Nationals MP will cross floor to vote down super policy

MP will cross floor to vote down the Coalition’s super policy unless changes are made.

Nationals MP will cross floor to vote down super policy

Nationals MP George Christensen announced yesterday that he would cross the floor of Parliament to vote down the Coalition’s superannuation policy unless significant changes are made.

Posting a message on his Facebook page, Mr Christensen suggested that he would vote down the policy if there weren’t changes made to the proposed $500,000 non-concessional lifetime cap and it’s ‘retrospectivity’, as well as the $1.6 million pension fund transfer balance cap.

“These policies penalise success. Principally, these policies hit small business owners and farmers who have retired, sold their assets and transferred their wealth into superannuation,” wrote Mr Christensen.

If the Coalition end up with 76 seats in the Lower House, Mr Christensen’s opposition to the changes could mean the policy fails to pass through the Lower House.

Treasurer Scott Morrison told ABC television that any MPs seeking to change polices taken to the election will need to present alternative savings to make up the shortfall.

Read more at www.skynews.com.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    21st Jul 2016
    10:33am
    Did he also vote against the changes to the assets test, which impose a far worse punishment for striving and present a massive disincentive to saving? Or is he just a fat, rich hypocrite?
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    10:34am
    Bet nobody can guess where they'll try to find the alternate savings?
    MICK
    21st Jul 2016
    10:44am
    I think you'll find that this government as a group are happy to attack retirees but many will want to preserve the handouts to their rich supporters. As I keep saying: Class warfare in full swing. It won't get any better with every front bench minister asked stating that Turnbull and Morrison will be taking the pre-election Budget to the new parliament. So expect another election by end of year or beginning of 2017.
    Rae
    21st Jul 2016
    3:30pm
    Yes Mick the difference is the part pensions cancelled only effected retired workers who had been forced to contribute to super funds as a condition of employment.

    The proposed changes will effect business owners and senior high income earners who have been convinced to deposit large amounts into superannuation. These people often are not forced to contribute to super but were convinced by Howard of the idea.

    At least they can get their money out after retirement age unlike those who purchased allocated pensions or defined pensions who have handed the money over with no chance of changing anything now.

    We do however have one of the best countries to be a retiree in so need to be grateful for that.

    A lot of what is going on is purely speculation and I'll wait to see what comes of any of it. Mostly they are all talk and very little action.
    Oldman Roo
    21st Jul 2016
    7:16pm
    The one National crossing the floor should not make any difference except the usual scare mongering by the rich and media . I can not imagine that Labor would not vote with the Government on this one , so who cares whether one crosses the floor . Judging the LNP on their cries of poverty over just contributing a very small amount to the deficit sends shivers down my spine , with fears about what their " Final Solution " plans are for part Pensioners . Just when I thought it could not get any worse .
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    9:39pm
    I don't think it's correct to say cancelled part pensions only affected retired workers who were forced to contribute to super funds, Rae. Many affected had NO super at all, but went without a great deal to save for their future - or, in many cases, to be able to leave a little to their offspring. Having gone without to save, they are now punished and forced to go without again so people who didn't save much can have more.
    MICK
    21st Jul 2016
    10:40am
    It's already beginning. What else would you expect other than destabilisation....the exact claim that the Turnbull misfits levelled against Labor. The reality is that this government is one teetering on the edge and it will fall soon.
    Tigers
    21st Jul 2016
    12:32pm
    You said that three weeks ago Mick. Keep rattling the bucket, your prediction will come true, eventually.
    FM
    21st Jul 2016
    11:18am
    Perhaps we need to ask him Rainey. It is important that we continue to remind them that those changes did not go through without the consequence of losing retirees' votes.

    21st Jul 2016
    12:07pm
    Looks like the first broken election promise is on its way.
    KSS
    21st Jul 2016
    12:15pm
    So Barak if there were no changes to the proposed legislation, the Government would be accused of not listening to the electorate and berated for it.

    On the other hand if they do listen and make changes they are to be accused of breaking promises and berated for that too!

    Seems there are those who will not be satisfied either way and the Government will be in the wrong no matter what they do.
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    12:50pm
    That's a silly comment KSS.

    The LNP went to the election with a particular policy. One hopes they knew the views of the electorate before the election. They run enough opinion polls, for goodness sake.

    What we have here is a tiny minority of very rich people using their money to make even more money, and make sure they keep all their money.

