up-front about the challenges we've inherited. We've been left with a trillion dollars of debt, with little to show for it. We've seen aged care in crisis and a decade of neglect in Medicare. So, we've got to make tough decisions. People in Australia are making tough decisions around their kitchen table, so we, as a responsible government, have to make tough and responsible decisions around the cabinet table. Back in 2016 the member for Hume talked about tough decisions when he said:

Well, it's very simple. We need a fairer superannuation system which has integrity, and this means that those of us who can afford to pay, should be paying our fair share.

The situation we had was that some people were contributing millions of dollars into super, and it's totally inappropriate that someone who has contributed millions and millions of dollars continues to get a 15 per cent concession.

Who said that? That was the member for Hume, in 2016—the current member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer

We are not just talking about it; we are looking at curbing tax breaks for those with over $3 million in super, a very small, modest change—30 per cent on earnings over $3 million instead of 15 per cent. It is still a tax break, but it is not the 15 per cent; it is 30 per cent. And it affects a very small number of people and doesn't take effect until 2025. It will affect fewer than 0.5 per cent of Australians, those who have super balances of over $3 million; 99.5 per cent of people in Australia will see no changes to their super.

In contrast, those opposite froze the SGC three times: in 2014, in 2020 and in 2021. And millions of Australians lost millions of dollars in super and will be poorer in retirement as a result of it. It wasn't 0.5 per cent who were affected by the SGC freeze; it was millions of Australians. I have seen myself, personally, many, many members of my former union who are going to live in poverty in retirement because those opposite froze the SGC. It was modest amounts of money but big money for those people who were affected.

That is what you did to those in retirement. What we are proposing is a modest change. It is responsible. It's modest. And it's to keep super strong and fair. Super was designed to make sure working people have security and dignity in retirement. Your freeze of the SGC didn't deliver that in any way, shape or form. It is condemning people to poverty in retirement, because you froze it three times: 2014, 2020 and 2021. Women were badly affected by this, and it is on your shoulders. So, to hear what I've heard in the last few days about this very modest proposal that is going to affect those who have $3 million balances in super is incredibly hard to take.

But then, what else would we expect from the people who bought us robodebt? Again, watching that royal commission and seeing what has happened to the poorest people in our society—Alan Tudge saying, 'We will find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' That is your legacy. That is what you did. We are proposing a very modest change that is going to affect only a small number of people. And let's be clear: there were more people at the Ed Sheeran concert in Melbourne last weekend than are affected by these changes! That's the thing you should think about. Yet you froze the SGC three times. Millions of Australians lost money, and they're going to be in poverty in retirement because of what you did. We forget about that—absolutely forget about that.

Again, we've heard the member for Fadden admit to the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more, not loyalty to the people of Australia. What a perfect summary of this entire time in government that you had loyalty to yourselves and not to the Australian people!

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The late great Margaret Thatcher once made the observation that the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money, and that is what the Australian people are in the early stages of understanding as we speak right now. The Labor Party, however, do not understand that this is not their money. We're dealing with the money of the Australian people, the workers of Australia. Superannuation is not your money. It's not your money; you didn't work for it. And, despite the Assistant Treasurer's views that we heard this afternoon repeated, that this was simply honey which could be taken from the hive, this is not the manner in which hard-working Australian people view their own savings.

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have basically gone back on their promise. These are changes that they said they would not make at the election, and we are seeing history repeating itself here with the same old Labor Party. This is what I imagine the voters of Australia—the 31 or 32 per cent of them, or whatever it was, that voted Labor—must have at least thought, that they were going to get something different out of the other end of the pipe. This is a bit like what I imagine it must be like to be a North Melbourne supporter at the start of a football season, just thinking that the new season is going to bring something different and, yet, come about round 4—about where we're up to—all we're seeing is clangers and kicks out of bounds on the full. This is what we're seeing. And, let's be honest, despite all of that, it doesn't matter how many colourful parades the Prime Minister goes off and marches in, it doesn't matter how many all-expenses paid trips he takes to go and visit the global glitterati, the little fellow from Ukraine, whatever his name is in the green T-shirt—whatever his name is. Who cares? It doesn't matter; nothing matters. It does not matter because, ultimately—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I can't remember what his name is. He's just on the screen all the time. But, anyway, it doesn't matter, because, ultimately, what happens here is we get the same recycled product over and over and over again. They're making it up as they go along.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Antic, take your seat.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go. This is good!

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: Acting Deputy President, that was an extraordinary reflection on the leader of Ukraine, who, I thought that for everybody in this place, has been a symbol of a very important struggle for democracy and freedom, and you would ask him to withdraw that.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take some advice from the Clerk because Senator Shoebridge had my attention at the time. Thank you, Clerk. There is no point of order on reflections on leaders of other countries, but I will invite the senator to withdraw or contain his remarks, if he will.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw any improper implications. I was just making an observation as to his appearance. In any event, I will move on.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Give respect to democracy.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got respect for democracy.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a shameful reflection.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator O'Neill!

