Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The hurt inflicted on Australians by the Government’s adverse changes to superannuation, changes to the age pension and cuts to support for senior Australians.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is plenty of hurt being inflicted by this government's adverse changes to superannuation. There is plenty of hurt being inflicted by its changes to the age pension. There is plenty of hurt being inflicted on the Australian people because of the government's changes to family tax benefits. But, more than anything else, what we have is a government which is determined to breach its election commitments and hurt the Australian people in a way that is adverse not just to individuals and families but to the long-term economic future of this nation.

The government do not realise the importance of the policies they are dealing with. They see superannuation as their personal plaything—in which they do not believe. The Prime Minister, when he was sitting up on the opposition backbench, called superannuation a con job foisted on the Australian people by our government. We know that he does not understand superannuation because, years later, in his book, he called for retrograde steps to be made. And now, given the chance as Prime Minister of Australia, he is making retrograde steps to Australia's superannuation system.

Let me be very clear: superannuation is a proud achievement of Labor governments. We built it and we will defend it. We will defend it against Liberal and National MPs who vote consistently to downgrade it—they did so in the 1990s, they do so today and, no doubt, they will do so in this House tomorrow. They do not believe in superannuation building the future for working Australians. They do not believe it and they fight it. Well, we will fight them every step of the way. We are proud of the fact that our superannuation assets are now the fourth largest in the world. We are the 12th largest economy and we have the fourth largest pension pool in the world—achieved by Australians saving for their future, achieved by Australia's financial services industry, achieved by a framework set up by successive Labor governments. The Hawke and Keating governments invented universal superannuation, the Rudd and Gillard governments strengthened universal superannuation, and the Abbott government is trying to drag superannuation down—breaching their election commitments to the Australian people.

Well, the Australian people are awake to the conflict of disloyalties which goes to the heart of this government. We have a government that beats its chest and lectures Australians about working harder and longer, a government that says Australian should work until they are 70. Can the government name one country in the world with a pension age of 70? No. Can it name one country that is projected to have a pension age of 70 by 2035? No. Can it name one country that is projected to have a pension age of 70 by 2050? Not one! This government thinks Australian should work longer than people in any other country in the world. This government says we should have an indexation of the pension arrangements which is as onerous and as mean as any tried by any government in the world—barring not even Margaret Thatcher's government.

We are the 12th largest economy in the world and the government says that, as a nation, we cannot afford to give pensioners fair indexation. The government says to Australians that it is not going to help them save for their future if they dare to be low- or middle-income earners or one of Australia's female workers across the country—the 2.1 million female Australians who are today missing out on a modest superannuation concession at the hands of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the members who sit behind them. There are 2.1 million Australians who happen to be women working in schools, hospitals and factories—the workplaces of Australia—who today are losers at the hands of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer.

The government say to these people: 'You deserve zero tax concession on your superannuation. You deserve nothing from your government for daring to save for the future. We're going to make you work until you're 70. We don't care if you're a nurse who works the night shift. We don't care if you're a bricklayer who works your body to such a point that you can go no further. We don't care if you're a policeman or a policewoman keeping our streets safe. We don't care who you are or where you are, you'll get nothing from us.' That is what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say, and that is what every single member opposite says. Whether they be from the Liberal Party or the National Party, whether they represent city or rural Australia, they all say to Australia's low-income earners: 'We're not on your side. We're on the side of higher income earners, who deserve ever more generous tax concessions. If you dare to be a low-income earner, you'll get nothing from us.' They have abolished the low-income superannuation contribution in their deal with the Palmer United Party in the other house and, no doubt, tomorrow they will do so in this house. We say, 'Shame on them!'

We will stand up for Australia's low-income workers. We will stand up for those workers who say: 'We deserve some assistance to save for our future. We don't mind working hard. We don't mind doing what it takes to put food on the table and to provide for our families. But is somebody looking out for us?'

Is somebody going to say there should be some modest tax concessions for low-income earners? Yes, there is somebody, but we are all on this side of the House. There is not one on that side of the House. The National Party, which once promised so much to rural Australia, says to all those low-income earners right throughout rural and regional and Australia, 'We're not on your side. We will not stand up for you.'

The Labor Party will stand up for the workers of rural and regional Australia. The Labor Party will say that those workers right up and down the coast and through Australia's great inland deserve some assistance to save for the future. They deserve some assistance to be part of that great Labor achievement of superannuation, that Labor achievement which has helped so many thousands of Australians have a dignified and comfortable retirement. That is what we believe in. We believe that regardless of your income, background, gender or where you live you deserve dignity in retirement. We believe that if you have worked hard all your working life you deserve to be able to retire before you turn 70 and you deserve to have some dignity and comfort in your retirement. We are not talking about luxury or great riches. We are talking about dignity. We are talking about giving Australians the chance to live free of being reliant on the age pension.