    Pay tax? Silly idea. To them.
    KSS
    21st Jul 2016
    1:21pm
    A little out of step Barak with many of the contributors here who have all been complaining of the very policy you seem to support in particular the $500,000 lifetime contribution cap among others.

    Your assertion that " they knew the views of the electorate before the election" is so clearly erroneous given they were returned with a greatly reduced majority.

    Perhaps it is your comment that is the silly one.
    Tom Tank
    21st Jul 2016
    4:17pm
    Contributions to superannuation are given tax concessions to assist people to accumulate funds to assist their retirement.
    That at least was the original concept.

    Howard and Costello opened the flood gates to the wealthy to use superannuation contributions to build their wealth way beyond what is really required to lead a reasonably comfortable retirement.
    This has left a millstone around each government since, irrespective of which party is in power, that really needs to be wound back.

    George Christenson has stated that the shortfall from changing the policy announced before, and during, the election can be made up by cutting welfare payments.
    He does profess to be a Christian but appears to be lacking in knowledge of Christ's basic teachings.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:10pm
    Barak, just as we new that the LNP would break any promises made to get elected, we also new that the usual flock of apologists for their dishonest behavior would be ready to rush to their defense.
    One gets the idea that any leader of the LNP could be seen staggering naked down the street in a drunken stupor munching on a pensioners severed arm and his flock would find a reason why it was not his/her fault.
    I take these peoples comments as they should be taken, with a grain of salt, knowing that the people making them are not really putting forward a lucid argument but just following a certain simplistic political line.
    The Librarian
    21st Jul 2016
    12:22pm
    As both LNP and ALP are not all that far apart on proposed superannuation changes something might get through without the assistance of the outraged right wing of the coalition. However I do expect a new election within 12 months as getting legislation through both houses is likely to be challenging.
    4b2
    21st Jul 2016
    12:31pm
    Is my understanding correct that these proposed changes to Super only affect Self Managed Funds as the accumulation funds are already being taxed. So what is the big deal?
    Cant wait to see if Mal makes change to the policy (or Plan) he took the election?
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    4:06pm
    These changes effect all super funds not only self managed super funds.

    All super funds pay tax in the accumulation phase but no tax in the pension phase. Proposed changes only effect super funds in the pension phase as far as tax is concerned. Income on the first $1.6 million put into pension phase is tax free with 15% tax paid on the rest. You will need 2 accounts if your balance transferred into the pension phase is more than $1.6 million. If your $1.6M grows to $2M the income will still be tax free. It is a little more complicated than this but this is the simplified version.

    21st Jul 2016
    12:36pm
    You lot banging on about another election in 12 months really amuses me. Just like the Poms who cant handle the Brexit referendum taking up a petition demanding another vote until they get the result they want. When will you lefties get it? The people have spoken - get on with it! And it is no use Short -on (ideas) and W(r)ong claiming the government hasn't got a mandate for their policies - when I went to school in the late 1950's, 76 was greater than half of 150 - an arithmetical concept beyond the comprehension of Greens and lefties - poor souls!
    mangomick
    21st Jul 2016
    3:35pm
    The lower house has a mandate to introduce their legislation and the upper house have a mandate to seek change or not pass that legislation if they see fit. Guess those in the Upper House have the stronger mandate which effectively means that it doesn't really matter whether 76 is greater than half of 150 or not. Fun times ahead. A true leader should have the skills to compromise and negotiate legislation through.The LNP called for a double dissolution and the people have spoken.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:20pm
    Big Al, to me a mandate eludes to an overwhelming expression of confidence by the voters in the policies of the elected government.
    As this government just managed to scrape in and lost many seats, I can't see how this constitutes a mandate.
    To put it another way, Julia Gillard just scraped in when she gained power, in your eyes, did she have a mandate and if so why did not the opposition respect the wishes of the people?
    Their is at least one National Party member who does not believe he has a mandate so why should anyone else?
    Luckily for the Australian people we have a senate that can stop the LNP from destroying the country with politically motivated legislation.

