Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Senator Sherry. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Gillard government is planning to fund its forward-looking reforms to ensure Australians receive a better retirement income through a higher superannuation guarantee? Can the minister give an assurance that the government's plan is transparent and fully costed?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Successive Labor governments over a 20-year period have long recognised that compulsory superannuation was very necessary to strengthen our economy and to boost private retirement savings. We held a view that nine per cent was not enough, and we have announced an increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent, which is to be phased in gradually over six years. The government have always been very clear about how this would be funded: at least part of the funds from the minerals resource rent tax would pay for this and other very important superannuation reforms. I might point out that a 30-year-old will be able to retire with an extra $108,000 in superannuation.

Until about a week ago, the Liberal-National Party was strongly opposed to compulsory superannuation and increasing it. We heard from Senator Cormann and others that compulsory superannuation would wreck the Australian economy, it would decrease real wages and it would harm small business—very similar to arguments they have advanced with respect to the carbon tax. However, they have now changed their minds. As of Friday, the Liberal Party has changed its mind. Increasing compulsory superannuation is no longer going to wreck the Australian economy, it is no longer going to decrease real wages and it is no longer going to ruin small business. They have decided to support Labor's policy to increase compulsory superannuation. However, the Liberal Party have one major problem: they have no way of paying for it, because it is to be paid for by the minerals resource rent tax. The problem the Liberal Party have is—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Minister, do you have to shout?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, that is not a point of order.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having agreed to support Labor's policy of increasing the superannuation guarantee, the Liberal Party have no way to pay for it because it will cost $12.6 billion. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister please outline what the industry position has been on the government's plan to boost the retirement incomes of Australians?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have outlined, the industry has been consistent over a long, long period of time—for most of the last 20 years—in supporting compulsory superannuation. Apparently this was what convinced a somewhat divided leadership group, according to numerous press reports today. We heard that Mr Robb, the shadow finance minister, has vowed to fight on and is livid that he was not consulted.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well may you laugh, but you still have to find that $70 billion.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! I need to hear Senator Sherry.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann—who is very quiet today, I notice—who was so keen on rolling the shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, and taking his job, was himself rolled last week. But of course Mr Robb, who was not consulted, is not a very happy man. He is livid. How can you trust the Liberal Party when their shadow finance minister is determined to reverse this decision. But there is still a risk. It is not just the superannuation— (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate whether the Gillard government has considered any alternative policies to its historic tax and superannuation reforms?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are other measures the Liberal Party will have to consider. We are cutting the tax on 3.2 million Australians' superannuation contribution—the contributions tax. We are cutting tax for small business. All of this is going to be funded, like the increase in the superannuation guarantee, from the mining tax, which the Liberal Party still say no to. What we have today is a Liberal Party 'no' to the mining tax, but they have changed their mind on the super guarantee.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Yes' to super.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we got a 'yes' at last. But we got a 'maybe' on the contributions tax cut on superannuation—maybe they will roll over on that one as well. And 'perhaps' the small business tax cuts, which are also paid for by the mining tax, will be the next one—that is a 'perhaps'. So we have got a no, we have got a yes, we have got a maybe and we have got a perhaps. I would like particularly to welcome Senator Sinodinos to the Senate. You have come in at a particularly good time. (Time expired)