Category: Newspaper/Blog Articles/Hansard

July 2, 2016 – 10:49PM

Michael Gordon

Political editor, The Age

Malcolm Turnbull is facing the prospect of the worst kind of win, where the Coalition is returned with the most seats, but his authority is weakened, his internal critics are emboldened and his agenda is imperilled.

Turnbull’s warning that a protest vote would produce the chaos of a hung parliament has not deterred voters around the country from acting on their disappointment in what the Coalition has delivered since 2013.

He wanted the numbers to deliver strong, stable government and banked all on his economic plan built on company tax cuts. The best he can hope for is a wafer-thin majority and a toxic Senate: a recipe for instability if ever there was one.

The industrial legislation that was the basis for this double dissolution is now so in doubt that the joint sitting of Parliament that was intended to pass it is no certainty. Also in doubt is the prospect of Turnbull’s tax-cut legislation being passed without amendment.

Expect those Liberal MPs who supported Tony Abbott and refrained from criticising Turnbull’s campaign to be less constrained now. Turnbull will be criticised for not campaigning hard enough on security and not fighting more resolutely for the budget savings that were blocked in the Senate.

All eyes will be on the former leader, who has already made plain that he would have run a very different campaign. How will he respond?

Bill Shorten, who maintained he was never interested in an honourable defeat, is poised to achieve one, having pushed Turnbull to the brink and defied those who never considered him a serious contender.

Most of the speculation pre-election was that Shorten would be the one whose position would be under threat after the count. Now, he is in a stronger position within his party than Turnbull is in his.

Back in February, senior ALP figures were contemplating the prospect of having to remove Shorten before the election, such was Turnbull’s ascendancy. Shorten’s response was to take risks by laying out an ambitious program, to communicate with more clarity and verve and to campaign like there was no tomorrow.

Now he has earned the opportunity to build on his success, with the expectation that he will lead Labor into the next campaign.

If, as seems likely, Labor wins more seats than the national swing would suggest, this will also be an endorsement of the Labor campaign, including what many considered the overblown claims of the threat posed by the Coalition to Medicare.

The big story, aside from the Labor resurgence, is the move to minor parties and independents, reflecting the disillusionment of voters with the major parties and the established institutions.

The big story within the protest vote is a rebellion against the Coalition’s superannuation changes, which many Liberal voters saw as both a breach of faith and contrary to the principle that retrospective changes should not be introduced.

While Turnbull insists the changes were not retrospective and only affected the most wealthy Australians, he can expect to face white anger from MPs at his first partyroom meeting, post-election.

When the campaign began I wrote that the political dangers for the Coalition were twofold: that those very rich Liberals whose votes had been taken for granted would either vote Labor or withdraw their financial support because they felt they had been betrayed; and that others would become more wary of voting Coalition because they saw the Coalition as more likely to meddle with super in the future.

The Institute of Public Affairs’ John Roskam was confident that Turnbull would change the policy rather than face repudiation at the ballot box.

He was wrong but, as Peta Credlin noted on Sky News, many Liberals enraged by this issue took out their anger on the ballot box. Those who could not bring themselves to vote Labor parked their votes with the minor parties and independents.

How this pans out depends on many variables, with many battles conducted within the main event, and some history being made along the way, like Labor’s Linda Burney becoming the first Aboriginal woman to be elected to the House of Representatives.

Tasmania has gone with Labor; Shorten is set for big gains in New South Wales, Victoria is unlikely to change and could yet produce a Liberal gain; Nick Xenophon’s party has made its mark in South Australia; and the picture is mixed in Queensland and unclear in Western Australia.

Shorten needed absolutely everything to go right to have any prospect of winning the 19 seats to form government in his own right. The unknown is what difference it would have made if he had not promised higher budget deficits over the forward estimates to pay for his promises on health and education.

The impact of the Andrews’ government’s appalling handling of the CFA dispute will also come under scrutiny when Labor strategists ponder what might have been.