    21st Jul 2016
    12:46pm
    The guy is a known loudmouth and he only wants to continue to feather his own nest by obstructing enactment of this legislature. He couldn't give a damn about the threshold to become effective on 1/1/2017.
    The Librarian
    21st Jul 2016
    1:06pm
    Yes Big Al, the people have spoken. Evidently we do not trust either party to govern and implement their mandate as we put a larger number of people outside of the three major parties (LNP, ALP and NP) to review all legislation in the Senate.
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    9:35pm
    Most Australians don't trust either party to govern, and why should they? Thank heavens for a Senate that forces some level of moderation, otherwise struggling retirees, the sick, disabled and unemployed would be begging in the streets, having had their houses stolen, to give to the rich and their pensions cancelled and Medicare destroyed.

    All these lies about the nation being in financial strife, and billions hoarded in tax havens -including by our own prime minister. What does that say about humanity?
    LiveItUp
    22nd Jul 2016
    7:10am
    Rainey if the country is not in strife with those big debt levels then it should be especially if tax revenues don't pick up anytime soon. Our PM like evry other Australian has the right to invest in tax havens. Super itself is a tax haven.

    Retirees struggle becuase of thier own stupidity in not spending down their capital. Sorry folks it's useless to you when you are 6 feet under. It is even more stupid to leave it to your heirs to treat like a lottery win. Our young families living from pay to pay only jusy making ends meet are the ones struggling. They have no capital to fall back on for emergencies and one pay pack away from bankruptcy. Medicare is was over used so needs to be reigned in.
    Rae
    22nd Jul 2016
    8:35am
    Gosh Bonny you took me back to my younger life there. Spending all the pay packet just making ends meet and no savings to fall back on. It has always been like this for all but the very wealthy. I don't understand the belief that the young should be as well off as someone who has worked and saved for 45 years.

    However it is pointless also for a government to destroy a country's revenue base by unwise tax cuts and rebates and sales of income producing assets. By then overpaying on stupid contracts to international corporations and then try to steal elderly people's savings to make up for the damage caused through acting on silly ideology.

    The LNP deliberately implemented revenue losing strategies and they need to work out how to fix it other than attacking pensioners.

    I agree the medical system needs an overhaul but it isn't the only department bleeding money for no useful purpose to the population where at least medicare does provide a service to ordinary Australians.

    21st Jul 2016
    1:12pm
    The problem with the Senate is that it has moved away from the concept that our founding fathers originally envisaged. It was meant as a house of review to protect the rights of the states (particularly the smaller states). In the last 40 years it has become partisan, to a great extent - to the detriment of good government. The last premier to properly use the Senate was Bjelke-Petersen in the 1970's. So your comment, Librarian, shows your ignorance on what the Senate is supposed to represent - but I forgive you!
    Happy cyclist
    21st Jul 2016
    2:00pm
    Well, Big Al, if you want to start discussing what our founding fathers originally envisaged, there is no mention of political parties in the Constitution. Each Member of the House was supposed to represent his/her electorate and Senators their State but times have changed with the rise of the Parties which require Members and Senators to vote with the Party. The Librarian's point was a perfectly valid one. She commented on the situation as it is today. I wonder if she will forgive you for your unfounded insults.
    The Librarian
    21st Jul 2016
    4:23pm
    She ??? :-)
    LiveItUp
    22nd Jul 2016
    7:14am
    I agree the Senate should be a house of review not hinder parliament as it has done for the last 10 years or so.

    Too much power now in the Senate who think they run the country.
    Rae
    22nd Jul 2016
    8:39am
    Neither Houses should be the plaything of ideological parties.

    Both houses full of Independents working together for their local populations and areas and the good of the Country itself would be a fine thing to see.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:26pm
    Bonny, the term is review not rubber stamp, I see very little purpose in reviewing a piece of policy or legislation if you can't make essential changes.
    Neither of the so calleds can be trusted so it is essential that an independent entity can challenge policy that is not in the best interest of the Australian people. Because neither the LNP or ALP seem to be able to run the country it now falls to the cross benches, they bought it on themselves with their self seeking overbearing attitudes.
    floss
    21st Jul 2016
    1:17pm
    Mick what can I say you have said it all,spot on well said.
    The Librarian
    21st Jul 2016
    1:47pm
    Yes the way the Senate has functioned has evolved from the original concept. Whether that has improved or been to the detriment of good government is a matter of opinion. My comment relates to what is the current situation not what used to be.
    Rae
    21st Jul 2016
    3:42pm
    I actually agree with the proposed changes.

    Most workers won't save over 1.6 mill for a start.

