Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (16:02): I have to say that I am puzzled by this MPI, because it talks about the government's attacks on superannuation, and yet I know nothing of such attacks. I can only assume one of two things: either this was a typo—and, given the sloppiness of your tax work, I suppose that is a real possibility—or, alternatively, you over there on the other side of this House had forgotten that you were no longer in government, and it is your own attacks we are talking about. Perhaps the topic of this MPI was actually a Freudian slip.

There is one other possibility—that, when you talk about attacks on super, you are referring to attacks on your own union official mates who have found cushy jobs in the superannuation industry. It is true that we are proposing some modest reforms to improve the performance of, and choice we have over, superannuation funds. They are modest reforms, to the average Australian, but I am sure they are not modest reforms to your union official mates, because we are proposing that one-third of directors on superannuation funds should be independent. This does mean, I have to admit, fewer union officials on the boards, and I am sure that is extremely upsetting for you, but those of us who have been involved in the business sector for a long time know that there is a long and esteemed history of independent directors playing a very positive role in investment funds and in all areas of business.

We have also suggested that people should have more choice of funds. Choice—your socialist utopia does not really like that, but two million people at the moment cannot choose because it is mandated by enterprise agreements or workplace determinations. That is two million people who do not have choice because you do not want them to have choice. We plan to give them that choice. We are more concerned for their welfare than the welfare of your union official mates.

Honourable members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Just so the gallery understands and those listening to this debate understand, the member speaking can look after himself, and I am allowing a robust debate.

Mr TAYLOR: This is all part of Labor's attempt to have a go at people who want to have a go. This, like so many of Labor's policies in superannuation, is a serious breach of trust with the Australian people, because the real attack on super is coming from those opposite.

Let us have a look at Labor's attacks on superannuation and the impact that they are going to have on people's superannuation over time. The thing you have got to remember about superannuation is that we put it away in our 20s, our 30s, our 40s, even our teens, and we put it away for decades, and we expect the government to show complete respect for that money and how it is treated over that time. Every time you change the rules, it is a breach of trust with the Australian people.

How has Labor changed the rules? To work it out, I went to their website and had a look at what they call the 'fairer super plan'. I found a case study, example 2, of Susie. Susie is on average weekly earnings or a fraction above. She is 63 years old. It turns out that Labor's attack on super, Labor's increased taxation of super, is going to knock Susie around for $2,250

That is a woman on a fraction above average weekly earnings, or median weekly earnings, and you want to tax Susie more. This tax that Labor is proposing is a slug on Susie—the average-weekly-earning Australian—and is a complete breach of trust to Australians who have put their money away, locked it away for decades, hoping that future governments will treat that money with respect.

This is part of a pattern because Labor looks under every rock for something to tax and for something to spend. Under every rock in the Australian economy there will be a Labor MP over there looking for some more money to spend and tax. This is the party of spending and taxation but, it turns out, that they are finding a lot more to spend than to tax. Some of these rocks are turning out good spending opportunities but not such good taxation opportunities.

If we have a look at how much they are proposing to spend, over the next four years, and how much they are planning to tax, unfortunately for them, there is a $50 billion black hole. If we look at what they are proposing to spend, there is $1.22 billion of their own hypocrisy as savings in revenue measures proposed by Labor in government, which they are now blocking—$1.22 billion, but that is just the beginning.

We have $5.35 billion of savings and revenue measures proposed by the government that Labor is now blocking. That is our stuff you want to block. We have $34.71 billion of spending Labor says we must restore. You want to just keep spending, don't you? That is $34.7 billion from the 2015-16 budget. We have just over a billion of budget savings Labor has said they will not support. We also have savings, since the 2015-16 budget, that Labor has said it will not support—and another $11.38 billion of Labor's spending proposals since the 2015-16 budget. So it is a total of just under $60 billion.

The bad news, for those doing the counting on that side, is that Labor's proposals to increase taxes over the forward estimates will deliver $7.05 billion, and Labor's savings since the 2015-16 budget come in at the grand total of $1.13 billion. So guess what? That is $59.5 billion against $51.3 billion. You have a $51 billion gap that you have to fill.

How are you going to fill it? They are going to tax everything. Is there going to be a tax on carbon, a tax on consumption and a tax on the next generation? Maybe you will spend it and wait for the next generation to be taxed. A tax on workers? Who knows? Who knows how you are going to find that $50 billion, but you have to find it somewhere. When you do find it there is a piece of bad news, because Treasury is telling us that for every dollar of extra tax and spend you shrink the economy by 40c.

This a plan by those opposite to tax, spend and shrink the economy. Their total planned spending over the next 10 years is $100 billion. That is $40 billion—your plan to shrink the economy. They are the numbers that Treasury gives us. The reality is, any economist will tell you, if you tax more you reduce activity. You reduce good activity whether its investing, saving or working, you reduce activity.

Mr Perrett: Hey, Angus; LBW!

Mr TAYLOR: I have seen the replay. There is an extremely dangerous part to what Labor is proposing in its tax plans and that is the tax on negative gearing. There are three reasons this will have a such a big impact. First, and most importantly, they have forgotten that the supply of housing is inelastic in this country. Go back to economics 101. Inelastic supply: you reduce demand and it has a sharp impact on price. They are the basics. They are the basic economics. If you are going to take a third of the demand out of the market, then you can be absolutely assured that with inelastic supply you are going to whack prices.

The second part of this that you need to be extremely cautious about is that there are over $2 trillion of household debt—160 per cent of GDP. That is one of the highest in the world. We have more household debt than the UK at 130, the US at 100, Spain at 115 and Greece at 75 per cent. Have you forgotten that sharp changes in housing prices were behind the GFC?

We are focused on supporting Australians who want to have a go, who want to work hard, who want to save and who want to invest for their future. Labor just wants to slug Susie—the mythical figure in their policy documents—who is on average weekly earnings. (Time expired)