JIM CHALMERS:
It's a really special day today. Today is the 40th anniversary of the election of the first Hawke Government. Next Saturday is the 40th anniversary of Paul Keating being sworn in as treasurer. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating changed this country for the better. They leave a remarkable lasting legacy of progress, something that the Labor Party, and I think the Australian community, is really proud of. 40 years ago today, Bob Hawke was elected prime minister for the first time. The Hawke and Keating governments took difficult decisions with an eye on the future, and we're called to do that once again today.
That brings me to superannuation. This is a modest change, but a really simple choice. This is a modest change that only affects half a per cent of Australians. It is making very concessional tax arrangements, a little bit less so. There will still be generous tax concessions for everybody in the system, but a little bit less generous for people with more than $3 million in their superannuation accounts - and it doesn't come in until after the next election. So this is a modest change and it is a simple choice. And the choice is this - to do as we are proposing, to make tax concessions a little bit less generous for people with tens of millions of dollars in their super, or to do what the Coalition did when they were last in office, which was to chase and demonise the most vulnerable people with Robodebt, and to try and diminish and undermine and hack away at the foundations of Medicare. These are the simple choices, often difficult, but simple choices that we need to make as a country. And our opponents, who gave us a trillion dollars in debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, and all of these intensifying budget pressures, they want us to borrow even more to give bigger tax concessions to people who've got tens of millions of dollars in their superannuation. Now our job is to take the challenges in the Budget seriously, to take the challenges in the economy seriously, to take the right decisions, and to recognise that the right path is not always the path of least political resistance. That's what Bob and Paul did over the life of their long term Labor government, and that's what we are called on to do once again. We believe in superannuation, we want to strengthen it, make it affordable and sustainable into the future. And that means making sure that the generous tax concessions are affordable and sustainable as well, into the future. We did inherit a trillion dollars in debt, deficits as far as the eye can see, the budget pressures are intensifying rather than easing. There's a whole bunch of programs that the former government didn't get around to funding in an ongoing way. And so faced with that reality, this modest change will make a meaningful difference to the Budget, but 99 and a half per cent of people will be completely unaffected.
What we saw today from Angus Taylor, was his ridiculous and dishonest scare campaign falling down all around him, under the weight of his own lies. Angus Taylor fails to recognise that when it comes to defined benefit, for example, the approach we're taking is the approach that the former Liberal government took when Scott Morrison was treasurer, in consulting on the best way to include defined benefit. Angus Taylor couldn't answer the question of why, if he wants the $3 million threshold in this proposal indexed, why they didn't index when they changed the thresholds in the superannuation tax concessions arrangements as well. Angus Taylor couldn't even tell the interviewer today, whether he agreed with himself from 2016. In 2016, Angus Taylor said that it is completely unacceptable to have these bigger tax concessions for people with millions of dollars in their super - that's our view, he needs to explain why his view has changed. He couldn't even tell the interviewer today whether he agreed with himself. And when it comes to unrealised gains in the superannuation system, this was on the advice of Treasury, consulting with other relevant agencies, preferable to the hard cap on super that others were proposing to us. So Angus Taylor's ridiculous dishonest scare campaign is falling down all around him under the weight of his lies. And that's what we're seeing this morning when Angus Taylor popped his head up in the media.
We do need to take difficult decisions in the Budget. This is a particularly modest change but a meaningful one. We're talking about simple choices. Labor, making tax concessions for people with millions of dollars more sustainable and affordable, versus the Liberals who go after the most vulnerable people with Robodebt and attack Medicare, like Peter Dutton did the last time that the Liberals were in office. So we are confident that we've made the right choice here. We take our responsibility seriously, we take the pressures on the Budget seriously. We have inherited a mess, and we're trying to clean it up. And what we saw today from Angus Taylor is a plethora of lies and dishonesty and increasingly ridiculous scare campaigns that don't stand up to the facts.
JOURNALIST:
Is all this set in stone? Are you willing to change that part about taxing unrealised gains for people [inaudible]?
