Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:16): A little over five years ago, when an Intergenerational report was released, the then shadow Treasurer held a press conference and said that the report had 'more hot air than the Hindenburg'. Mr Hockey was predicting his own report five years later! In fact, he was predicting his entire tenure in the Treasury portfolio! 'More hot air than the Hindenburg': he was predicting his entire reign over the Treasury portfolio. We know that the Australian people, when they think of generational change, are very interested in one generational change; that is a change of government, and a change of government to a government which actually understands the challenges and opportunities in Australia. We know that this document, the 2015 Intergenerational report, is a gross politicisation of what should be a proper process. We know that this document is one last desperate attempt by the Treasurer to sell his unfair budget. Here we are, all those months later, when normally a government would be well into preparing the next budget—they would be well into preparing the final details of the next budget—and the Treasurer is still flailing around trying to sell the last one and abusing the Charter of Budget Honesty as he does so. He is flailing around with a new narrative every day—a new excuse, a new alibi, a new story—because he cannot sell what is a bad product, and that bad product is his handiwork. It is his federal budget. This report tells us quite a lot; it tells us a lot about this government. It tells us about their desperation. Forty-five times this document refers to 'previous policy'. What are those previous policies? They are the previous policies of this Treasurer, as outlined in his Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. He could have chosen as a starting point that Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook, signed off not by me, not by Minister Wong, but by the then secretaries of the departments of Treasury and Finance, independent of government. I read the PEFO when it was released to the public, as I should. It was an independent document, signed off by the secretaries of those two departments. Did the Treasurer use that as the starting point for his 'previous policy'? No, because that would not be politically convenient. He had to use as a starting point the mid-year economic forecast, which included his own decisions. It included his decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. It included his decision to increase spending by a $14 billion. It included his doubling of the deficit in Australia. That is the fact of the matter. That is the starting point he chose as 'previous policy'. If you are going to engage in using the Intergenerational report and the Charter of Budget Honesty to sledge a previous government, at least get your facts right. At least start with a bit of honesty; at least start with the pre-election economic forecast signed off by the departments of Treasury and Finance. As I said, this report does tells a fair bit about this government; we heard during question time. It tells us what they think about climate change. Mr Husic: It's an economic benefit! It's a nirvana! Mr BOWEN: Apparently, greed is good, and climate change is better! The report says: Some economic effects may be beneficial—where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output … Well, that's a relief. Phew! I was worried about climate change before! I think the Minister for Agriculture has not just been changing Hansard; he has been changing the Intergenerational report as well! That is our friend the Minister for Agriculture. The report talks about the good work on climate change that happens in California. Just as well they do not have a cap-and-trade scheme! That is just as well! That would be 'an inconvenient truth'! It also tells us what the government think about productivity and innovation. The report says: There is little evidence that slower productivity growth has been the result of inadequate investment in skills, education and innovation more broadly. Well, you would not want to invest in skills, education or innovation to increase productivity! Why would you go and do that? What does innovation have to do with productivity? What a terrible thought! This report has cleared up quite a lot for me now! We know that climate change is actually good, and innovation and education—why would you invest in that?—have nothing to do with productivity! We know they are not, because we also know that education funding falls dramatically under the scenarios presented as government policy, this government's policy, as a percentage of GDP. Mr Frydenberg: Not true. Not true. Mr BOWEN: Let us talk about education funding as a percentage of GDP. I invite the member for Kooyong to comment on what this report says about education funding as a percentage of GDP. He should tell us what it says, because it is not a pretty story. We know that this government has one way of dealing with demographic change, and that is to make people work longer and to give them less in retirement. That is their only answer. But of course there are better answers than that. Thirty-two years ago today in Australia, a new government was elected: the Hawke Labor government. What a contrast: the Hawke Labor government with their Prime Minister and their Treasurer who knew that we should invest in the future, who knew how to deliver economic reform, who knew how to make the case for economic reform, who knew how to take the Australian people with them on economic reform, who did not lecture them about lifters and leaners and who said to the Australian people, 'You know what? You deserve a first-class retirement income system, and we'll give it to you. We'll give you a universal superannuation system, which means that every Australian worker should be able to save for retirement through that system.' It is a system that Labor built against the opposition of the Liberal and National parties at every stage. Let us not hear about bipartisanship from the Liberal and National parties, who opposed Medicare all the way, who opposed superannuation all the way, at every stage, and who said they would destroy Medicare. The now Prime Minister, who sat up there somewhere, presumably, as an opposition backbencher, said superannuation was the biggest con job in Australian history. Now that he is the Prime Minister of Australia he uses his office as an opportunity to wreck superannuation, to stop an increase in the superannuation guarantee, to take away a tax concession from low-income workers. And he is doing that in this week of all weeks. Let us take a moment to think about what that means. Australia's low-income workers—3.2 million Australians, two-thirds of whom are women—benefited from the low-income superannuation contribution. We know that, on average, Australian females will retire with $92,000 less in the superannuation account and we know that we should do something about it as a parliament and as a nation, because Australian women deserve better. Those Australian women working hard right across the country, many of them here in this building, in factories, schools and workplaces right across the country, deserve better in Australia than to retire with $92,000 less for their retirement. They deserve some help to save for their retirement through the low-income superannuation contribution. They deserve a bit of support from their government, not to be arrogantly lectured to about being leaners, when they are not; not to be told that they are takers and not makers, when they are not; not to be told that Australia cannot afford to keep them with a decent age pension or that they should work in the hospitals and the schools and the factories until they are 70, because they should not. They should be able to retire in dignity at a decent age, not at the highest pension age in the developed world, which is what this Treasurer, this government and this Prime Minister want to give them. And the Prime Minister lectures them about it. Disgracefully, the Prime Minister uses this document to sell his policies to make Australians work longer than anybody else in the world and to give them an inadequate pension. What a disgrace! There is a better way than that. We can use the Intergenerational report to have a proper conversation with the Australian people—that will be the Labor way. When we are in office we will keep the Intergenerational report, but it will be prepared independently of government, by the Parliamentary Budget Office, because the Australian people deserve a proper conversation. If we are in office we will not hide from scrutiny and we will not mind an independent conversation. If we do not like what the Parliamentary Budget Office does, we will not seek to drive it out of office, which is what this government does with independent statutory office holders it does not like. That is how this government treats independent scrutiny. That is how this government handles public debate. It bullies independent statutory office holders. We will have a different approach. We will have an approach that not only embraces an Intergenerational report and a proper conversation about Australia's future and opportunities but invests in the future, invests in Australian retirement incomes and uses the great strength of the Australian financial system and its financial sector to give every working Australian a decent retirement and the chance of a dignified retirement, regardless of whether they are cleaner, a carpenter, a policeman, a bricklayer or a member of parliament. Every Australian deserves to have a dignified retirement. Every Australian deserves the chance not to be entirely reliant on the full age pension. Our changes would have added $500 billion to Australia's retirement income system. Their changes take it away. As they do that, they lecture the Australian people, saying that they are not working hard enough, that they need to work longer and that their age pension is too generous. Guess what? The age pension is not too generous and Australians should not work longer than anybody else in the world, and it is only the government that thinks it.