The Prime Minister did not even know the impact of his own policies. He could not tell the House or the Australian people how many people will now be reliant on the full age pension because of changes he has pushed through the parliament today. He does not know, and how could he know? This is policy on the run. We have had three positions from the government over the course of the past 24 hours. I wonder if the minister who will respond on behalf of the government will share with the House any Treasury modelling they may have done about the impact on low-income earners, or on the budget over the long term, or on the national savings pool. I severely doubt it. They are good people down at the Treasury. They work very hard. But they cannot provide modelling in 30 minutes when they have a dysfunctional government that does not know what it is doing. This is a dysfunctional government which treats the parliament and the people with contempt because of their arrogance. Their arrogance tells them that from Canberra they can dictate that low-income earners deserve nothing when it comes to superannuation, that low-income earners should get a tax concession which amounts to no more or no less than zero, and that low-income earners should get no assistance.

This arrogant government says to Australia's hardworking low-income earners that they do not care about them. We care about them. That is why we voted the way we did. That is why we voted the way we did in the other place. That is why we will vote the way that we will in this House, in defence of Australia's low-income earners. We will stand up for them against this arrogant government. We will stand up for fairness. We will stand up against their moves to make the age pension less fair. We will stand up against their moves to make Australians work longer than anybody else in the world—not only in the developed world but anybody else in the world.

This government says Australians should work longer than workers in any other country in the world. Did they say that before the last election? I do not recall them saying that before the last election. Did they go out with their pamphlets and say, 'Here is my policy. I reckon you should work longer than anybody else in the world'? That would be a winner, wouldn't it? No, they did not. No, they did not, because they knew the Australian people would vote differently if they were honest with the Australian people about their plans and about their prejudice. That is what we see from this government: plans to implement their prejudice, their prejudice against working people. We will fight it all away.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, we hear the Australian Labor Party come into the chamber and rail. We hear words like 'justice', 'equity' and 'fairness'. We hear the shadow Treasurer railing about how the government is being arrogant. I think his choice quote was how, as a government, we were treating the parliament and the people with contempt. These are pretty serious charges. How arrogant and contemptuous of us as a government to deliver a promise! How arrogant and contemptuous of us as a government to go to the Australian people before the last election and say, 'If we get elected, because the Labor Party has put the budget in such a stew, we are going to abolish the mining tax and we are going to abolish all the spending associated with the mining tax.' And then, what did we do? We followed through on our commitment. Guilty! Seriously, this is the shadow Treasurer, the man who presided over a spectacular calamity when it came to Australia's finances, now standing up and hectoring and standing up with moral indignation about how inequitable it is, how unfair it is and how Australia will be in a worse situation all because the government is doing what we said we would do.

Look at this joke of a shadow Treasurer and this joke of an opposition. This is the reason the Australian people reject them and reject their approach. They made that point crystal clear in September last year. They made that point crystal clear. Despite the fact that the Australian Labor Party likes to pretend or likes to think that the Australian people are stupid, they are not. They are smart and they recognise when a government has reached its use-by date as the Australian Labor Party did. But the fundamental problem is that Labor has not heeded the lesson. Labor has not listened to the verdict of the Australian people. Instead of actually recognising the shortcomings on their part, they stand up and huff and puff and try to make out that the fault lies with the government. The fact is that we are a government that has honoured yet another commitment. We are government that are implementing the meaningful, mature, methodical approach to governance that the Australian people had a yearning for and that they called out for last September. It is this government and not all the hot wind from the opposition that is going to make a long-term difference to the Australian people. It is this government's decisions—although not universally popular—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's for sure!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we know that—that we know are in the national interest. I will take a decision in the national interest over short-term populism every day of the week, Member for Jagajaga, every day of the week. That is what we were elected to do. We were elected to make the hard decisions. We were elected to make decisions that mean this country is on a long-term sustainable pathway. We reject entirely Labor's short-term, knee-jerk approach to politics, because we know, as the Australian people know, that Labor's approach is nothing but a recipe to land us in the same hot water that short-term thinking in Europe landed most European countries in. We know that hard decisions need to be made and that you do not always do what is popular but what is right, because that is what governments are meant to do.

So, when I hear the Australian Labor Party start screeching on about how people say one thing and do another, I scratch my head and think, 'Well, that's slightly hypocritical'. We already know that we said something before the election. We said we would abolish the mining tax and we said that we would abolish the spending associated with the mining tax, and that is what we have done. So, there has been 100 per cent consistency with what we said we would do. Let us contrast that with Labor's record. Let us contrast it with what Labor's approach has been. There is quite a track record there. Who could forget, in 2012, the member for Lilley, the then Australian Treasurer, standing up at this very dispatch box, saying:

The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies.

