Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the motion moved by the member for Griffith. It is an important motion because it actually goes to the core of this government and their agenda. It highlights not only the broken promises of this government but also their twisted priorities.

This is a government that is quite happy to freeze the slow increase in compulsory super contributions for the majority of Australian workers while at the same time repealing legislation which would have seen a fairer superannuation pay for those at the highest end of the super industry.

A result of this government's legislation to freeze the increase of the compulsory super contribution is that it directly attacks 8.4 million Australian workers. It also highlights how this government fails to really understand the whole concept of super. Super is a generational change. It ensures that when people who started work just after the legislation came in in 1992—people of my generation—that we have a lifetime of super to retire on. So for anybody who is an ordinary worker on a modest income and who is older than someone in their 30s, it needs to be expected—because they do not have that lifetime of super—that the government may have to partner with them in their retirement income. That could be part of their super and part pension. It is something that this government really fails to understand—the whole policy area of retirement and retirement income. Maybe the government misunderstand, or maybe there are just a few blatant lies that this government has said. Let's just remind people of what the Prime Minister said prior to the election and what he has said since.

He actually came out and said that there would be no changes to superannuation—no changes—that workers did not have to worry. Regardless of who would be in government there would be no changes with super. Well, that is a lie. We have had people stand up and say that it is because of the budget deficit. Okay, again, another lie. If it were because there is a budget deficit then why did the government repeal the changes that would have seen those who spend over $100,000 a year in their super contributions pay a small amount of tax? Again, it is those twisted priorities by this government.

After changing the super contribution, the Prime Minister has been out there saying that no workers will be worse off. Does the Prime Minister not understand how super works? Super is income. It is workers' income delayed until they retire. So if you freeze that compulsory super contribution, you are in fact cutting the wages of workers. You are cutting what is their deferred income for when they retire. To go on TV and say that this is a good deal for workers demonstrates how the Prime Minister does not understand how superannuation works—unless, of course, the Prime Minister is about to bring a bill before the House to guarantee that the change in superannuation will be introduced into wages. I am yet to hear an employer say: 'Great news. Because I do not have to increase your super, I am going to increase your wages.' I have not seen that outcome yet in bargaining that is going on right now in Australia. If the Prime Minister wants to be true to his word then he needs to bring forward legislation that would see a guarantee in the increase in workers' wages. I am talking about those on the smallest incomes. I am talking about the 8.4 million ordinary workers in Australia.

The Prime Minister is not the only one who said that workers would not be worse off. We also have, of course, education minister Christopher Pyne claiming that this would mean that superannuation contributions would stay at 9.5 per cent for the foreseeable future and will go up to 12 per cent, and that the extra that would have gone up to 12 per cent would stay in the pay packets every week. Again, does the education minister not understand how bargaining works? I am yet to see an agreement that actually talks about the fact that this increase in super will now go into increased wages.

Who are we are talking about when it comes to this super reform? Who will benefit the most? It will be women. Women on low incomes—women working in child care, hairdressing and hospitality. Labor's reforms would have seen an increase of $5 billion in super savings; super that would have helped those on the lowest incomes have security when they retire. I support the motion before the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context