Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Treasurer, and it follows the Treasurer's humiliating backflip on his super tax proposal. Can the Treasurer advise the House whose rejection most influenced his decision to dump his tax? Was it (a) the coalition, (b) industry experts and economists, (c) the Prime Minister—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Macnamara will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Macnamara then left the chamber.

He's not to mention members by their name, particularly when interjecting on a question. I don't know why this is so difficult. When people are asking questions, don't interject. There are a lot of intelligent people here.

Honourable members interjecting—

Well, in the gallery there are! We're going to return to order, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will ask his question like anybody else, without any interjections.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Treasurer, and it follows the Treasurer's humiliating backflip on his super tax proposal. Can the Treasurer advise the House whose rejection most influenced his decision to dump his tax? Was it (a) the coalition; (b) industry experts and economists; (c) the Prime Minister; (d) his own Labor colleagues and Labor luminaries Paul Keating, Bill Kelty and Peter Beattie; or (e) all of the above?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make it really clear to the House that I didn't take the advice of those opposite. I didn't take the advice of those opposite, and that's because the question comes from the same people who took to this year's election a policy to increase income taxes on every single one of the 14 million taxpaying workers in this country. They are the same people who object to smaller tax concessions for half a per cent of people in super and who wanted to jack up income taxes for 100 per cent of the 14 million taxpaying workers. That's because, as I said before, what they really object to is more super for more workers. They don't like super. They don't like workers. We know that from their almost decade in office. They are always trying to undermine and diminish and come after the superannuation that the working people of this country need and deserve for a decent retirement. Also, don't forget that the question comes from the same guy who wanted to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to build nuclear reactors, to push power prices up, not down. He asked me who I would take my advice from. I don't take my advice from the shadow Treasurer. I really couldn't be clearer about that.

He can trouble himself all he likes with the political scuttlebutt and the internal far-right politics being practised by those opposite. The difference between the shadow Treasurer and me, as Treasurer, is I'm here for the outcomes. I'm here to deliver for the working people of this country. I'm here to deliver an increase in real wages. I'm here to deliver income tax cuts. I'm here to deliver more super for more workers so they get the decent retirement that this guy would deny them.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you ask a very broad political question like that, you're going to get a broad political answer. If the Treasurer can return to the question, that would be helpful to the House.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I'm making is that this side of the House works through issues in a collegiate, considered and methodical way. We do what we can to find the best way through and, overwhelmingly, to deliver for the working people of this country, who send us here to represent them and their interests. The shadow Treasurer is here for a little pat on the head at 'Sky after dark' or a little tickle on the tummy on page 13 of the Australian.

We are here for the outcomes, because it's the outcomes that really matter. We're here to deliver for working people, and that's what we're doing. Because of our efforts—and this is what really offends them—more Australians are working, more Australians are earning more, more Australians are keeping more of what they earn, and more Australians will retire with more. That's because we are delivering. They are divided, they are divisive and they are in disarray—and that's the difference.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When the House comes to order, we'll hear from the member for Moreton.