In an uncertain and fast-changing world, we walk tall—as a nation confidently living within its means.

This Budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.

That was the member for Lilley, on 8 May 2012. So, I say to the Australian Labor Party: seriously, take you hand off it; enough is enough. It is about time the Australian Labor Party stopped having a lend, because we know that this is a government that delivers on its commitments. It contrasts with the Australian Labor Party, who had an approach of saying exactly the same as they do today—saying whatever they think they need to say because they think there is a vote in it. That is not the coalition's approach. So I am happy to be compared, and the government is happy to be compared, every single day on delivering on our commitments versus Labor not delivering on their commitments.

But there is more, with respect to the superannuation guarantee charge. We see the Australian Labor Party, once again, railing about the fact that we have deferred the increase in the superannuation guarantee. I feel a little bit sorry for the member for Fraser, because how many times have we seen government ministers—and I would not say 'unfairly'—making hay of the fact that the Shadow Assistant Treasurer has written in a very strident way about his strong support for a Medicare copayment? We know that does not sit comfortably with them because it is contrary to Labor Party policy. You can imagine that on the Labor Party's side probably a lot of them would be concerned about what it is that the Shadow Assistant Treasurer has actually said. But I think Labor has a problem, because what do they do when the actual Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Labor Party, makes a comment that 'analysis suggests that, over time, superannuation guarantee increases have come out of wages rather than profits'? I think the member for Fraser should be feeling quite good about himself. It has not stopped the Leader of the Opposition from rising to his position. Now the member for Fraser is in good company, because both he and the Leader of the Opposition have a point of policy that is different to Labor's actual policy. We know that the Leader of the Opposition said that superannuation guarantee increases have come out of wages rather than profits. Well, good news, Leader of the Opposition: because of the deal that the coalition has delivered today, because of our deal to repeal the mining tax that was making this country less competitive, because of our deal to make sure that as a nation we are back on a sustainable fiscal pathway by cutting, unfortunately, expenditure that ideally we would not have to—but let us make no mistake about the fact that we are doing it because of the state of the books left to us by the Australian Labor Party—we are leaving more money in people's pockets, just as the Leader of the Opposition said was the case in relation to the superannuation guarantee and just as we know is a fact.

I repeat to the Australian Labor Party: if they are serious about increases in the superannuation guarantee, they need to make sure that those increases and those policy positions are sustainable and funded, because the easy thing, the indulgent thing and in fact the reckless thing to do is to come into this chamber and to huff and puff but not to have any money to pay for it. I go back to one fundamental tenet. It is a point I have raised in this chamber before, and it is a point that I will raise every single day in relation to this notion of fairness and equity. We hear the charge levelled against all of us on this side of the House about how grossly unfair we are and how as a government we are so inequitable. And I just make the point again that every day of every week I will stand up for a government that lives within its means, that does not mortgage future generations of Australians, that does not say to Australian kids today, 'Tough luck that you'll have to spend 20 or 30 years paying off today's spending.'

I am happy to look any future generation of Australian children and say to them, 'We stood the test of time; we stood up against the shallow charge of those opposite, who claimed all things to all people to make themselves popular for five minutes, because we took decisions in the national interest to make sure that we safeguarded the future of our children, the future of our nation.' That is what true fairness is. That is what true equity is. True equity is not about stealing or mortgaging future generations; true equity is about living within your means, spending only what you can afford, and, if you introduce a new tax, not introducing a tax that raises one per cent of the forecast revenue but making sensible crucial decisions and as a government taking the mature approach that delivers outcomes.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a day that yet again sees this government break another promise—another filthy deal done by this government with the Palmer United Party to remind 2.3 million Australian pensioners what this government is doing to them—2.3 million pensioners understand that this government has betrayed them. One year ago exactly, this Prime Minister went to the National Press Club and said, yet again—he had said it many times—'there will be no changes to pensions'. Which one of you goes out into your electorate and owns up to your pensioners that your Prime Minister lied to them? Did you tell them, over there in Townsville? He is happy to go out there and tell his pensioners that the Prime Minister lied to them before the last election because that is exactly what he did.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Jagajaga is using unparliamentary terms with respect to the Prime Minister and I ask that she withdraw.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was in conversation with someone on my right. I did not hear them, but it would assist the chamber if the member for Jagajaga would withdraw those comments.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that in the seat of Eden-Monaro there are 2.3 million pensioners who live—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

2.3 million in Eden-Monaro?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the 2.3 million pensioners in Australia, some of whom I met in Queanbeyan today. The member for Eden-Monaro should get out and talk to some of the pensioners he has betrayed and the Prime Minister has betrayed. I say to the pensioners in Eden-Monaro that the member for Eden-Monaro is sitting in here having a good old laugh today because he has betrayed them and the Prime Minister has betrayed each and every one of the pensioners in Eden-Monaro—and in Bass, in Herbert. You keep laughing when you face up to those pensioners in Townsville and tell the truth at the next election. Those pensioners are going to see a cut to their pension because of the way each and every one of you has voted in this House of Representatives. Each and every one of you will be held to account by all of us at the next election for the way in which you are cutting the pension. If you do not want to believe me, just believe your own Treasurer, who, last week admitted that by 2024 the amount the government will spend on the age pension will be $7 billion less than otherwise projected. What does that mean to Australian pensioners? We tried to ask the Prime Minister this question the other day but of course he refused to answer.

