Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

When it comes to the retirement incomes of Australians, we are seeing one very clear thing: the wilful sabotage of Australia's universal superannuation system by this coalition government. Each side of parliament has a legacy when it comes to superannuation. We on this side invented it, built it and protected it. The members opposite opposed it at its birth. They drag it down at every opportunity and they hold it back from growing, and there is another pattern of behaviour from members opposite: they do so by stealth.

On two occasions the Liberal and National parties have won an election with a superannuation policy. On two occasions they have replaced Labor governments with plans to take our superannuation rate to 12 per cent. They did so in 1996 and 2013. On each of those two occasions, the Liberal and National parties won those elections with a policy of continuing the work of the previous Labor government and taking superannuation to 12 per cent; and on both of those occasions they breached that promise and their faith with Australia's working people, who deserve dignity in their retirement.

We have a pattern of behaviour here because the Liberal and National parties do not understand superannuation and they certainly do not believe in it. They do not believe in the rights of Australians to live in retirement in comfort, dignity and security. They do not understand that superannuation was designed by previous Labor governments for several reasons, so that people who were saving for their own future could live their life in retirement independent of the age pension. Labor governments also saw the changes in our nation and that it was necessary to take pressure off the age pension.

We hear a lot of whingeing from the other side about the age pension. We hear a lot of whingeing from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the age pension is too high; that we cannot afford an age pension for Australian workers at the current level; that people should work longer; and that Australians should work longer than anybody else in the world before they get the age pension. But what they do not understand is that superannuation was designed to take pressure off the age pension, and our superannuation system is already saving $7 billion a year in age pension costs.

The Treasurer says to the Australian people—whether they are police men and women, soldiers, carpenters, bricklayers, nurses, people in difficult manual or physical jobs, or in jobs that are demanding psychologically: 'You must work until you're 70. You must work longer than any other people in any other country in the world.' But he also says: 'We will make it harder for you to save your retirement.'

The Treasurer can be a tricky character and he has worked out that parliament will not have a bar of his plan to make Australians work until they are 70; that his plans to make Australians work until they are 70 will be blocked in the other place. So he has come up with a different way of doing it. He has made it harder for Australians to save for their retirement through their superannuation system. He has said there will be a freeze on superannuation contributions. He has said that those Australians on a low income will receive zero tax incentive to save for superannuation, by abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution. What does this mean for Australians and when they can retire? We already know that a 25-year-old, as a result of decisions taken by this Treasurer and this government, will lose $100,000 in retirement income over their working life. And we know more now: we know the analysis has been done and, to make up for that shortfall, someone who is 25 today and on an average salary of $70,000 a year will have to work 3.2 years longer to make up for the income they lose as a result of this government's changes.

But it gets worse, because some people are affected more. Take an older worker—someone who might be 35 compared to the 25-year-old I mentioned before—who might be part-time. They are probably a single parent, struggling with their work/life balance, bringing up a child or children by themselves, working hard, doing the best by their children but also wanting to save for their retirement and their future. Well, that person will have to work 4.7 years longer—to spend almost five years longer in the workforce—just to have the retirement incomes that they would have had under the previous Labor government's policies. These are people working hard. Nobody should ever dare call them leaners. Nobody should have the contempt to walk into this House and call these people leaners. They are workers doing their best for their families, trying to save for their own future—not to be reliant on the age pension. And this arrogant Treasure dares categorise them as leaners. And worse, he dares make it harder for them to save for their own retirement, to do the right thing for themselves and their families. No wonder this Treasurer is seen as the most arrogant and contemptuous this nation has had.

We know that this government does not understand superannuation, but we know that there are plenty of people out there who do, and they are the experts in the field. We know the Australian people understand superannuation and support it. We know the Prime Minister does not understand it. He stood on the opposition backbench and called it a 'con job' when Prime Minister Keating was introducing it. He wrote in his book about superannuation and showed he clearly did not understand it. But other people understand it. The CEO of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Pauline Vamos, said:

… we are greatly concerned that the changes to the timetable for SG increases will leave many Australians much worse off in retirement.

She said:

The reality is, at the present SG rate of 9.5 per cent, most people will not build up enough super to provide them with adequate financial security when they finish working.

The CEO of the Industry Super Association said of the government's measures in the dirty deal with the Palmer United Party, freezing the superannuation guarantee:

It’s an incredibly short-sighted decision.

Then we had the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Council, John Brogden. He said this: 'The seven-year freeze means that working Australians will have $128 billion less in their superannuation savings by 2025.'

We are concerned it could exacerbate the nation’s low savings rate and that costs will be passed on to future generations.

And then we had Liz Westover, the head of superannuation at the Chartered Accountants. She said this:

We are even further away from a fully mature super system in which Australians can truly be confident.

But we have had a very worthwhile contribution today from one of Australia's leading business people—somebody who, on this side, we have respect for. He has a different perspective, a different job to do, but we have a lot of respect for Craig Meller, the chief executive of the AMP—one of Australia's largest funds management businesses. This is what he said about this government's policies today:

We need to take action now to counter what is the most predictable threat to our prosperity over the next 20 to 30 years.

And he is right, because this is a threat to our prosperity. He said:

I think the challenge we’ve got as a country is that it is always very easy to put off until tomorrow the savings that we need to do.

And he has condemned this government's policies. He has condemned the freeze in superannuation. He knows the impact that it has on his members at AMP. He knows the impact it has on Australians going about their working lives, saving for their future. He knows the impact it has on the Australian economy. He runs one of Australia's largest businesses. He runs a business which has as its very reason for existence the retirement incomes of Australians, improving their lives so that they can live their retirement in dignity and in some degree of comfort—not luxury. We are not talking about luxury; we are talking about dignity, and some degree of comfort in retirement.

Everybody in this House will get to retire with an income which provides them with that dignity—every single member will do so. Why shouldn't Australians who are not in this House have the same right to retire in dignity and comfort? Why shouldn't Australians have the ability to live not reliant on a full age pension but on their own savings, supported through the taxation system. Every high-income Australian gets that right. Many middle-income Australians get that right. And this government is denying that right to low-income earners. It says all about the values of this government; it says all about its priorities—this government which says to low-income female workers across this country in hard manual labour that they will get no support. Well, they will get support as far as this side of the House is concerned, because we will defend and protect superannuation.

See this speech in context