Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before question time I was speaking about three aspects of the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. I comprehensively dealt with the first and the second and I was dealing with the key question of what happens to a superannuation guarantee payment where there is a default by an employer. The provisions in this bill will allow the commissioner to indicate what steps have been taken to investigate the complaint and the actions taken under the act in order to do it. So the employee will have a more perfect knowledge. I also argued we should have a class action with regard to this for all of those people in Australia affected by the Treasurer deciding not to go ahead with the second tranche of Labor’s tax cuts, which were commuted into a three per cent super guarantee, which would have taken it from nine per cent to 12 per cent. At paragraph 2.9 of the explanatory memorandum to the bill, these two points are material with regard to that broader consideration:

• the employer has objected to the Commissioner’s assessment of the SG shortfall …

In this case, take it as the Commonwealth and take it as the Treasurer. The shortfall is in fact at least three per cent, if not six per cent. People could have an adequate retirement on 15 per cent. That really is the absolute minimum. This government has kept it foreshortened at nine per cent. It continues:

• the Commissioner has recovered or is seeking to recover a relevant amount of SG charge owing in relation to the employee.

That is the nub of the situation we have in Australia. We are really going to be six per cent short of what should be the minimum target for ordinary working Australians, baby boomers and everybody else who has not had enough time to put into it. It is this government’s actions over the last 10 years, where, in their recent changes, they have rewarded the rich in relation to super and they have effectively defrauded those who are poor and nicked that six per cent that should have been rightfully theirs.

Much as I want to continue for a long period of time on this, I know the member for Rankin is eager to take up this point and argue simply, clearly and cogently that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia should take note of this bill, that the parliament should charge that he be compliant with what was formerly legislated, that he should not have taken away that extra surcharge—the three per cent in the next productivity dividend. That would have gone to 12 per cent and that was the platform for the next and final agreement to go to 15 per cent. The Australian people have been utterly deprived of what is rightfully theirs and the superannuation guarantee for the whole of the rest of people’s lives in retirement has been impoverished thereby.

I might call the parliament’s attention to the fact that I have gone over my time by about two minutes. In fairness to everybody else, I should let the member for Rankin have a go.

See this speech in context