The Australian Council of Social Service has worked out exactly what it will mean to Australian pensioners. Over the next 10 years it will mean $80 a week less and the member for Eden-Monaro should have a chat with his pensioners in Queanbeyan because they know—and you can shake your head and act like you do not know—that you have betrayed them and they know that Tony Abbott has betrayed them. It will be exactly the same for the three stooges in Tasmania.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Regularly in this House members opposite are reminded to refer to people by their correct titles. That was an unparliamentary and offensive term and she should withdraw it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Jagajaga to withdraw and also to refer through the chair not at the chair. It is a common mistake of many on both sides of the House.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass has a lot of pensioners in his electorate and I am happy to withdraw calling him anything other than 'curly', but I say to the member for Bass that he has to face up to every single one of his pensioners and face up to the fact that— (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition really must think that both the government and the people of Australia have ridiculously short memories when they have the temerity to put forward a motion which purports to criticise the government for 'adverse changes to superannuation'. Do they think that the Australian people have forgotten that previous Prime Minister Rudd had this to say in 2007:

Absolutely not, there will be no change to superannuation laws—not one jot, not one tittle.

A quote which should live in memory, along with the tremendous quote the House was reminded of just a few moments ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, 'The four years of surpluses I announce tonight,'

when he brought down a budget which delivered no such thing. The onlyexplanation I can think of is that both the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister are enthusiastic residents of Second Life, which is a virtual world in which you create a representation of yourself called an avatar. It also has its own virtual currency. Perhaps the former Treasurer found a particular version of Second Life in which the virtual currency which is used has the amazing property to always deliver a surplus, no matter how extraordinarily economically inept you are.

Over the last six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government we had the most extraordinary record of economic ineptitude and that is true as much of superannuation as it is in every other aspect of economic policy. The shadow Treasurer, speaking earlier, sought to cloak himself in the legacy of the Hawke and Keating years, but the legacy of this dismal side opposite is the legacy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, years which began with that strangely convoluted promise I have just cited, 'no change to the superannuation laws—not one jot, not one tittle', the 'Ruddbot' obviously at that point having a bit of a programming difficulty and lapsing into its own peculiar form of language.

But did the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government deliver on those promises? In fact, what we saw was a chaotic and relentless series of changes to the rules governing superannuation. And who was deeply involved in all of that? Of course, the current Leader of the Opposition who was then the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. He was deeply involved, as was the now shadow Treasurer. From the 2008 budget onwards we saw a relentless series of tax increases, some $9 billion of increases on the tax applying to superannuation. We saw a consistent and repeated record, change after change, some 11 separate rounds of superannuation tax hikes. We saw the concessional contribution limit drop from $100,000 to $50,000 and then to $25,000; it was frozen at $25,000.

We saw the continuing uncertainty that operated across all of the policy settings in superannuation. Who can forget in 2013 the chaotic and desperate process that the then government went through as they cast around for some new measures under which they could extract additional tax out of superannuation? At one point, there was going to be a tax on the balance held in a superannuation fund above a level of $800,000. There were going to be additional contributions taxes—indeed, that was where they ultimately settled.

But the rules kept changing, and it was in response to that relentless series of changes that Australians increasingly lost confidence in the superannuation rules, because, if they continued to change, then what rational person was going to say, 'This is a wise place to be putting my retirement savings'? That is a very clear distinction between the policy approach on this side of the House and the policy approach that we saw from the other side of the House in relation to superannuation for six or seven years. We saw continued, repeated changes to the rules. When the then Labor government came to power in 2007, there was a super co-contribution of $1,500; when they left, it had gone down to $500. There was change after change after change.

We have been clear and honest and consistent with the Australian people in what we took to the election in 2013 and the measures which we are moving to implement now. We made it clear that we intended to pause the increase in the superannuation guarantee charge because it did not make sense to make a commitment to do something which could not be afforded. That is the clear position on this side of House. We want a sustainable superannuation system. We are strong believers in superannuation, and we are strong believers in an affordable system.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The retirees and pensioners of Australia will not forget this rotten Liberal government for what it is doing to their life savings and the national savings pool of this government, and Labor will make sure that they do not forget. But we will not be on our own, because it is the pensioners' organisations and the retirees' organisations, that represent millions of retirees, millions of Australians, that are out there making sure that their members do not forget either—and, believe me, their voices are loud, and they are people who vote with their conscience when it comes to decisions on their retirement savings and their pensions. And, oh boy, they won't forget this!

