Senator SHERRY (4:16 AM) —I intend to respond briefly to the two returns to order that were tabled just a few minutes ago at this very late hour. The first return to order was moved by the Senate on 24 June, on my initiative, and the order went to the government laying on the table of the Senate on the last day of the 2002 winter sitting the revised costing documents in brief of the Australian Labor Party's plan for a fairer superannuation system prepared by Mr Phil Gallagher, the manager of the Retirement and Income Modelling Unit in Treasury.

Firstly, in respect of the answer we have received in the Senate this evening, it is clearly not the work of Senator Coonan, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. I think I can guess who wrote the response. It is an outright rejection of the material that has been requested by the Senate. As I said earlier, it went to the costings of Labor's proposed alternatives for a fairer superannuation system announced by the leader, Mr Crean, in the other place in his budget reply speech. There are a number of inaccurate assertions in this response. To put it in context, when the government handed down its budget and the Leader of the Opposition responded with costed alternatives in respect of its two superannuation options, the following day, 17 May, the Prime Minister said:

The importance of Labor's request is highlighted by the fact that, on that occasion early in the morning of 17 May, the Prime Minister had forgotten to acknowledge that the government's own surcharge reduction was not $50 million a year. It would climb to $200 million after three years, and this was clearly in the government's own budget. Later that day the Treasurer revised upwards the Prime Minister's costings of Labor's proposals from $350 million to $505 million—it jumped about $150 million in one day. Naturally Labor was a little bit suspicious of the figures being handed out by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

What became apparent at Senate estimates during that process of questioning Mr Gallagher was that in the government's costings of Labor's superannuation plan the Treasurer's request for the costings failed to take into account that Labor's proposals were to be phased in over a three-year period rather than introduced in one year. This was a critical omission from the government's costings. On that request by the Treasurer to Treasury and the subsequent release of those costings, the public was given incorrect information. The government did come unstuck a little later that day because it was pointed out to the media that the Labor Party had clearly announced the phase-in periods in a press release that I had released. The costings, it was clear from Senate estimates, had been inaccurately prepared at the request of the Treasurer and that is why it was necessary to have these costings provided to the Senate— hence the order.

One other remark in respect of the response that we have received: in the middle of page 2 it refers to the further clarification, by me, of details of Labor proposals which were not previously clear. This is an incorrect claim by the Assistant Treasurer. What is clear is that the head of the government's retirement income group, Mr Gallagher, had not understood the application of a contributions tax reduction to defined benefit funds versus accumulation funds, and had not taken that factor into account. This was an error made by the costings unit in Treasury, and so there was no further clarification required by me. It is a piece of information that one would expect modellers as senior as Mr Gallagher to understand in taking into account costings in the area of superannuation.

The second return to order relates to the modelling that was carried out on the government's Intergenerational Report, which was a central element of the budget document. The Senate has requested that the draft costings that were prepared for the Inter-generational Report by the retirement modelling unit in Treasury be provided to the Senate. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not go into any more detail other than to say that it is apparent that the Intergene-rational Report's modelling is not a true total and correct picture of the particular problems and challenges that Australia will face as a nation due to the consequences of an ageing population; hence, Labor's request to obtain a copy of the draft modelling that we know was prepared by admission of Treasury officials at estimates in January of this year.

Labor has made a request for many other aspects of particular government expenditures in the taxation area to be appropriately modelled and provided in order to ensure we have a full and complete debate about the consequences of the ageing population—a debate that is not based on what is, at best, only a partial picture of the consequences of the ageing population that is outlined in the Intergenerational Report. It is now 4.25 a.m. If it were summer we would be walking out into the rays of the sun.

Senator Bartlett —It is close to snow!

Senator SHERRY —I understand it is close to snowing outside. I conclude my remarks there and indicate to the Senate that the government has not heard the last of these issues that I have touched on briefly tonight. We will be returning to these matters when the Senate resumes after the winter break.