Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:14): The government loves three-word slogans. So the opposition has one to suggest to them—'Hands off superannuation'. What on earth was this government thinking when they made the decision to put the interests of a few mining companies ahead of nine million Australians, ahead of 3.2 million small businesses and ahead of 1.3 million families? It is how this government rolls. In a year of stupid and short-sighted decisions by this government, in a year where they have broken so many promises, and as the news of this dirty deal between the government and Palmer United Party emerged, I would submit to the parliament of Australia today that I believe that this decision is the stupidest most short-term decision I have seen this government make. It will have a generational impact and no doubt those opposite smirk. Why would they not? Their superannuation is fine. The problem is this government and these MPs do one thing for themselves yet they ask nine million Australians to do something else altogether. This is, without a doubt, one of the most catastrophic decisions that we will see affect this generation. Well done, government. No-one in their wildest imaginings, when we thought about the potential damage this government could do, could imagine that this government would take $150 billion in retirement savings from Australians in the future. The immediate decision to freeze superannuation by keeping it at 9½ per cent for the next number of years, according to the Financial Services Council, will cost $128 billion. What an arrogant Treasurer we have. What a cigar-chomping, out of touch, blow-hard Treasurer we have when he would declare 'oh no, it is not $128 billion gone'. Does this Treasurer think he is so smart that he knows more than the modelling of the Financial Services Council? It was truly one of the funniest moments in an otherwise disappointing day when the Treasurer in question time said, 'I have not seen the assumptions behind this modelling.' Treasurer, we have not seen any of your assumptions behind this hastily cobbled together deal. The effect of this decision will be disastrous. We hear this government talk about what it all means and how it is going to give money back to people. Someone who is 25 years old earning an average income will be $100,000 worse off. This mob opposite screamed like cut cats about the carbon price yet they have gone to town and committed a cost impact on Australians, the effect of which will be felt for generations. What do they do to show their priorities? Those people opposite want to give 16,000 people who have millions of dollars already in their superannuation and who earn in excess of $100,000 in interest—that is right; there are people who earn over $100,000 in interest alone—a tax break. Why did we not think of that? We see beyond the cuts to the schoolkids bonus and the income support bonus. We actually have to look at the generational impact of this decision. It is deeper than even the immediate effect; it goes to one of philosophy. These people love to give a lecture about being lifters not leaners. If you believe them, they are into thrift, they are into accountability, they are into the good old fashioned work ethic and they want Australians to work hard and save. They are always complaining about debt. So what do they do when they are philosophically committed, apparently, to thrift and saving? They damage the single best institution in Australia for savings. Tony Abbott said in 1995 that compulsory superannuation is a 'con job'. He just wants to give the money back. We see those opposite undermine universal access to Medicare. We see them undermine equitable access to universities. Now they are undermining the great good dream of ordinary Australians to have enough money when they retire. They say 'we kept our promise'; oh no they have not. This is most certainly an adverse change to superannuation and they want to talk about cocks crowing. I tell you what: their roosters would be hoarse because 14 times the Prime Minister said there will be no adverse changes. They would have laryngitis with the amount of untruths that spill from their throats. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is not in his seat and may not interject. Mr SHORTEN: Be careful, say nothing. They would attack one of the great savings vehicles of Australia. We know we are living longer and that is a good thing. We know that healthcare costs go up. What is this mendicant generation-wrecking government choosing to do? They are denying people the financial wherewithal to have enough money in their accounts to pay for their health care in retirement. They love to talk about infrastructure. If infrastructure could be built by words alone then these would be the crane kings. We know that infrastructure is funded by superannuation and they are starving Australia of infrastructure funding by starving superannuation funds. What I particularly find galling in what they have done is that they have fed the beast of minority parties' publicity seeking with no interest in the long-term. I get they have to do deals. I understand they do some horse trading. But never would I imagine that they would put on the chopping block Australia's great superannuation system. They are strangling the superannuation system and starving it of resources. They have managed to get the mining tax off the back of nine companies and the deal they got for it? Nine million people having their superannuation frozen. I would not send this mob to buy a litre of milk at the milk bar; they would end up selling the house on the way through. They talk about wages. Getting a lecture about workers' wages from these people is insulting. I must concede, Tony Abbott has the hide of a rhinoceros or a sense of humour that no-one has yet discovered when he declares that he is the worker's best friend in giving them money. Let me be clear and let me remind Australia: the Liberal Party opposite—all of them—have never supported wage rises for workers. So be very careful: when you hear Tony Abbott promising a wage rise for workers it is time to panic—put the money in the shoebox!—because these people do not know. They think manual labour is a Spanish tennis star! They have never backed in Australian workers. What they do is say, 'We're going to back in wages.' So this is the real story of the dirty deal done cheap by these people. What they first of all said was, 'We're not going to have Australians save for their retirement.' They said, 'We're going to get wage rises for workers.' As if! As if anyone believes that! The real reason—the only thing they have done here—is that they have given corporate profits a kick along, because without the savings—and we know that they do not back wages—the only people who benefit from this decision are some corporations who will increase their profits. And that is the essence of the Palmer-Abbott deal. Who wins in this deal? Who wins by losing a mining tax? Mining companies, including Palmer. Who wins in this deal if you do not have to pay increased superannuation? Mining companies—they do not have to pay more in their wages and they do not have to pay more in their superannuation. This mob opposite favour offshore profits over onshore savings. Do not ever again, Prime Minister, talk to us about mandates. You have no mandate to wreck the superannuation system. You have no mandate to lecture the Australian people on debt when, in fact, you are discouraging them from saving. They have this audacity—this stupid, short-term government—they have superannuation in their sights and they are freezing it and wrecking it. Why should nine million Australians retire with less money than they otherwise would have? What I find particularly galling in getting a lecture from the Prime Minister of Australia and the Treasurer of Australia is that none of their decisions will hurt them. They make a decision which hurts nine million real people, 3.2 million small businesses and 1.3 million families, and there is no skin in the game from that mob opposite. I say to the government: you have made super an election issue and we will win that fight. (Time expired)