The Sunday Age

Michael Gordan

3 July 2016 12.46pm

Malcolm Turnbull is coming under massive pressure from within to recast the superannuation changes he took to the election amid widespread anger and despair in Liberal ranks over his election campaign.

My phone hasn’t stopped ringing this morning from people saying it serves them right.

Save Our Super campaign spokesman Jack Hammond.

“It’s now more obvious than ever that changes have to be made,” declared John Roskam, the executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, who predicted early in the campaign that Mr Turnbull would soften the policy rather than suffer a backlash.

Mr Turnbull resisted the pressure, insisting that the changes only affected the most wealthy Australians and were not retrospective, as critics asserted.

“It was simply diabolical for the Liberal Party to be proposing higher taxes on people who save and work hard,” Mr Roskam told Fairfax Media.

A strong Liberal Party supporter, Mr Roskam said the superannuation debate had now morphed into a much bigger discussion about “why the Coalition was proposing higher taxes and more government spending” during the campaign.

“If you have two parties who are proposing higher taxes and higher spending, it’s most likely that people are going to vote for the party that genuinely believes in higher taxes and higher spending.”

Opponents of the Coalition’s superannuation changes insist they changed votes, reduced donations to the Coalition and diminished the Liberal Party turn-out at polling booths.

“Who knows how and why people voted, but it is certainly a view among many people that it had a major impact and that is attested to by the exit polling,” Mr Roskam told Fairfax Media.

“The debate on superannuation was reignited at 10 o’clock last night when I started getting texts and calls while I was sitting on the couch watching TV. It’s about the policy, it’s about the messaging, it’s about how was this allowed to happen, and now how do they fix it?”

Tasmanian Senator Eric Abetz, who lost his cabinet position when Mr Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as prime minister, agreed, saying: “The issue of superannuation is very dear to the core base of the Liberal Party.

“To have the certainty of that being compromised did send shock waves through that sector of the community that are our core supporters.” Another MP who declined to be named said the issue “really hurt the Liberal party base”.

The spokesman for the Melbourne-based Save Our Super campaign, Jack Hammond, says he was not surprised that the Coalition suffered losses after proposing changes he maintains were unfair and penalised those who had acted in good faith.

“My phone hasn’t stopped ringing this morning from people saying it serves them right,” Mr Hammond said.

The Guardian

Sunday 3 June 2016 01:16am

Gabrielle Chan

• Coalition loses at least 11 seats in Australian election but expects to hang on to power
• Final result won’t be known until Tuesday
• Conservatives criticise PM over campaign and key policies

The Australian Financial Review

Jun 30 2016 at 6:03 PM

Minister for small business and Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer is feeling the heat from “Save Our Super” campaigners …

by Sally Rose

A backlash among Liberal Party supporters upset about a crackdown on superannuation tax breaks could help minor parties pick up Senate votes.

A slew of longstanding Liberal Party supporters have withdrawn their fundraising efforts, and some have even quit their party membership, in protest over a controversial reductions in super tax breaks for the wealthy was unveiled by the government in May’s federal budget.

The Australian Sex Party is the latest micro-party to appeal to disaffected Liberal Party members and voters.

“We would vote against the change to introduce a lifetime limit of $500,000 for non-concessional super contributions,” the Sex Party’s lead Senate candidate for Victoria, Meredith Doig, said.

“We do not support retrospective changes to super taxes that are unfair to those who saved under the existing rules.”

The Sex Party would seek to lift the new $1.6 million limit on retirement account balances rather than block it entirely.

“It is reasonable to impose some sort of limit on the amount of super the ultra wealthy can drawn down tax free in retirement, but we would push to have than limit raised to $2 million,” Ms Doig said.

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has seen a spike in supporters angry at the government’s plans to crimp super tax breaks for the wealthy.

The Liberal Democratic Party and the Jacqui Lambie Network are two parties that have campaigned hard on a promise to block the superannuation changes.

After the May budget LDP Senator David Leyonhjelm held breakfast forums in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane attacking the crackdown. He said they “contributed significantly” to his party raising $700,000 for its campaign.

