Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and his long interest in the retirement incomes of Australians. The government believes that Australians who save should be supported. Australians who take the initiative to put money aside should be encouraged, because we believe that saving is good for the individual and good for the nation.

We have backed that belief with action to provide tax relief for people who save through bank accounts, credit unions, building societies, bonds, annuities and other savings vehicles, action to support low-income earners by effectively giving them back their contributions tax on superannuation, action to help people over 50 who want to put a little bit of extra money aside for their retirement, and action to increase the retirement incomes of Australians by increasing the superannuation guarantee.

The costs to the government of these actions are funded by the Resource Super Profits Tax. The budget papers make it clear that the cost of our tax concessions for savers is $950 million over the next four years, a cost funded by the Resource Super Profits Tax. The budget papers make it clear that the cost of refunding the contributions tax to low-income earners is $830 million over the next four years, funded by the Resource Super Profits Tax. The cost of our measures to help people over 50 save is $1.3 billion over the next four years, funded by the Resource Super Profits Tax. This is a key point: the budget papers also make it clear—the shadow Treasurer either did not read them or did not understand them—that the cost to the government of increasing the superannuation guarantee reaches $3.6 billion a year when the superannuation guarantee hits 12 per cent, funded by the Resource Super Profits Tax.

I am asked by the member for Deakin what the impact would be of blocking the Resource Super Profits Tax. I am happy to answer that question, but it is also a question that the Leader of the Opposition might care to answer this evening. He might care to explain, for example, to a 30-year-old on average weekly earnings why he wants to deny them an increase in their retirement income of $108,000. He might care to explain to a 30-year-old woman on average weekly earnings who has two periods of maternity leave and works for a while part-time why he wants to deny her $78,000 from her retirement lump sum. And he might want to explain to somebody over 50 nearing retirement who, now that the kids are off their hands and maybe they have paid off their mortgage, wants to put a little bit extra aside for their retirement. Maybe that is a woman who has missed out on some time at work because she has raised children. He might want to explain to them why he wants to deny them help to boost their superannuation.

While the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet tonight, he might also want to explain his plan for retirement incomes. I shared with the House earlier the Leader of the Opposition’s plan as outlined in his manifesto for the prime ministership, Battlelines. This is his plan to tax people on their superannuation at their marginal tax rate. What would this mean for Australians? The Leader of the Opposition might want to expand on it tonight, but I am happy to provide the House with some information. It would mean, for example, that a 30-year-old who under the current arrangements would retire with a lump sum of $456,000 would, under the Abbott plan, retire with $245,000. The Leader of the Opposition might want to explain why he wants to take $212,000 from an average worker today aged 30 on average weekly earnings.

The Abbott plan would also mean less take-home pay—less pay in the wallets of Australians on a weekly basis. It would mean $1,900 a year less for somebody on average weekly earnings, which is $36 a week less. Well done, Tony! That is his plan, as outlined in his manifesto.

See this speech in context