So we are not alone in thinking that this is a rotten Liberal government that has done the wrong thing by pensioners, has broken every single promise it made, and is doing the wrong thing by retirees. In fact, the Financial Services Council's media release today had this headline:

Super guarantee delay will mean $128 billion less in savings for working Australians

That is an awful lot of money. That is by 2025, due to the delay of the 12 per cent superannuation guarantee that Labor would have achieved—and this government could have achieved, if it had had vision; if it had had foresight and, dare I say it, if it had actually cared for retirees and pensioners.

None of the evidence would suggest that these people here—the government of the Liberal Party and the National Party—care because, if they did, they would actually understand that this is a positive move for the economy and a positive move for pensioners and retirees. This actually saves you money. It saves you money in the short term, the medium term and the long term.

What does John Brogden, CEO of the FSC, have to say about this? He says:

We are concerned it could exacerbate the nation’s low savings rate and that costs will be passed on to future generations.

So the CEO of the FSC says that the Liberal Party will be passing on the costs to future generations. Disgraceful—that is what I have to say! He also acknowledges in there that:

Australians are living longer and need to plan for their retirement with certainty.

Well, Labor agrees. It appears that the Liberal Party does not agree.

It also appears that the Liberal Party has not figured out that, this year alone, the government will save $6 billion in age pension costs because of the superannuation guarantee—because of our retirement savings pool. This would be a cost-benefit—a benefit to the country and to the economy and to the budget, if the Liberal Party would allow it; if it had vision; if it could see beyond its own ideology and beyond its nose. But it is too busy.

This is a Liberal Party too busy doing the exact opposite of everything it said it would do just before the election. Breaking every single promise would be about as close as it gets to consistency and certainty. That I am certain of—when they talk about certainty, what they mean is: 'We will break every single promise,' and the list is being ticked off very, very quickly.

This is a deal that they said would never be done: 'No deals; no uncertainty; no new taxes' and the list went on and on and on. But they are happy to deal with the Palmer United Party to see the low-income superannuation contribution for Australia's lowest-paid workers scrapped—full stop; gone. They are happy to do a dirty deal on that, as long as it suits their political agenda.

But who pays the price? Who is it that wears the cost? Two-and-a-half million of Australia's lowest-paid workers, the majority of whom are women and need the bigger support.

So the next time any of us hears the Liberal Party talking about how concerned they are about the ageing population, and saying: 'We've got to try and help women to get a little bit more money in the kitty for their retirement savings,' we will say: 'How disingenuous is that! You've got an opportunity. It is actually done for you. All the work is done. You've just got to let it sit and allow it to continue. Don't scrap it, don't delay it, don't make the bad decisions, and it's a done deal.' Yet they are doing the exact opposite.

If they came in here and could actually articulate just one good reason—just one, apart from doing a deal and saying, 'The business of government is dirty,' and, 'We don't have any choice,' and, 'We've got to save ourselves from the budget crisis,' and, 'We've got to call these things in'—

Mr Whiteley interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member for Braddon!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to have an open debate with the Luddites on the other side when it comes to superannuation, because they are good at just yelling out abuse but they do not stop for a minute and think about the people it actually affects. Who are we talking about? We could start marching them in here, one at a time, and asking them, 'How does it affect you?' How does it affect the pensioners? I have got locked into my mind, really, really clearly the promises that were made— (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is yet another supposedly 'critical matter of public importance' by those opposite, complaining of some hypothetical 'hurt' to Australians. I remember speaking on a debate just last week with very similar wording. It is great to see that those opposite have so little to complain about, they cannot even change their MPI statements.

Those opposite must be total hypochondriacs; they complain of hurt here, and hurt there. They talk about hurt to education, when funding to education has gone up under the coalition. They talk about hurt to seniors, when the pension continues to go up under the coalition. They talk about hurt to health, when the funding for health continues to increase under the coalition. They talk about hurt for senior Australians, when the coalition has already moved to reduce the cost of living for older Australians, and to provide incentives to business to employ them. The intestinal fortitude of those opposite to come into this place and make out that the coalition has somehow done wrong by aged pensioners and senior Australians is unfathomable.

Since those opposite obviously have minds with as many holes in them as their economic policy, I will take this opportunity to remind the opposition of their own record when it comes to older Australians. They were the party that introduced the carbon tax, which raised the cost of living despite promises to the contrary. They were the ones who attacked private health insurance, hurting older Australians and self-funded retirees who were already doing the right thing and contributing where they could to the cost of their retirement and health. And they were the ones who increased the pension age to 67.