“Some Liberal Party members have even hosted fundraisers for us,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.

“Many traditional Liberal party supporters have told us they will vote for us in the Senate this election due to the super issue.”

Senator Lambie has stuck doggedly to a slogan of “hands off our super”, while pledging to use any power in the Senate to vote against the changes.

Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer, who holds the traditionally blue-ribbon seat of Higgins in Victoria, is one Liberal MP who has been under intense pressure from constituents angered by the government’s unexpected super policy.

John McMurrick, a longstanding member of the Higgins 200 Club, the main fundraising network for Ms O’Dwyer, has quit and thrown his support behind protest group Save Our Super.

Mr McMurrick, who had been actively involved in fundraising for the Liberal Party for nearly 20 years, also quit his party membership after nearly 30 years “in disgust” over the budget changes. Mr McMurrick is a semi-retired businessman turned Hollywood film producer.

Save Our Super was founded by longtime Liberal voter Jack Hammond SC, a semi-retired lawyer. The network last week held a gathering at the Malvern Town Hall attended by roughly 250 local superannuants.

Mr Hammond said it was “arrogant” of the government to assume its supporters would stick by it despite the attack on high super balances and tipped a spike in protest votes in the Senate.

“Labor is no better as an alternative,” he said.

Over the weekend the Labor Party said it would take its time in considering whether or not to adopt the government’s super changes if elected.

“We will implement those measures which turn out to be workable and fair but propose alternative measures if necessary to ensure there is no detrimental impact on the budget,” Labor spokesman for superannuation Jim Chalmers said.

The Greens, which as the largest minor party stands to gain the most from protest votes, has pointedly refused to back the changes despite them being philosophically consistent with their own stated policy “to end unfair tax breaks”.

“We’ll see what the Liberals end up proposing to Parliament after the election. We won’t be at all surprised if they wilt under the campaign from the Institute of Public Affairs or internal dissent about their proposed changes to super,” Greens Treasury spokesman Senator Adam Bandt said.

Ms O’Dwyer cautioned those considering casting a protest vote that it could lead to “another disastrous alliance” between the Greens and Labor.

The motion means the issue will be debated at the Liberal Party’s state conference in August and will put pressure on Curtin MP and Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop to defend the unpopular changes against claims by party members that they are unfair.

Liberal members in Curtin hope the motion will form part of a backlash against the moves that will ultimately force the Turnbull government to back down before the changes come into effect in July next year.

It is understood that Ms Bishop and other Liberal candidates are regularly receiving complaints on the campaign trail from traditional Liberal voters about the issue.

Some supporters are so angered by the measures — including a $1.6 million cap on accounts — they are refusing to donate to the Coalition’s re-election campaign.

Ms Bishop told The Australian yesterday that the superannuation changes had been raised at an “ideas night” for the Curtin division.

She said only 4 per cent of super account holders across Australia would be affected.

“I look forward to reassuring branch members that the Coalition’s proposed changes to superannuation will mean 96 per cent of Australians will be unaffected or better off as a result,” she said.

The Foreign Minister struggled to explain the detail of the plans when she appeared on Melbourne radio earlier this month.

The Institute of Public Affairs think tank has claimed the number of people affected would be far higher than 4 per cent of the population and has criticised the government for being unable to explain its policy.

Liberal members who attended the Curtin meeting this month said superannuation was nominated as the most important of three issues the division decided to take to the state conference.

They said the division included scores of members who were nearing retirement and now faced a changed financial landscape.

The Curtin division is the most influential in WA and boasts about 1000 members across Perth’s wealthy western suburbs, including Claremont, Cottesloe, Dalkeith, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove and Subiaco.

Under the super changes, the government will cap tax-free retirement accounts at $1.6m and introduce a $500,000 lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions as well as cutbacks to the Transition to Retirement Scheme.

Ms Bishop holds Curtin with a margin of 18.2 per cent, making it the state’s safest seat.

Costing guidelines and budget practice require policy be spelt out in detail before it is included in budget estimates.

