James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's been good hearing Labor members talk about how fantastic this policy change in superannuation tax is, which is why I'm shocked they didn't raise it during the election campaign, because apparently there is so much merit in this, it's such a great idea and it's so obviously logical. But how many times did they mention it before the election, when they were asking the people of this country to put them into government? Never—not one single time. In fact, worse than that, the now Prime Minister game an ironclad guarantee that he would not make any changes to the tax treatment of superannuation. According to those opposite, this policy is so fantastic and so logical and makes so much sense—apparently it's good for old people and young people—that they never mentioned it once during the election campaign. What an oversight of the tactics committee! They could have won even more seats by telling the people of this country that once they got in they were going to start coming after their superannuation.

I remember well the campaign and talking to people about superannuation, and some did say: 'Look, we know Labor have learnt a lesson when it comes to chasing superannuation. Bill Shorten lost the last election because he was going to come after our super, James, and there's no way, no risk whatsoever, that Labor will repeat the mistakes of the 2019 election and come after the hard-earned savings that we rely on for security in our retirement. Anthony Albanese has committed not to do that.' Well, surprise, surprise: a broken promise! Surprise, surprise: it's at the first opportunity after an election, not before the election. Don't go being honest with the people of this country, Madam Deputy Speaker, and actually tell them what you're going to do when you get in. Instead, promise you won't do something, get elected and then break that promise by introducing a raid on the retirement savings of hardworking Australians. It is appalling and it is disgraceful. Now we've got the suggestion that it's a modest change. The 'modest change' is doubling the tax rate from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. That apparently is modest.

We've also heard speakers say it's going to affect only 10 per cent of young people—only one in 10 people. Apparently, if you're successful and you're in the top 10 per cent of income earners as a young person, the Labor Party think you need to be punished. You've done something wrong. You need to pay a lot more tax because you went out and were successful. You did something with your life. Yes, you made money and, yes, you've paid your fair share of tax through a whole range of other taxes that are dramatically higher on high-income earners, but let's just punish you that little bit more. Let's just add the sting to the tail so that in your retirement you again pay a disproportionately high amount of tax. According to the Labor Party, 10 per cent of people deserve to be taxed that bit extra, because Labor are about the politics of envy. They don't like these people, because they've been successful. And, of course, they love raiding that superannuation nest egg.

The poor old member for Maribyrnong was honest. He told the people of Australia, 'We're coming after your super.' The problem there was that the Labor Party lost an election over it. So the now Prime Minister was much more clever than the member for Maribyrnong. He said: 'I'll show you how it's done. What you do is tell the people of this country you won't tax their super, get elected, and then, after the election, start raiding their retirement savings. That's the trick.' The poor old member for Maribyrnong has learnt a very important lesson from the Prime Minister: don't tell the people of this country the truth.

An op position member interjecting

I'll take the interjection about the trillion-dollar debt. You should have been here for one of your other speakers, who advocated that we should have spent more than we did on JobKeeper. Madam Deputy Speaker, we now have members of the government who are saying we should have spent more on JobKeeper and, in the same argument, complaining about the debt left behind from JobKeeper. Talk about hocus-pocus accounting! Talk about magic pudding economics! Apparently we should have spent more during the pandemic on JobKeeper and not incurred debt in doing so. It says it all about the mathematical capabilities of those in the government.

I will finish on this: it is absolutely appalling and outrageous to go to an election saying to the people of this country, 'We will not touch your superannuation or change the provisions that you've made for it,' take their votes, get elected and then break that promise at the first opportunity.

See this speech in context