Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Hansard source

What a cheap shot—you are better than that, Greg. Senator Alston, statesman from the Liberal Party, said—

Opposition members interjecting—

Do you know why the Liberals interrupt? Because they hate the truth of this matter. You have never voted for superannuation. Thank goodness that you are not in charge of this government, because you would not have voted for the increase in superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent. In fact, as memory serves me, you did not. Senator Alston said:

… imposing compulsory superannuation on individuals does not increase total savings.

Oh, no? Facts got in the way of a stupid remark. We now have compulsory savings in Australia bigger than our GDP, and none of that is due to you guys. Senator Watson from the Liberal Party said, 'Unemployment is going to rise from superannuation.'

I love Senator Crichton-Browne. He did not give only one wrong reason; he gave six wrong reasons. Let me recount for the newer members of the House what some of your great past champions have said on superannuation. Senator Crichton-Browne said the Keating government's proposed compulsory contribution scheme would reduce economic growth—wrong. Economic growth went up the whole time superannuation was in place. He said it would add to unemployment—wrong again. It fell. He said it would create inflationary pressures—wrong again. He said it would reduce savings. How that flat-earther could get away with that theory I do not know. He said it would reduce living standards—they have gone up. And he said it would lead to lower retirement incomes. Lower retirement incomes? The quotes go on from the Liberal Party. What is most disturbing is not that they were wrong in 1985—I can live with that. It is not that they were wrong in 1992—I can live with that. They were wrong last year when they opposed the increase from nine to 12 per cent.

Then came the hypocrisy. The member for Dunkley said, 'It's a bad idea, but we'll keep it.' Be fair dinkum. If it is a bad idea, repeal it. If you think it is as bad as you say it is, as you carry on about it in that mistaken fashion of yours, repeal it. If you have the courage of your convictions, repeal it. But you know in your heart of hearts, all you defined-benefit brigade in particular and you 15 per centers, that superannuation is the best vehicle for our retirement savings. That is why to get a lecture from those people opposite about superannuation does stick in our throat, because they have never backed it. They have never backed it in the system. They have never backed the increases. They have spread fear and they have spread untruths. They have spread mistaken facts and they have passed them off as policy. In fact, they do not have a superannuation policy. For instance, we abolished the age limit, allowing people of any age to get superannuation. We could call that the Bronwyn Bishop clause, fair enough. But do you know what those opposite did? They voted against it. They did not vote to support people over the age of 70 getting superannuation. The parliamentary record reflects that uncomfortable truth.

What we have also tried to do is improve the standard, the quality and the confidence of financial planning advice in this country. I tell you what, if Australia was ever invaded by enemies and those enemies were intent on reforming financial services, I want the best battalion of the opposition to defend us. The enemy would never get off the beach. I have never seen so many conservatives fight so hard for so much vested interest as we saw in their disgusting performance on financial planning, and in the way they want to protect rotten commissions. It was an outrageous performance. Furthermore, we were the ones who introduced MySuper, which will make the cost of superannuation cheaper. Again, those opposite opposed it.

So what do we have in the debate about superannuation in this country at the moment? We have a Labor Party that has backed compulsory super and has increased compulsory super. We have a Labor Party that says if you earn less than $37,000 a year, why should you pay tax on your contributions? After all, the marginal rate of tax if you earn between $18,000 and $37,000 is the equivalent of the concessional rate that you pay on superannuation tax. I believe that if you are going to put a portion of your money into compulsory savings, some of that should be a tax concession. That is fair otherwise there is no arbitrage advantage and there is no concessional advantage in being forced to save for your retirement. This is logic.

What we see instead from those opposite is that they want to reinstate a tax we have abolished. There are thinking members of the opposition and they need to think carefully about this. What is the point in putting a tax back on low-paid people's superannuation contributions? What is the point in putting back a 15 per cent tax on 3.6 million people's contributions to superannuation? What is the point in taxing 3.6 million people who earn less than $37,000? What is the point in making them pay several hundred dollars more in concessional superannuation tax? What is the argument? The only argument we have heard—and points to the member for Dunkley for trying to run the unarguable argument; I do not doubt his courage—is a co-contribution scheme. That was a ripper. That was the Rolls-Royce, the whole car. And they do not like what we are doing. But what we say is the facts unfortunately contradict that. For the benefit of the member for Dunkley, who is quickly texting up facts, I have this fact: one in five people who are eligible to claim the co-contribution can. There is a reason for that. They do not have a spare lazy k hanging around to put into super. So what you were saying is if your dad or your mum is rich enough to give the part-time worker a thousand bucks, that is good. Fair enough, good luck.

See this speech in context