Former deputy secretary in the Department of Finance, Stephen Bartos, said Treasury and Finance would have difficulty incorporating savings from the Coalition’s superannuation plan if a newly elected Labor government put it up for review.

“Unless they have a plan they haven’t revealed to do something equivalent, I think that they are in a difficult spot,” he said. “If things are put up for review and not formal policy decisions, then they have to be taken out of the estimates and that would make the ­estimates worse.”

At the National Press Club yesterday, Bill Shorten emphasised his concern with the claimed retrospectivity in the Coalition’s plan to cap non-concessional contributions to superannuation at $500,000, backdated to 2007, but was unable to say how a Labor government would deal with a funding shortfall if it decided not to go ahead with that.

“I think that the mess that this government’s thrown the whole superannuation system into can be best resolved when Labor forms a government and we talk to ­people.”

Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen and superannuation spokesman Jim Chalmers have said a Labor government would conduct a review in the second half of this year to report in early 2017, for next year’s budget preparation.

However, Mr Bowen has also promised to bring forward the traditional end of year budget review to September, which would force Labor to crystallise its budget position on the Coalition’s budget proposals.

An added difficulty is that the proposal to which Labor objects most strongly — the cap on non-concessional contributions — ­actually took effect on budget night, May 3. Excess contributions after that date have to be withdrawn or incur penalty tax.

Deferring the measure would invite wealthy superannuation fund members to maximise contributions before it took effect.

The uncertainty left by Labor’s superannuation retreat is drawing fire from self-managed superannuation funds, with a lobby group saying people needs to know how Labor would affect retirement savings before voting.

“The government estimated its superannuation measures in the budget would result in a net gain to revenue of $2.9 billion. Labor is now proposing to tax superannuation savings to the same extent but is not saying how this will be done,” said executive director of the SMSF Owners ­Alliance, Duncan Fairweather.

Mr Bowen said he believed the superannuation sector would sit down with a Labor government to come up with a solution “quickly”, to ease the uncertainty.

Whether Labor wins or not, the Parliamentary Budget Office must conduct a review of all party policy costings within 30 days of the election. It might reject Labor’s claim to the budget savings on superannuation but not the policy that ­delivered them.

The Australian

12.00am June 28 2016

Judith Sloan -Contributing Economics Editor Melbourne

Superannuation is one policy area that means a lot to certain people, particularly those in retirement and those heading for retirement. It is a potential vote-changer.

Until Labor’s release of its costings on Sunday, many people would have taken the view that Labor’s superannuation policy had more to commend itself than the government’s raft of superannuation changes announced in this year’s budget.

After all, Labor’s policy, which was released some 18 months ago, had fewer moving parts and there was no intention to make any change to the annual concessional cap or to introduce a backdated, lifetime non-concessional cap.

To be sure, there was the 15 per cent tax on retirement superannuation earnings over $75,000 a year, although there are serious question marks over the workability of this proposal. But it is not too different from the government’s policy of limiting tax-free superannuation accounts to $1.6 million.

After Sunday, however, Labor’s superannuation policy is completely up in the air. It wants to take the budget savings of the government’s superannuation changes — close to $3 billion a year — but won’t be bothering to release any details of its policy before the election.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen could only make this weak statement: “Given Labor’s concerns about the government’s superannuation changes, including retrospective elements, Labor would consult with stakeholders and take a broader examination of all these measures on coming to government.”

This is as clear as mud. Labor won’t be telling anyone what the superannuation measures will be, leaving it to some vague examination and stakeholder consultation, were Labor to win government. So much for the positive policy on superannuation released more than 18 months ago — voters are being told to ignore that and just hang on to their hats.

But there’s more. Under pressure from public sector unions, Labor has also ditched the government’s efficiency dividend announced in the budget. But again, it wants to count the savings, which are around $1.4bn over the forward estimates.

Evidently, removing public sector waste and reducing the use of outside consultants will get Labor there without the loss of a single public sector job. Again, pull the other one. Counting the savings and making vague references about how you might get there just doesn’t cut it.

