Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and McAllister today relating to superannuation policy.

It was amazing to sit in here and listen to the Leader of the Government in the Senate try to sell the George Christensen superannuation policy as adopted by this government. The superannuation reform shambles—there is no other word to describe what we have seen over the past 4½ months, and particularly the way it has been played out so publicly—shows us, firstly, just how divided the coalition has become and, also, how weak Malcolm Turnbull's leadership has become. Four months ago these reforms were announced as part of the Turnbull-Morrison budget. There they were, clear as day in the budget papers. But since that time at least nine coalition members have spoken out publicly, and certainly many more have behind closed doors challenged the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on these reforms. Not a day would have gone past in the last four months when we did not see another story in the paper or on TV on the latest break-out from the coalition as one by one coalition members went and argued the case publicly against what had been outlined in the budget.

Let us look at the issue of the non-concessional cap. Over the past four months we have had non-concessional caps of $500,000 and $750,000 touted, and a $1 million cap also made an emergence during that time. That was repeated again last night when George Christensen gave one of his final warnings about what the ramifications for the government would be if they did not cave in and agree to the conditions which he had set. Today we find out, after the party room has finally signed off on the Abetz-Christensen deal, that there is to be no cap at all. As late as last night, as I said, we had George Christensen out warning that he would cross the floor and was prepared to lose his position as a whip if his terms were not met.

Contrast this shambles, chaos, disunity and division with the way the Labor Party has gone about formulating its superannuation policy—the policy we took to the election and also the revision we have made since the election to seek an outcome on superannuation reform. We made no secret of the fact that we wanted to see some of the generous tax concessions, particularly as they operated for high-income earners, wound back—that was very much central to the policy that we announced—but we also wanted to see continued structural improvements to the budget over time, and our policy addressed all of those things. Indeed, late in August we came out and again provided the government with a way of dealing with the retrospectivity element of their superannuation policy—the one that had become so abhorrent to their own party room. We suggested some areas where we would agree with the government's package, and we identified some areas where we would oppose them. One of those areas was around the work test for those aged between 65 and 74—about a $130 million component. The Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer, came out swinging, telling us that we were anti older people being able to save for retirement. She had some very strong words on how she saw our position. Then, today, we find out that Labor's position has been adopted in the reforms that we imagine will now come forward for discussion in this place. The whole process has been a complete shambles—it has been a highly public mess and it has been a real lesson in how not to pursue serious policy reform or structural budget repair.

We all understand that Australians need confidence in the superannuation system, they need certainty about how it will operate and they need stability. Those points are fundamental to the success of this system overall, and over the last four months the division, the disunity and the public break-outs have done nothing other than undermine that confidence, that certainty and that stability. (Time expired)