I believe that Australians are getting sick and tired of Labor tooting their truth-tilting trumpets, and it is time to set the record straight on the coalition's aged-care changes. We are all aware that one of the biggest problems that Australia faces into the future is our ageing population. And the coalition is taking action. The coalition is addressing the limitations of our current system to ensure that we get the best outcomes possible for older Australians, now and into the future.

The coalition is ensuring that the sustainability of aged care is not put at risk, ensuring that we will be able to provide quality care for older Australians now and into the future. The changes are designed to make the aged-care system: more sustainable, more efficient, more flexible and easier to access and navigate. Contrary to the malicious trumpeting of those opposite, there will always be a safety net. We are asking people who can afford to contribute to the cost of their aged care to do so.

I would like to make it clear that these changes were already taking effect, and the coalition inherited them from the previous Labor government. But our incoming government did not start with a clean slate. If it had been a coalition government at the helm at the time, these changes may have been slightly different. These aged-care changes have their origin in a Productivity Commission report from 2011.

It is a great shame that we cannot afford a luxurious suite of aged-care policies. Our aged-care generation deserves them. But, with Labor having plunged Australia into the fastest deterioration of debt in our modern history, if no action was taken on Labor's reckless spending commitments, within a decade our interest repayments would have been $3 billion a month. That is three thousand million dollars every month wasted. With this money we could afford to give every aged pensioner their own 24/7 personal nurse. This is money we could put to dementia research, free pharmaceuticals, free treatment for arthritis, cancer research—you name it—this money could made a real difference.

But we do not have the money for these initiatives; we do not have the money, as a result of poor and reckless financial management by those opposite. Instead all of us are forced to tighten our belts and to rein in spending, to pay off their irresponsible fiscal incompetence. It is shameful.

It is laughable that those opposite are claiming that the coalition is hurting Australians. It was Labor who tried to stand in the way of the government honouring its election commitment to self-funded retirees, to index the income threshold for the Commonwealth seniors health card to inflation from 20 September this year. Labor voted against legislation to provide wider access to this card that provides essential and affordable medical services to nearly 300,000 senior Australians.

Those opposite remain in their fictitious fairyland filled with foolish fantasies. They have no clue when it comes to doing the right thing by older Australians.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Oxley dealt with the grubby changes to superannuation that are going to impact millions of Australians in terms of their financial security. The member for Jagajaga talked about pensions. I want to refer the member for Ryan—she did say that there was almost no adverse impacts on pensions and senior Australians—to page 192 of Budget Paper No. 2, which shows $1.3 billion in cuts for pension concessions; for utilities, for transport, for registration et cetera. Page 203 of this document—if you had bothered to look at it, Member for Ryan—shows $449 million in cuts to pensions; veterans pensions, disability pensions, carers payments, age pensions. That is what it shows. And, if those members have a look at their own document, they will see there are cuts to pensions for older Australians.

But what age pensioners need is support, greater choice and financial security. They need more support and care at home. They need greater access to residential aged care. We did Living Longer, Living Better. I will deal with the third aspect of this MPI: support to older Australians and the cuts the coalition is undertaking. What did they do within days of getting into government? They cut the workforce supplement, which was there to help aged-care providers with assistance for nurses and carers in aged-care facilities—$1.1 billion. They cut the funding in the workforce supplement. They followed it up in the budget with $653 million in cuts; getting rid of the aged-care payroll tax exemption supplement. The aged-care sector had no idea this was coming. It was a one-two punch to the head for the aged-care sector. It meant that a sector with low profit margins could not provide the assistance. I met today with Leading Age Services Australia, LASA, to talk about this and the impact on older Australians because of the cuts that this government has perpetrated on senior Australians.

Then, just before Dementia Awareness Month, this government cuts the dementia and severe behaviour supplement; 330,000 Australians need that help in residential aged-care facilities. Now the children of people in those aged-care facilities have to go there to provide the support and assistance that aged-care providers and residential aged-care homes should be providing. And all those opposite bemoan this. They go back to their listening posts and mobile offices and say: 'We have cut the dementia and severe behaviours supplement'.

There was no notice given to the industry. It was not in the MYEFO and it was not in the budget—but after the budget. The sector did not know about it. This sector is under so much pressure from the cuts of those opposite. They did not tell the sector about this before the election—and they did not tell them that they were going to get rid of the payroll tax exemption supplement either. What the government have done is make it harder for older Australians in residential aged-care facilities. Where are they going to get the doctors, nurses, carers and accountants? Where are they going to provide assistance?

