Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Yesterday, was the minister aware that she was ridiculing a superannuation measure that the cabinet was set to adopt just hours later or was the member for Dawson yet to advise the minister of the government's new superannuation policy?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will just take a seat for a second. The level of interjections is far too high.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone should have told him.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman will leave under 94(a).

The member for Batman then left the chamber.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the acting Leader of the Opposition for her question. I would say at the outset that her premise is completely and utterly false. We have been very, very clear that the intention behind our policy, as announced in the government, has in fact been delivered, that we would have an affordable, a flexible and a sustainable superannuation policy—a very important set of reforms that we would deliver and we have done just that. In fact, it has been welcomed by so many stakeholders.

Only today Industry Super Australia, who I am sure the member opposite would be quite familiar with, welcomed the announcement of the modifications to the Turnbull government's superannuation tax reform and they have said 'it is a workable compromise'. They have urged those opposite to support it, to not stand in the way and to not block it. Industry Super have said of our changes, that those opposite apparently are saying are so incredibly radical:

These are evolutionary, not revolutionary changes.

And they have said further:

The proposed measure will restrict superannuation being used for estate planning, while providing greater support for many more, lower income Australians saving for retirement …

I would have thought that those opposite would be supportive of that.

The Financial Services Council say that our changes are 'sensible'. ASFA say:

We are delighted that people approaching retirement will have more flexibility to add to their super.

They go on to say:

The ceiling of $1.6 million, once it is legislated, balances the need to ensure enough income for a comfortable retirement with ensuring the level of tax concessions is sustainable in the future.

They say:

This is the responsible thing to do for the superannuation system and for Australia’s long term, fiscal sustainability …

They also urge those opposite to support our changes. Even ACOSS have come out today and said, 'These are sensible if modest reforms that tighten tax breaks at the top end.'

So, frankly, we cannot understand why those opposite are going through this charade of pretending that they are not going to support our policy changes when they know they are right for the Australian people and they are right for the budget.