CHALMERS:
That's the advice of Treasury, working with other relevant agencies, that that is the most efficient, simplest and best way to go about it, and so that's what we intend to do. We said when we announced this policy on Tuesday that there are elements that we will be consulting on, for example, the treatment of defined benefit. This is exactly the same way that Scott Morrison and Kelly O'Dwyer and Malcolm Turnbull went about it in 2016. And that's why it's so absurd, that the Liberals are banging on about this right now.
JOURNALIST:
You've said before that future governments could choose to adjust that 3 million threshold, why not set it in stone right now?
CHALMERS:
What we're proposing is to leave it at $3 million, so that the system becomes more sustainable over time. But there's absolutely nothing preventing a government of either political persuasion, in the near term or in the longer term, from adjusting that threshold. When the Liberals changed the threshold for the division 293 contributions to super from $300,000 to $250,000, they didn't index that threshold either, and it's still at $250,000. And so the absurdity of this ridiculous and dishonest scare campaign, which doesn't even acknowledge that there are a whole number of thresholds not indexed in the tax system - including in the income tax system, including in the superannuation tax system. That was put to Angus Taylor again today, and he failed to explain why he thinks, what's different now to what happened on their watch in 2016, when they raised much more out of their superannuation tax changes than we are proposing to do.
JOURNALIST:
What do you say then to younger Australians who look at that $3 million target, and they're worried that their super might tip over to that in 30 or 40 years, when it would be considered perhaps modest?
CHALMERS:
First of all, some of that data that has been put out there is contested, and the Liberals are just using that as an excuse to go to the wall for people who right now have tens of millions of dollars in their super. As I've said multiple times, there is nothing stopping a future government from changing the threshold at which this applies. A government of either political persuasion, sooner or later, can make that decision if that turns out to be an issue. But that is equally true-
JOURNALIST:
But what do you say to Australians who are hoping to have $3 million in their super in say, 30 or 40 years?
CHALMERS:
We want people to have strong superannuation balances. We designed the superannuation system, we believe in it, we want to strengthen it, part of strengthening it is making it sustainable. There's a straight line between the momentous achievements of the Hawke and Keating governments, and the superannuation system that we are trying to improve in 2023. And if Angus Taylor and Peter Dutton have that view about indexing the thresholds, then why don't they have that view on indexing the threshold that they changed in 2016. This is another way that this ridiculous scare campaign is falling down all around them. Angus Taylor couldn't answer the most basic questions today about their position. He couldn't even say if he agreed with himself. He couldn't explain why this threshold needs to be indexed, but not the others. He couldn't explain why it's not a good idea to consult on defined benefit, when that's exactly what they did in 2016.
JOURNALIST:
If some of those figures are contested, will you give us modelling that shows how many people will cross into that $3 million threshold over time [inaudible]?
CHALMERS:
We've made it clear that when the relevant information is available, that we'll do our best to provide it. One of the reasons why we are having this welcome national debate about the future of superannuation, is because we have been transparent about the pressures on the Budget, and I think that's a good thing. One of the things that I have tried to do in the eight or nine months that I've been the Treasurer of this country, is to explain to people the sorts of challenges that we're grappling with in the economy and in the Budget. That's what Paul Keating did, in that remarkably successful period, and I think that's what we should all try and do. And part of that is providing information when we can, about the pressures on the Budget. See in the Budget, we've got that trillion dollars of debt, we've got those deficits, we've got those unfunded programs, we've got those intensifying medium term pressures. And amongst them is the cost of servicing the debt - the NDIS, aged care, health care, defence - we need to find room in our responsible Budget to invest in the things that we care about. And in order to do that, we've got to make the Budget more sustainable. This is a modest and meaningful decision that we've taken, and it's an important choice. If the Liberals get back into office, they will have to find these billions of dollars somewhere else. And we know from their form, that they go after vulnerable people with schemes like Robodebt, and they go after Medicare. So there will be a choice at the election because we are taking this change to the people, it doesn't kick in until after the election.
