Labor has indicated it may support the Coalition’s proposed superannuation changes, but first it wants an inquiry to determine whether they are retrospective or not.
Labor’s superannuation spokesman, Jim Chalmers, has already formed the opinion the $500,000 cap on non-concessional contributions is “the very definition of retrospectivity”.
But in a move calculated to inflame tensions in the Coalition over the changes, Chalmers called on the government to “take the time to get it right” with an inquiry into whether they are retrospective, fair and workable.
Chalmers told Radio National on Tuesday “it’s pretty hard to cop a view that something that is backdated and calculated from 2007 but not announced until 2016 is anything other than retrospective”.
“People’s retirement incomes shouldn’t be messed with on a whim. You need to make sure that people are in the car – that they’re consulted and that any changes are made really carefully.”
Chalmers noted the Coalition’s division on superannuation and said the government “couldn’t explain, couldn’t defend and couldn’t guarantee [the changes] would be in place, even if they won the election”.
The cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos has said the government has a mandate for the reforms and he would continue to advocate for them. But the immigration minister has warned the Coalition should not have a “tin ear” by ignoring concern over the changes.
On Tuesday the Australian reported that the deputy Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, warned Malcolm Turnbull and treasurer, Scott Morrison, the changes would provoke a backlash against the Coalition.
Chalmers said Labor would support “anything that turns out to be workable and fair”.
“If it turns out if you look at all these changes in their totality, in isolation, and the way they interact with each other, if there’s a case that can be made that they’re workable and fair then we will support them.”
“If there are improvements which could be made, for example, if you could make that $500,000 cap prospective rather than retrospective, that’s worth looking at.”
Chalmers also criticised the government’s “ill-considered” backpacker tax and said there was “internal dissent and chaos” over whether to keep the tax after a six-month delay.
Conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs ran an aggressive campaign against the superannuation changes because it believes they are retrospective.
But experts including the Grattan Institute’s John Daley and tax experts from the Australian National University, Miranda Stewart and David Ingles, have concluded the changes are not retrospective.
Asked whether the right’s David Feeney should keep his portfolio as shadow assistant minister for defence, Chalmers did nothing to hose down speculation of a reshuffle.
He noted: “Bill Shorten is right to say there is an abundance of talent in the Labor party, we’ve always got more good people than we have spots.”
“Whether it’s David [Feeney] or anyone else on the frontbench, that’s yet to be resolved.”
“David [Feeney] himself said he didn’t have the perfect campaign, I’ve got a lot of time for [Feeney], he’s one of our very good colleagues.”
Chalmers praised newly elected MPs Tim Hammond, Milton Dick and Anne Aly, amid speculation that Aly was jockeying to move into the shadow ministry after winning the seat of Cowan.