Labor is really plumbing new depths when it comes to putting up policies for voters’ consideration — assume the same budget savings but don’t worry about outlining any of the details.

For those with a keen interest in superannuation, it really now boils down to the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to choosing between the Coalition and Labor.

Australians will go to the polls without any certainty over the Opposition Leader’s plans for superannuation, as he claims the $3bn saving included in last month’s budget, but at the same time vows to “revisit” the changes by consulting experts after the election.

The cloud over retirement savings deepened the dispute over election policy costings after Labor also claimed a $1.9bn saving from Coalition cuts to the public service, while rejecting the specific “efficiency dividend” meant to produce the gain.

With only four days until the election, Labor and the Coalition are in an escalating dispute over the budget as Mr Shorten prom­ises to reduce the deficit without “smashing household budgets”, while Scott Morrison warns of higher deficits, debt and taxes if Labor takes power on Saturday.

The row has extended to health as Mr Shorten fends off questions about whether Labor would restore all the state hospital funding that was removed in the Coalition’s 2014 budget — a cut he has campaigned against ever since. While the Opposition Leader denounced the Abbott government’s $57bn cut to state hospital funding over a decade as “brutal and cruel” when it was unveiled, he conceded yesterday he could not return the spending to its old trajectory. This was despite Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen telling the ABC in November 2014: “We want to see the $80bn cut to health and education scrapped.”

Labor’s election costings confirm it will offer about $2bn in hospital funding over four years on top of the $2.9bn boost outlined by Malcolm Turnbull in last month’s budget, making it clear that Mr Shorten’s commitment falls short of restoring all the lost funding over a decade.

“I can go to every hospital in Australia and say vote Labor ­because we’ll provide for more funding for hospitals,” Mr Shorten said yesterday.

“I can go to every Australian who is currently on an elective surgery waiting list for hip ­replacements, for knee reconstructions and say vote Labor because we’re actually going to make it more possible for you to have your surgery more quickly.”

Labor financial services spokesman Jim Chalmers vowed on May 26 to reveal the opposition’s policy on super before July 2 in response to the budget changes, which raise $6bn but use about half of this by funding more generous rules while using the ­remainder to improve the budget bottom line. “People will know by the time they go into the polling booth where we stand on superannuation,” Dr Chalmers said four weeks ago.

Mr Shorten stared down ­requests for detail yesterday, ­arguing Labor would need to consult industry experts and senior officials before deciding which of the Coalition’s policies it would adopt. “When we form a government, if we win the election, we will revisit these measures to see their workability, to fully understand if they can actually be done,” he said. “There’s plenty of people who are saying that these changes will be very hard to implement.”

The Labor stance throws doubt over changes including a $1.6 million transfer cap that imposes an earnings tax on super accounts over that limit, a cut in the concessional contribution cap to $25,000 and controversial changes to the Transition to Retirement Income Stream rules.

Mr Bowen said he had “grave concerns” about another change, a $500,000 “lifetime cap” that is backdated to 2007 and is at the centre of a dispute about whether it is retrospective, while Labor ­assistant Treasury spokesman ­Andrew Leigh said the Coalition’s policies were a “dog’s breakfast” and needed to be fixed.

“We’ve committed, if we win office, to using the resources of Treasury, consulting quickly on that, coming up with a measure which achieves the same impact on the budget bottom line, but ­ideally without the retrospectivity of the government’s changes,” Mr Leigh told Sky News.

Labor’s approach has frustrated industry experts who want certainty over the competing policies before polling day, particularly after Mr Shorten and Mr Bowen had launched a broadside against the Coalition earlier in the election campaign.

“We have urged Labor to adopt the same or similar measures as the government, which would achieve the same savings or more,” said Ian Yates, chief executive of the Council of the Ageing.

“There are other measures that you could take to make super more effective.”

Others said voters deserved to know the detail of Labor’s changes to super rather than being told they would be decided after the election.

Posted on 5:40 pm, June 26, 2016 by Judith Sloan