JOURNALIST:
What's your suggestion about accountants saying that this super cap is going to hit farmers and small businesses more than rich listers because they usually own one big asset like a farm or an SMSF?
CHALMERS:
There are three reasons why I don't think that's a legitimate concern that's been raised. So first of all, under the current arrangements in your superannuation fund, you're supposed to have some liquidity to deal with changes in circumstance. You're not supposed to have your whole account tied up in illiquid assets. That's number one. Number two, you can choose how you meet this liability. It doesn't have to be paid out of the fund. So there are other ways you can meet the liability. And thirdly, the thing doesn't come in for another couple of years and so people have the opportunity to consider their arrangements. So those are three reasons why this ridiculous scare campaign from the Liberals aided and abetted by some of their mates in the commentariat, it just doesn't stack up. And the Liberals come up with all of these excuses because they should be embarrassed that they want to borrow billions of dollars extra to give even more generous tax concessions to people who don't need it, they should just say so. And they should stop concocting all of these rubbish questions of detail that they know are wrong, or that they know are consistent with what they did in 2016. If they want to go to the wall for people who've got tens of millions of dollars in superannuation, if that is the highest priority, they should say so.
Now we're in the parliament this week, we've got an opportunity on paid parental leave, the National Reconstruction Fund, and in other ways to try and run this economy in the interests of its people after a wasted decade of missed opportunities and a trillion dollars of debt with not enough to show for it. These characters want to go back to those days of stagnant wages, and not having enough to show for all of this borrowed money. They've learned absolutely nothing from the election. Our job - just as it was Bob and Paul's job - is to have our eye on the future to take the difficult decisions, even when it involves a political contest and that's what we're doing in super.
JOURNALIST:
The Opposition also says there's no clear plan for this policy to deal with self‑managed super funds with significant paper earnings. How will that be managed?
CHALMERS:
The same answer that I gave in relation to the other question, and that is superannuation funds are supposed to have an element of liquidity. There's two years for people to adjust for this change. And they can meet the liability however they like not necessarily out of the superannuation fund. And I know that the Coalition pretends that there are some issues with detail here but really this is just all an excuse for the fact that they are trying to prevent a modest but meaningful change. They would rather go after poor people, they would rather go after Medicare than make this meaningful but modest change in the superannuation tax concessions. We've made the right decision here. We've made it for the right reasons. The right path is not always the path of least political resistance. We recognise that just as Bob and Paul recognised it all of those years ago.
JOURNALIST:
Can we have a question not on super, but what is the top of the Government's legislative agenda is this week, and how negotiations are going on the Safeguard Mechanism and Reconstruction Fund?
CHALMERS:
There are some really important opportunities in the parliament this week to advance the Government's agenda when it comes to improving and strengthening paid parental leave and when it comes to the National Reconstruction Fund, in addition to the referendum, and the negotiations around the Safeguard Mechanism. All of these changes are about making our economy stronger, more productive, more competitive and more inclusive into the future. We want to run this economy in the interests of its people and that means strengthening it for the future. Now, when it comes to the National Reconstruction Fund and the Safeguard Mechanism, one of the big issues we've got in our economy in the context of this high inflation and a decade of economic mismanagement is we haven't had the attention that we need on the supply side of the economy. And what this is about in the parliament is investing more in manufacturing jobs and a broader and deeper industrial base. And it's about making sure we get more cleaner and cheaper energy into the system, which is more reliable energy into the future, and so that's before the parliament. Now the Coalition just say no to everything. They've made a habit out of that. Peter Dutton is more negative than Tony Abbott and he's more divisive than Scott Morrison. He says no to everything. They are voting no to more affordable housing for women fleeing domestic violence, they're voting no to some energy bill assistance for pensioners, they're voting no to manufacturing jobs. But they will go to the wall for half a percent of Australians who have got multiple millions of dollars in their superannuation account - that shows that they've learned absolutely nothing from their last decade of failure. They've learned nothing from the last election either. They will vote no to everything. Our job is different, to take the big challenges in our economy seriously and in our Budget, and that's what we're doing. Thanks very much.