Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

If you want an example of just how out of touch the Abbott-Turnbull government is then look no further than their approach to superannuation and retirement savings. In 2013, the Financial Services Council conducted the most comprehensive study and survey on the attitudes and views of Australians to superannuation and Australia's superannuation system. It is the largest qualitative survey of the views of Australians on our superannuation system.

The results are very interesting, and they clearly demonstrate just how reckless and destructive this government has been when it comes to retirement incomes and promoting superannuation. On the question of the amount of compulsory contributions in superannuation funds, a remarkable 83 per cent of Australians support an increase in the compulsory level of superannuation savings from nine to 12 per cent. Eighty-three per cent of Australians support that increase—an overwhelmingly positive endorsement of Labor's program to increase the pool of retirement savings in this country. That is responsible planning by a Labor government for the challenges of the future: promoting more retirement savings necessary to ensure that people have enough money in their own superannuation accounts to fund their own retirements, and reducing the reliance on the age pension.

What has the response of the Abbott-Turnbull government been to that policy program? What has the response of those opposite been to the increase in compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent? They put a halt to it. They stopped it. Let's be clear about what the Abbott-Turnbull government did: they stopped an increase in compulsory superannuation for Australians from nine to 12 per cent. They stopped Australians saving more for their retirement. They stopped Australians saving more, which would have taken pressure off the age pension and our aged-care system. I ask: why has that been done? Australians are asking why on earth would they do that? When 83 per cent of Australia say, 'We want more in our retirement savings,' why would they do that? It is because they do not believe in superannuation. They never have and they never will. They have an ideological bent that is muzzling our nation's economic development.

Our nation, because of those opposite, will spend more on the age pension in the future. That is a fact that they cannot escape. Because of what they have done, Australia will pay more and spend more on the age pension into the future. We will spend more on aged care into the future, because of the policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. This demonstrates how reckless and how out of touch they are when it comes to economic management.

The other point about the Financial Services Council survey was that the most common fund that people have their superannuation retirement savings in are industry funds managed cooperatively by workers and by employers. In fact, 59 per cent of Australians have their superannuation in an industry fund. The reason for that is quite simple: industry funds are the best performing by far. They are the best performing, they have the safest returns and they have the lowest fees. That is why the majority of Australians have their money in industry super funds.

Instead of promoting industry super funds, instead of encouraging this great savings vehicle that has led to $2 trillion in savings and retirement incomes—a bank of investment for infrastructure projects to promote growth in our economy—what do those opposite do? They attempt to tear down the industry super fund system. They are attempting to tear the system apart by intervening—the government intervening—in the management and the make-up of the boards of those industry super funds. Why? Once again, it is their ideological bent against workers managing their own money. It just demonstrates how out of touch they are.

In the seconds that I have left, I want to deal with the low income superannuation contribution because, again, it clearly demonstrates just how out of touch they are. We need to be encouraging low-income workers to save more. At the current rates of savings, they are not going to be able to save enough to ensure that they do not need to rely on the age pension. We need to promote more savings amongst low-income workers. There is a tax disadvantage for low-income workers in that, if they earn a certain amount of money, the effective rate of taxation on their superannuation is more than their marginal tax rate. There is a disincentive to work, so Labor fixed that by offering the low income superannuation contribution, a tax deduction to ensure that there is an incentive to work. What did those opposite do? They wiped it out. And, in doing so, you have affected two million women and provided a disincentive for them to work. You are out of touch when it comes to superannuation.

See this speech in context