    I believe transition to retirement is a tax minimisation scheme costing revenues far too much. People need to start saving small amounts regularly from and early age. The tax payer does not have to encourage this. The rewards are self evident.

    As to the limit of $500 000 I believe you would be crazy to put that much non concessional amounts into superannuation when it is classed as income coming back out by Centrelink.
    Better by far to save it outside super where you have access to it whenever you need it and can build a nest egg that returns over $57 000 a year per couple before any tax is payable anyway.

    People are getting pretty greedy if they want more than this to be compensated by the taxpayers as far as I can see.

    That is over $1000 a week tax free outside super and then whatever you earn within super.

    If you are really wealthy then you need to pay a bit of tax. Get over it.
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    4:08pm
    I agree that the present super system is too generous however if you can have $1.6M in your super fund earning tax free income then your should be able to put in $1.6M not only $500,000.
    Rae
    21st Jul 2016
    4:18pm
    Yes Old Geezer I actually don't get the $500 000 after tax rule.

    It doesn't make much sense unless there is some weird non concessional rule I haven't understood.

    Seeing there are about 7000 different rules about it now I'd suggest it is into that Warren Buffett zone of not investing in it if you don't understand it.
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    4:44pm
    You can now put in $180,000 or $540,000 over 3 years but after 1/7/2017 you can only have out in $500,000 since 2007.

    You are right there are too many rules which gives too many loop holes.

    Being able to put in $25,000 pa concessional contributions up the age of 75 will help retirees with capital gains from asset sales. Spent all morning trying to explain it to a fellow today. I also tried to explain that he should maximise his tax free income outside super as well. He just couldn't get it as some advisor had told him he should put everything his got into super. I also tried to explain that the advisor gets paid more the more he puts in as well but he keep telling me he was a good bloke. People can be frustrating at times.
    Rae
    21st Jul 2016
    5:45pm
    Yes I like the idea of raising the age to 75 as I have a small accumulation fund sitting there only getting added to on the odd occasion I work a contract. I could add to it regularly if the age was raised. I would as I'm a great believer in regular saving.

    It is very sad that a great number of people have been convinced the only avenue of saving they have is superannuation.

    These advisors are good blokes as far as the gullible are concerned and if they are happy sharing savings with advisors who are we to argue with them.
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    4:20pm
    I know where they can find alternative savings. Add the house into the pension assets test.
    FM
    21st Jul 2016
    4:47pm
    Or they could increase taxes on retirees such as yourself as proposed.
    As usual the Bonny old Geezer cannot see past his/her pet obsession of persecuting the vulnerable.
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    5:13pm
    I pay the same tax as everyone else in the country so increasing my taxes means increasing everyone's taxes. I get no benefit on my tax as a retiree.
    Rae
    21st Jul 2016
    5:59pm
    That isn't true Geezer. We all get benefit from a strong public service and government regulated State.

    I'm happy to pay for it.

    I think the tax cuts over the past 20 years and the sale of revenue raising assets our taxes paid for is such a waste.

    What is there to show for it all?
    Old Geezer
    21st Jul 2016
    6:21pm
    OK I'll rephrase that. Being a retiree does not give me a lower rate of tax than anyone else in this country.
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    9:28pm
    True, Old Geezer, but you made far greater use of tax concessions that are ONLY available (realistically) to the well off and you benefited far more from national resources than battlers, and now, you greedy pig, you want to continue to milk the public purse with lower tax rates while stealing the houses of the workers who were less privileged and got far less benefit from taxpayer funds.

    The greedy rich are just never satisfied. They think the world owes them and the underprivileged were put on earth to be used and abused by them.
    LiveItUp
    22nd Jul 2016
    7:30am
    Rainey you need to pull your head in as Old Geezer has already told you that he pays the same tax rate as everyone else in the country. Most people of his age would not have big super balances so you should not assume he has used tax concessions.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    12:32pm
    I hope they do add homes to the asset test Old Geezer, that will finally finish them of.
    particolor
    21st Jul 2016
    4:52pm
    Don't trip over on your way across the Floor ! You'll shake Canberra to its foundations !! :-( :-(
    dante
    21st Jul 2016
    5:00pm
    This fat, overpaid idiot did not vote against the changes to taper rate that are due to come in by early next year. This extraordinary change, thanks to The Greens, penalized those that have modest superannuation but that are in no way rich. In essence these changes imposed a 7.8% wealth tax on those that have been diligent enough to put aside a good super over the years prior to reaching age pension. These people also suffered 'retrospectivity' as the rules were changed after they had made certain decisions, e.g. they could have used their funds to improve the value of their assets (i.e. their home) instead of putting it into super.