We know that older Australians need support. This is a country with an ageing demographic. At Federation four per cent of Australians were over 65 years of age; now it is 14 per cent and it is going to be 25 per cent in the next couple of decades. There will be a million Australians in this country with dementia, and those opposite do not care at all—because they are cutting the funding for this sort of assistance in the homes. That is what they have done—with no consultation with the sector.

Those consequential cuts will have an impact on the kind of care those people in dementia units get. They have kept the cognition supplement—the extra 10 per cent—for the homecare packages for people with dementia who are in their home. But they cut the funding, the extra $16.15 a day—that is all it is—for those people in dementia units. I say to those opposite: go back to your listening post, your mobile offices and your aged-care homes—go to Blue Care—and tell them that you are cutting the funding. Those opposite will pay a big price for their cuts to support for aged care. They will pay a big price for their cuts to support the pension and the cuts to support superannuation. In places like Townsville, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Gladstone, Bundaberg and Rockhampton, they will rue the day they did this.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometime this morning—and I am not sure exactly what time it was—the member for McMahon wrote to Madam Speaker notifying her of a matter of public importance. Sometime between him writing and despatching that letter and at about four o'clock this afternoon those opposite appear to have lost interest in this matter of public importance. When the member for Blair, their fourth speaker, rose to his feet, there were only two Labor members in this House—the member for Blair himself and the member for Greenway.

I think this seriously brings into question the genuineness of this matter of public importance that has been raised by those in opposition. I believe that they should consider their position in relation to raising future matters of public importance, if the way that they are going to deal with this is by having limited members in the chamber to put the positions.

This indicates loudly and clearly that this is not a real matter of public importance for those opposite. What this is is an opportunity for them to endeavour to raise cheap political points. This matter of public importance has not been raised out of any genuineness at all to debate this matter or out of any real concern about the issues that they have raised. This is all about those opposite trying to portray the government as nasty and out to get people. It is a confected narrative. This is all about their disgraceful, sneering class warfare tactics—which are about the only thing that Labor has left. They certainly do not have any solutions. The Leader of the Opposition proved that very clearly when he stood up in his budget reply speech and offered not one single alternative to address the challenges that our government, our nation and our economy must face. And there are serious challenges that our nation must face—not the least of which is the economic mess that Labor left behind.

It is astounding, and we should never ever forget, that in less than six years Labor saddled us with five successive budget deficits totalling $191 billion and racked up a further $123 billion in deficits into the future. The nation went from a position where we had money in the bank to one where we now pay over $12 billion each year on interest payments alone, just on the debt Labor racked up in those six short years. That is the reality and that is what we have to fix. If we do not act now, in 10 years time we will be paying an incredible $32 billion a year just in interest payments. That is more than we currently spend on aged care, schools and child care combined. Under Labor's 'let's not change a thing', head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-the-ears approach, we would continue racking up debt and wasting obscene amounts of money every single year in interest payments. Our government did not create this mess, but we are accepting the responsibility for fixing it.

When you look at how Labor got us into the mess, you get a shining example with the minerals resource rent tax—or the mining tax as it is known. The superannuation changes Labor refer to in this debate are a result of repealing promises they made that were to be funded from the profits of the mining tax. The only problem was that the profits did not flow. The tax was an absolute shocker. The original mining tax was expected to raise $49.4 billion over five years, and on that basis Labor made all sorts of promises, including changes to superannuation. It was then altered and forecast to raise $29.5 billion over the five years. However, it was then expected to raise just $668.5 million over the forward estimates to 2017-18.

The previous government had an appalling record and it has been left to this government to try to fix the mess. It is really about time that those opposite recognised that the situation that this government finds itself in is entirely their fault and that they need to start working actively to fix their mistakes.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is absolutely beyond debate is that there are now adverse changes to superannuation. It is also beyond debate that there are changes to the aged pension. And it is also beyond debate, for the purposes of the member for McPherson, that there are cuts to support for elderly Australians. I will let everyone in on a secret here: superannuation impacts on all of our communities, not just those in Labor electorates. It impacts on every family, on all workers and on all our communities—as I said—not just those that happen to reside in a Labor electorate. If you look around, you will find them in your own backyard but I do not expect you to go and look there because mainly they are going to be workers—people who actually go out and work for an income—and superannuation is very important to them.

I am old enough to remember how superannuation was brought about in this country. Superannuation is a vital scheme, one that provides a benefit for those who are going to retire. It gives people the opportunity to retire with dignity. Back before the mid-eighties, the only people who had superannuation were the public servants and those who occupied white collar management positions in the private sector in this country. It did not apply to workers and it certainly did not apply to blue collar workers. I did leave parliamentarians out because they had this rolled gold untouchable superannuation scheme—some of them still do.