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the interjections! Thank you, Acting Deputy President. What I was saying is that Labor are making this up as they go along. Let's go through what the Prime Minister had done in the past two weeks. The Prime Minister has refused to rule out further changes to superannuation; the Treasurer has refused to rule out changes to negative gearing; and the Treasurer has also refused to rule out changes to capital gains tax, including the imposition on the family home. Then, the Prime Minister rushed out and said, 'No, we won't touch your house,' and the Treasurer said, 'Oh, well, I guess that's right.' So we know where this is headed. We know it. This is a slippery slope. This begins and ends with CGT, with franking credits, with further shifting of the goalposts. That is what we are seeing here.

As Peter Dutton points out, ahead of the election Labor promised solemnly they weren't going to change the goalposts on super. The Prime Minister was unambiguous on that, and now, less than a year into government—we're talking about 10 months into government—the goalposts have been shifted. It's clear that Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers are coming after more of your money. We know that now. We've seen it. The Australian people have seen it, and it's too late for them as Labor simply won't slow down on this. They can't control their own spending and they won't stop coming after our money. To believe them when they say that out of $150 billion they're going to be satisfied with $2 billion out of revenue is just an absurdity. It's just simply not going to happen. Bill Shorten was talking about this when he was the Labor leader, but at least in that instance—and we all remember that fateful campaign—Bill Shorten had the decency to be honest with the Australian people, about his plans, before the 2019 election. Unfortunately, this current Prime Minister can't do that.

Labor's claim is plainly wrong. Their claim that the superannuation policy change will only affect 80,000 people is wrong. Over the time, the number of Australians taxed will increase dramatically because of the reasons I've already outlined. We know they're coming after more. Labor's being tricky, and you cannot take their trust on tax. The Grattan Institute has estimated that within 30 years about one in 10 workers will begin to retire with super balances of around $3 million—

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, I've called you a few times now. Please.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. That's 200 times more people than the government is claiming. Young people will lose out under this policy. An independent analysis has shown that a 25-year-old retiring in 40 years will see the tax on their super double at the equivalent of a million dollars today. (Time expired)

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying what an absolute disgrace that last contribution was to our parliament, an absolute disgrace on what I thought was bipartisan support of the efforts in Ukraine and its leader, President Zelenskyy. You might not seriously care about our international relationships and the responsibility with which we carry that, but we certainly take it seriously. We stood in the House of Representatives chamber all together, with all leaders of this place, in solidarity with Ukraine. It was mere lip-service, given what this senator has just said, and I won't repeat the disrespectful comments. That is all this opposition is worth: absolute lip-service. It's like we saw when the Leader of the Opposition talked about—

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Stewart, can I bring you back to the question.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He raised it.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's not what take note is for. I'm sorry, I have—

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He talked about the Prime Minister travelling.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please take your seat, Senator Stewart. I have had advice from the Clerk that you need to be relevant to the question. I would ask you to go back to the motion put by Senator Fawcett. Please resume.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I was making comments given that he raised it in his contributions to this parliament and I felt it deserved a response, to restate how seriously we take our relationships.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many opportunities to make contributions but they are different to this. You must be responding to the question put by Senator Fawcett.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Back to the topic of superannuation—once I calm myself after that disgraceful display. We have made our priorities clear as a government about who we stand for: the Australian working people. Those opposite have made it clear who they stand for: the 17 people with over $100 million as their superannuation balance and one person with over $400 million as their superannuation balance. That's who they stand for. It's 0.5 per cent of the Australian population, some of the wealthiest people in our country, and good on them. But they should be asking taxpayers—who work on the factory line and our nurses and teachers—to be paying the $2 billion in taxes that we will get from these changes in the first year. These are very modest—I know people love the word modest in this chamber—and sensible changes.

We've already heard some quotes today from those opposite who agreed, back in 2016, about having to make some changes to the superannuation in this country. We are the government for the Australian working people. They are the opposition for the half a per cent. It was great to hear Peter Dutton make his first election promise for 2025: reinstating tax breaks for those 17 people with over $100 million in their superannuation and that one lucky person with over $400 million—Peter Dutton is on your side—in their superannuation. We have finally found something the Leader of the Opposition will stand up for and show some spine for. It's certainly not veterans at risk of homelessness. It's not women fleeing family violence. It's not Australian manufacturing. It's not businesses looking for energy security. It's not families seeking cheaper child care. It's not people needing cheaper medicine. It's not households seeking energy bill relief. He says no to any of those things, but, if you're one of those lucky 18, he's got your back. When it comes to the wealthiest half of one per cent, those opposite have your back.

