Barnaby Joyce has returned to one of the ABC’s marquee current affairs programs, reigniting his tense on-air dynamic with host Sarah Ferguson.
The One Nation MP appeared on 7.30 on Monday night to promote the party’s ambitious housing-related proposal, which would let renters and mortgage holders access up to a quarter of their superannuation contributions over a three-year period.
It marked Joyce’s first interview on the program since July, when a previous appearance went viral after he shouted at his dog, Stella, during the segment.
‘It’s an absolute welcome to be back,’ Joyce told Ferguson as the interview got underway.
But the exchange soon became combative, with Joyce struggling to give a clear answer when Ferguson pressed him on whether he and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson had modelled the potential inflationary effects of the controversial superannuation policy.
Ferguson then pushed further, asking Joyce to explain the long-term financial hit Australians of various ages could face if they chose to withdraw money under the plan.
‘Well, once more, how long is a piece of string?’ Joyce shot back.
‘Here we go folks, I’ll try and answer something which we’ll need an annuity table and will also need a sort of lineal regression, but I’ll do it for you, straight down the barrel.
Barnaby Joyce appeared to ABC’s 7.30 for the first time since becoming an internet meme
7.30 host Sarah Ferguson became increasingly frustrated with Joyce’s inability to answer questions on One Nation’s bold superannuation policy
Ferguson interrupted: ‘Barnaby Joyce, if I may, obviously this is a policy that your party has come up with, so we would expect you as the Treasury spokesman for that party to be across it, just try it.’
Joyce snapped back: ‘The Treasury spokesman [yes], not Jesus Christ.
‘You need to give me the details of these things if you’re going to put them forward to me.’
Ferguson pressed on, reading out figures that a 30-year-old earning the average wage of $108,000 would be $94,000 worse off, a 40-year-old $51,000 while a 50-year-old would be $27,000 worse off.
‘Well, folks, how on earth. I mean, this is ridiculous. This is like saying, “Well, look, I’m now going to give you an incredibly complex question”. Now, Sarah, I’m happy to come back to you tomorrow. And as I said on another stable, and as long as you’re prepared to pay my accountancy fees, we can do this regression analysis,’ he said.
The aim of the policy is to give Australians breathing space by allowing them to access more of their own money while facing cost-of-living pressures, without touching existing super balances.
Employers would continue to make the full compulsory 12 per cent super contribution.
Aussie workers would then be able to choose to receive three per cent as wages, while the remaining nine per cent would go towards their retirement nest egg.
The last time he was on 7.30, Barnaby Joyce (above) interrupted the interview to yell at his dog
Join the discussion
Should Australians be allowed early access to their super to tackle cost-of-living pressures?
Nothing would change for those who opt to keep the full 12 per cent in super.
Under the proposed scheme, a couple earning a combined $168,000 a year would take home an additional $4,300 a year after tax, or $82 a week.
An individual worker earning $90,500 would pocket about $2,300 extra, or $44 a week, for three years.