The trade union movement pursued superannuation throughout the mid-eighties until we had award based superannuation. It took a Labor government until about 1992 to actually legislate to provide compulsory superannuation for all Australian workers. There is one group of people that sit around these benches that opposed that. Do you know who it was? It was all those opposite. They failed to support it. They failed to support it while they were occupying those benches and while sitting on their own parliamentary superannuation scheme—the untouchable scheme that had a benefit that was far better than anybody else in this country. They said 'no' and voted against superannuation for Australian workers.

People do come to this debate with a little bit of history. What is wrong with people being able to retire with dignity? What is wrong with encouraging people to save for their future? As I said, the Libs do come to this with a little bit of history.

Russell was around long enough to actually see this unfold. Back when this legislation was going through, there was one member on that side of the House who decided to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party and who occupied the position of shadow industrial relations spokesperson. Let me quote the Prime Minister's words in 1995: Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

That is what the Liberal Party thought of compulsory superannuation. They did not mind sitting on their superannuation here in this place and, fortunately, they still supported our public servants receiving their superannuation. But for anybody else out there, they thought they should just rely on the pension. They did not even get the idea of encouraging people to provide for their future or what reducing the public's reliance on pensions would mean for community saving.

We should have heard the alarm bells go. I am sure the member for McPherson, when this promise was unveiled, probably thought it was true that no unexpected changes would be made to people's superannuation. They went to an election on that basis. And now they want to come in here and make these changes, to give the Treasurer this unfettered power to delay the further advancement of superannuation, which will not only delay the growth of current superannuation contributions to 12 per cent but it will also reduce the pool of people's savings. I would have thought that would have intergenerational impacts on future budgets as well.

If those opposite are going to reduce the amount of savings that people are going to bring to bear in their superannuation, where are they going to top that up from? They are not going to do it out of the pensions because they have already cut those. Those opposite have already moved to reduce the indexation rates of pensions and are going to make sure that these pensioners pay. How will they make them pay? They have this great idea, Tony Abbott says: they are going to make sure that people retire when they are 70. We are going to have the highest retirement age in the world. (Time expired)

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A question for the Leader of the Opposition: where is the money coming from, Mr Shorten? I begin by reminding the House of the enormous damaging budgetary legacy that the ALP left this government to clean up. We have been talking a lot about it since May this year when the budget was released but it does not seem to have sunk into the heads of the people opposite. Australia cannot go on borrowing a billion dollars every single month just to pay the interest on Labor borrowings. This is wasted money that could otherwise be building roads, schools or hospitals or paying for tax cuts for long-suffering taxpayers. Under Labor, Australia ran six straight years of record budget deficits. Labor left the coalition a further $123 billion in projected deficits and gross debt is forecast to hit $667 billion—that is, $25,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia or $25,000 for every person in my electorate of Eden-Monaro.

This year's budget papers show that even with the government's efforts to repair the budget there will be four more deficits over the next four years. That would make 10 deficits in a row and would be unprecedented in our post war history. We did not create Labor's mess but said we will fix it and that is exactly what we are doing. In fact, the amazing hypocrisy is that one of the architects of that debt and deficit disaster, the member for McMahon, the former Treasurer, has sought to debate this issue today although he is not here. That shows what he really thinks about the issue. In fact, there are only three members of the ALP in the chamber at the moment and one is just about to leave. So as the member for McPherson said, that just gives you an indication of how seriously they really regard this issue.

Despite what our opponents state, the government is honouring its election commitments to aged pensioners and self funded retirees to make no changes to the age pension in this term of government and to index the income thresholds to the consumer price index for the Commonwealth seniors health card for self funded retirees. In fact, aged pensioners will benefit because the government is scrapping the carbon tax. That will reduce price pressures. Aged pensioners will also continue to receive the compensation payment after the carbon tax is scrapped. So that is an extra boost.

What the opposition wants to ignore in their pursuit of scare campaigns is that Australia faces a major demographic shift as the baby boomer generation enters retirement. We will have more retirees than ever before and they will be living longer. That is an unavoidable fact and a proven government has only one course of action: that is, to deal with the issues head-on. The demographic challenge will have major implications for the aged pension system. If we wish to have a sustainable aged pension system that looks after those who need it most now and into the future, we must reform it.

When I go around my electorate of Eden-Monaro, seniors in my seat understand that there is a monumental task that needs to be addressed. Australia needs a well-targeted, means-tested income support system which provides financial assistance to those most in need while encouraging self-provision whenever possible. One part of our policy is to deal with the aged pension age. The previous government enacted legislation to increase the aged pension to 67 years by July 2023. They do not like us reminding the Australian people about the fact that they did that. New legislation from this government will continue the process they set up to increase the aged pension age until it reaches— (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I thank the member for Eden-Monaro but the time allotted for this discussion has expired.