Last week we heard the federal member for Fadden admit at the royal commission that he lied about robodebt because loyalty to his colleagues mattered more than loyalty to the Australian people. What a perfect summary of their entire time in government—loyalty to themselves and not to the Australian people. I think it's a bit rich for those opposite to sit over there and talk to us about trust. I'm pretty sure that a former prime minister just appointing himself to a couple of portfolios might be considered a bit of a broken promise to the Australian people. I don't know. Not being there when the country's on fire or going underwater might be considered breaking a promise to the Australian people to have their backs. It is an absolute indictment. There were more people at the Ed Sheeran concert last weekend—thank you to Senator White for pointing this out—than there will be affected by these changes. It is an absolute disgrace. We know who those opposite are on the side of. (Time expired)

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, just on a point of order and seeking some further clarification: I'm happy, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you come back to the chamber later. I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the contribution before, but you directed Senator Stewart to return to the motion moved by Senator Fawcett and indicated to her that she should not continue to reflect on the comments that Senator Antic made and—I won't go into them—his extraordinary reflection on the President of Ukraine. I accept that Senator Stewart said that all of us were there for that photo, in solidarity with Ukraine. It's not the case that Senator Antic was there, but I would appreciate—

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, what is your request?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate some clarification of whether or not senators are entitled to reflect on the comments of the senators before them in the ordinary debate on taking note of answers.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ayres. As I said before, I was distracted by Senator Shoebridge when the remark was made, so I did not hear it. The Clerk gave me advice that the senator wasn't being relevant to the motion that had been put, and that was the basis of my ruling, if you accept that. Otherwise, I'm happy to go away and review it with the clerks and come back.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, 'modest' seems to be the word of this week, and let me tell you: I certainly agree that Labor have much to be modest about—in fact, embarrassed about—in relation to their broken promises. They might not think that modest changes matter, but on this side we absolutely know they do. There is nothing modest about their broken promises, particularly in relation to superannuation. It was modest because it only relates to a small percentage of hardworking Australians. What did they say? Zero point five per cent? But guess what: it was actually 10 per cent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it actually turns out to be much more than 10 per cent of hardworking Australians.

Who are these hardworking Australians? They are the people who have worked hard all their lives to earn their money and to put money into superannuation. They are farmers, veterans on defined benefit schemes and many other Australians. There is nothing modest about what you are proposing to do to them. Anyway, even if it were modest and not a broken promise, why are you doing this? Why are you taking people's money away from them and from their retirement if it is so modest? It does not make sense.

Let's call a spade a spade: this 'modest' proposal is actually a broken promise. No matter how much they try to say 'modest, modest, modest', every time the Australian people hear the Labor Party say that it means 'broken promise' and it means they are raiding their superannuation. Australians are very smart and wise people. They know their super is their money. It is not the government's money. It is not the unions' money. It is not super fund money. It is their own money the government are taking from them, despite promising before the election they would not.

Let's have a look at what Labor actually promised every hardworking Australian in this nation. Before the election, Jim Chalmers, now the Treasurer, promised there were going to be no new tax increases; he said those exact words. Labor has broken that promise. Labor has said it will now double taxes on super. You really have to ask what will be next. Once you've broken one promise, many others will come. They are clearly being so duplicitous, and, frankly, are lying to the Australian people when they come here and say: 'Oh, we just had this little idea here. It's modest, it's reasonable. We said we wouldn't do this before the election, but, hey, it's modest. Let's just do it anyway, and take people's money away from them.'

In the last three weeks alone, not only has the Prime Minister refused to rule out further changes to superannuation—again, they said they would make none; the Treasurer has refused to rule out changes to negative gearing. The Treasurer also refused to rule out changes to capital gains tax, including imposition on the family home. Then the Prime Minister rushed out and said: 'Oh, the Treasurer shouldn't have said that. No, we won't touch your house.' But that is still not saying you won't make changes to capital gains tax. Then the Treasurer said, 'Whoops, sorry, I guess the Prime Minister is right.' Clearly, the Prime Minister of this nation and the Treasurer of this nation cannot be trusted, whatever they say, particularly in regard to what they said before the last election.

Those of us who are old enough to remember previous Labor governments will know this is socialism 101. It is the politics of envy. It is the politics of division. They start taking from people who have worked hard and have bigger bank balances, bigger incomes and bigger superannuation, and then they keep widening and widening and widening so that so many working Australians who have worked hard for their money do not have it anymore.

What else have this government done? Since this government came into power less than a year ago, they have had nine consecutive interest rate rises, which is putting profound stress on all Australians who have a mortgage. It's looking pretty grim out there, and everywhere I go people are saying how much this Labor government has negatively impacted on their cost of living. Sadly, there will be more cost-of-living pressures brought on by this Labor government.

Question agreed to.