Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (13:13): The Intergenerational report is an opportunity for a government to outline a vision for the nation, to talk to the nation about the challenges and opportunities for the long term, to rise above day-to-day politics, to rise above point-scoring and to rise above sledging the previous administrations, but the Treasurer and the government have shown themselves incapable of doing that. The Intergenerational reportis not meant to be a belated, half-hearted attempt to sell an unfair budget. The Intergenerational report is not meant to be an opportunity to sledge previous administrations. The Intergenerational report is meant to be about the future. This Intergenerational report has eight pages on the future and 80 pages on the past. This Intergenerational report has been politicised like no other. The member for North Sydney is the third Treasurer to bring down an Intergenerational report and he is the first to politicise it in such a blatant manner. The Intergenerational report, as the Treasurer himself today said, is a document of the Treasurer. It is not an independent analysis of the Treasury, but a document of the Treasurer. But this Treasurer is the first to so blatantly politicise it. Even as the government attempts to politicise this document, they have not done so honestly or competently. On 45 occasions this document talks about previous policies. When you look closely at these previous policies, they are the previous policies of the Treasurer. They are the policies as outlined in his mid-year economic statement. They are the policies as outlined in the document which he owns. They are policies like giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank, an increase in spending by $14 billion. They are his policies; previous government policies. They are the policies that government. As they attempt to rewrite history, they do not even do so competently or honestly. They talk about previous policies. Yes, they are policies they once had—policies never embraced by this side—like giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. If we are going to have a conversation about the future, let us do so honestly and let us have a competent and clear exposition of the facts. There are other ways that this document is fundamentally flawed. I asked the Treasurer yesterday in the House whether the document would reflect his government's policy of restoring the private health insurance rebate in full. Members will recall that the previous Labor government means tested the private health insurance rebate to make it fairer and more sustainable. That was a very important fiscal reform, not a small one. It saved $25 billion over 10 years or $100 billion over 40 years. We did it against the opposition of the Liberal and National parties, because apparently the age of entitlement is not over for all. But it was done. The now Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, and the then shadow Treasurer promised to restore it. They did not say that they would do it immediately, in fairness. They said they would restore it when they could. That was within the decade, as the budget returned to surplus. The Treasurer today is predicting a return to surplus in 2028 in his own document. Does the Intergenerational report assumed that the private health insurance rebate is restored in full? There is not a word. It is a fundamentally dishonest projection of government policy. Either the Treasurer should walk away from his policy and admit he got it wrong, admit that the private health insurance rebate should be means tested and admit they will never restore it or the document should reflect government policy. It has neither of those things; that is the truth. If the Treasurer and the government are going to engage in a discussion about the future, we are in it. But we will do so honestly and we will do so based on the facts. We will not do so based on false protections, as claimed in this document. There is another interesting projection in here which honourable members will be extremely interested in. It relates the age pension. This government is changing the indexation of the age pension. This government is saying that CPI is fair. This government says that pensioners should not have their pension linked to their average weekly earnings. It is a fundamentally different approach to this side of the House. When we were in office, we made the indexation fairer. We introduced more ways the pension could be increased, not less. We said that pensioners deserve a fair pension, linked to the pension, the CPI or a basket of goods which reflected what pensioners actually buy. That is not good enough this government. They said, 'No, no. Pensioners don't deserve that.' They attempted to change the policy. Today, we have an acknowledgement for first time that this is not fair, because the government says that when they return to surplus they project that they will return the pension to being linked to average weekly earnings. So poor people will have to be on the pension for the next 12 years. The leaners—apparently, according to the Treasurer—have to put up with an unfair indexation measure, but apparently into the future that will be changed. Here we have assumptions and forecasts made not by the Treasury, not by the Department of Finance, not by the Parliamentary Budget Office but by the member for North Sydney. This is his political document. This is his half-hearted and belated attempt to sell what he has been incapable of selling up until now for the next 10 months: his budget. That is why his use the Intergenerational report. It is an abuse of what the Intergenerational report should be used for. We know that this government has one way of dealing with demographic change. There is demographic change in Australia—of course there is. Governments need to deal with it. They have one way: making you work longer and then giving you less when you eventually are allowed to retire. This Treasurer, in his grace, allows you to retire after you have worked longer than any other worker in the developed world! The Treasurer says to carpenters, bricklayers, policeman, nurses and soldiers, 'I'm going to make you work until you are 70.' Mr Frydenberg: It is the grey army. Mr BOWEN: He says, 'I am going to put the grey army out there, laying the bricks and laying the carpets when they have worked hard their whole lives.' The member for Kooyong says, 'No, no. You are going to work until you are 70, longer than any other developed country in the world, and then we are going to give you less of the age pension when you retire.' There is a better way than that. You can invest in the future. You can invest in people's own retirement incomes through superannuation. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer will desist. Mr BOWEN: You can build on that great Labor reform of superannuation. You can take the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent and let people save for their own retirements with the help of the government. You can help low-income earners save for their retirement by giving them a low-income earners superannuation contribution, which is something this government has taken away. You can actually say to older people, 'We will continue to ensure that you are paid superannuation.' That is something the previous Labor government did and the Liberal and National parties voted against it. They are in no position to lecture anybody. At the time, the Liberal and National parties voted against the policy to let a superannuation guarantee compulsory be paid people over 70. It was an outrageous decision by the Liberal and National parties, passed in this House with the support of the then members for Lyons and New England. Those changes—the increase in the superannuation guarantee and allowing low-income earners the benefit of a contribution from the tax system, which was some support as people under $37,000 save for their retirement—would have added $500 billion to the savings of the Australian people by 2037. More importantly, we know that those measures would have reduced the number of people on the full age pension by half by 2050. That is how you make the age pension more sustainable. You work with people. You assist low-income earners to save for their own retirement. You say to lower income earners—the carpenters, the plumbers, the cleaners—that they actually deserve a tax concession on their superannuation. If it is good enough for high-income earners and millionaires, it is good enough for cleaners and others in this building, and right across the country, to get a bit of assistance in saving for their retirement—but not according to this government, not according to the member for North Sydney, not according to the member for Kooyong, and not according to the Prime Minister. They say, no, the only way is to cut. We are going to make you work longer, and we are going to give you less when you are eventually allowed to retire. Well, there is a better way. I welcome the fact that the Treasurer, in his remarks a few moments ago, for the first time recognised there are alternatives. You bet there are. There are a heap of alternatives, and you are going to see them. There are better ways of saving for the future. There are better ways of dealing with demographic change. It is not all about making people work harder and longer. It is not all about taking things away from people. It is about helping people save for their own retirement, giving them a dignified retirement and giving them a chance to live in retirement without reliance on the full age pension. It is about helping people to use the superannuation system to build on our strengths, to build on the strength of that great Australian financial system and our great financial services providers, who know how to invest for the future and how to maximise people's retirement incomes. That should be available to every working Australian and not just those who can afford to get financial advice and those who get massive tax concessions from this government. It should be available to those who are able to work hard and save for themselves and provide for themselves—but they get zero support from this government. All they get are lectures about being leaners and not lifters. All they get are lectures about being takers and not makers. All they get told is that they are a drain on the public purse. How dare they expect an age pension. How dare they expect an age pension that actually increases with growth in Australian wages and the Australian economy. How dare they expect the Australian government to look after them. How could they expect such a thing. How could they expect to get any support from this government. Well, they cannot expect to get any support—not from the member for North Sydney, who is so out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary Australian people, nor from the member for Kooyong, who lectures them and says they do not deserve a tax concession if they are low- and middle-income earners—and who takes it away from them—and whose main focus is providing more tax concessions to people on high incomes and less to people on low incomes. It says it all about the priorities of this government, which has brought down a flawed document in an attempt to sell their own unfair and flawed budget—a flawed sales job that is about to be supplemented by taxpayers' funds on an advertising campaign—a document brought down a month after it should have been, in breach of the law, in breach of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. The Treasurer of Australia is in breach of a law he is meant to be administering. He says to the Australian people: 'I will enforce the law.' Well, how about you start complying with it. How about you actually start by complying with your own law instead of beating your chest about enforcing the law on others. You can start by complying with it, and you can start with a bit of honesty. We are not seeing any in this document. (Time expired)