    Greed has no limit with the rich. They squeal like pigs if they have to give up even a minor privilege but are very silent when others have to make sacrifice as long as their privileges remain intact.

    If you voted for these idiots then you deserve unconscionable behavior.
    particolor
    21st Jul 2016
    5:15pm
    You said it !!
    What's going on in this Country ?? According to EVERYBODY that has said anything to me, They didn't vote Lib ?? The only conclusion I can come to is they must have counted the Lib votes Twice :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    9:29pm
    Spot on, dante. You are absolutely right.

    21st Jul 2016
    9:19pm
    typical comment of labor stooge and union organiser mick, it is alright to take the union members down as long as the union organisers, most who have never done a honest day's work in their lives so the lowlifes the likes of mick, billy the knife, thompson etc are able to live in luxury, who worries about the workers, just spout more lies, such as selling off medicare, who wants to buy a business loosing more than 20 billion dollars a year? Hey, Australians, you are taking for a ride by those so called independents of these columns, micky, fast eddy, barac, looney, can anybody give a better expression of himself, etc. they are all paid up members , and it is not the libs.
    Anonymous
    21st Jul 2016
    9:25pm
    I'm not a paid up member of anything heemskerk. I think for myself. Throwing insults around won't silence me. Oh, and I'm in my 46th year of adult work

    It's easy to sell a loss making government business. It's been done with Victoria's public transport. The government now pays a private operator zillions every year to run it.

    So drop that dogma about Medicare not being for sale. It definitely is. Dunno why Shorten eased back on that issue.

    Please spell my name correctly.
    taylah
    21st Jul 2016
    11:32pm
    M Turnbull wont be able to say anything about him crossing the floor its exactly what he did once when Mr Howard was PM I think, and M Turnbull voted with labor.
    taylah
    21st Jul 2016
    11:37pm
    My suggestion to the Libs re saving money Why did they add extra ministers biggest ministry since Whitlam, so much for cutting expenses.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:20am
    Malcolm did that to avoid offending anyone. He is running scared.
    Rae
    22nd Jul 2016
    8:56am
    They don't care about cutting costs. It isn't about the money at all. Money is worthless. They can borrow it overseas at negative rates if they want.

    This is ideology at work. These disciples of Ayn Rand and Hayek desire nothing less than the destruction of the welfare state and the middle class land owners.

    You should read their views to get an understanding of why some of these ideas are favoured by the LNP.

    Party politics can be a very dangerous beast as seen a few times in previous eras. The National Socialists in Germany and the Bolsheviks in Russia come to mind.

    Let's hope the Senate is mixed up enough to stop any more destruction of Australia's wealth in the name of ideology.
    ex PS
    22nd Jul 2016
    11:57am
    Looks like not even the government parliamentarians believe T.M has a mandate for his policies.
    So much for only the LNP can form stable government.
    Spitfire
    22nd Jul 2016
    5:47pm
    What these clowns in government do not appreciate is the more they deter the top end from contributing to their own self funded super, will result in an indirect inverse impact this will generate on low end pensioners. Drive more to seek the pension which will eventually go broke in the future when the clowns have disappeared with no accountability and will have there own disgusting super at tax payer expense.
    Circum
    22nd Jul 2016
    8:45pm
    He is just a hypocrite who doesn't understand that superannuation is not meant to be tax minimisation scheme.Many self employed including farmers chose to follow their own paths to provide for their retirement and that's fine.To then want to sell the business or farm and plonk it into super is wanting a second bite of the cherry by wanting tax free income.Only a politician would try and justify that.Besides .the electorate has voted,if George doesn't like it tuff titties.
    Anonymous
    22nd Jul 2016
    8:46pm
    What? You think they should stick to a promise?
    worker
    24th Jul 2016
    12:36pm
    Members of parliaments (MP)are employees of the Australian citizens and given they continue to hit the lower payed with changes to superannuation and pensions is it not far over due we the employer start a movement to bring in line MPs superannuation with all other workers and move to remove the life long forms of pensions .
    What other workers employees get forms of pensions and other payed perks no matter there age after they are not employed.