Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The government loves three-word slogans. So the opposition has one to suggest to them—'Hands off superannuation'.

What on earth was this government thinking when they made the decision to put the interests of a few mining companies ahead of nine million Australians, ahead of 3.2 million small businesses and ahead of 1.3 million families? It is how this government rolls. In a year of stupid and short-sighted decisions by this government, in a year where they have broken so many promises, and as the news of this dirty deal between the government and Palmer United Party emerged, I would submit to the parliament of Australia today that I believe that this decision is the stupidest most short-term decision I have seen this government make. It will have a generational impact and no doubt those opposite smirk. Why would they not? Their superannuation is fine. The problem is this government and these MPs do one thing for themselves yet they ask nine million Australians to do something else altogether.

This is, without a doubt, one of the most catastrophic decisions that we will see affect this generation. Well done, government. No-one in their wildest imaginings, when we thought about the potential damage this government could do, could imagine that this government would take $150 billion in retirement savings from Australians in the future. The immediate decision to freeze superannuation by keeping it at 9½ per cent for the next number of years, according to the Financial Services Council, will cost $128 billion.

What an arrogant Treasurer we have. What a cigar-chomping, out of touch, blow-hard Treasurer we have when he would declare 'oh no, it is not $128 billion gone'. Does this Treasurer think he is so smart that he knows more than the modelling of the Financial Services Council? It was truly one of the funniest moments in an otherwise disappointing day when the Treasurer in question time said, 'I have not seen the assumptions behind this modelling.' Treasurer, we have not seen any of your assumptions behind this hastily cobbled together deal.

The effect of this decision will be disastrous. We hear this government talk about what it all means and how it is going to give money back to people. Someone who is 25 years old earning an average income will be $100,000 worse off. This mob opposite screamed like cut cats about the carbon price yet they have gone to town and committed a cost impact on Australians, the effect of which will be felt for generations.

What do they do to show their priorities? Those people opposite want to give 16,000 people who have millions of dollars already in their superannuation and who earn in excess of $100,000 in interest—that is right; there are people who earn over $100,000 in interest alone—a tax break. Why did we not think of that?

We see beyond the cuts to the schoolkids bonus and the income support bonus. We actually have to look at the generational impact of this decision. It is deeper than even the immediate effect; it goes to one of philosophy. These people love to give a lecture about being lifters not leaners. If you believe them, they are into thrift, they are into accountability, they are into the good old fashioned work ethic and they want Australians to work hard and save. They are always complaining about debt. So what do they do when they are philosophically committed, apparently, to thrift and saving? They damage the single best institution in Australia for savings.

Tony Abbott said in 1995 that compulsory superannuation is a 'con job'. He just wants to give the money back. We see those opposite undermine universal access to Medicare. We see them undermine equitable access to universities. Now they are undermining the great good dream of ordinary Australians to have enough money when they retire. They say 'we kept our promise'; oh no they have not. This is most certainly an adverse change to superannuation and they want to talk about cocks crowing. I tell you what: their roosters would be hoarse because 14 times the Prime Minister said there will be no adverse changes. They would have laryngitis with the amount of untruths that spill from their throats.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

See this speech in context