Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Superannuation is one of those issues in this House: almost no other issue better defines the different values, the different priorities between those opposite and those on this side of the House. To use a coined phrase—it is widespread in the superannuation industry—I encourage Australians to 'compare the pair': compare the values and priorities of the Labor Party with the values and priorities of the coalition opposite. The Labor Party seeks to build a retirement savings scheme that provides a dignified, secure retirement for the majority of Australians—for all Australians, for Australian workers in all professions. Where did this come from? Where did compulsory superannuation in this country come from? It came from people like the meatworkers union in my electorate, people trying to create a system that provides for a dignified, secure retirement for hardworking, average Australians.

What have those opposite done since coming in? They are fighting tooth and nail against all rationality, against all evidence, against even some of their erstwhile supporters, to stand up for the big end of town, for their mates in the one per cent. What was their first act on super policy when they came into government? What was the first priority of those opposite? What was the burning need for change when they got in? It was slashing the retirement savings of more than two million Australian women, millions more Australian workers, through the abolition of the low-income superannuation contribution scheme. But when it comes to the superannuation of high-income earners, when it comes to the superannuation income of the one per cent, a very different approach is taken.

It is one of the most obvious policy reforms going in this country. Superannuation tax concessions for the top end of town is something about which Paul Keating would say, 'Every galah in Australia needs reform.' At the moment 38 per cent of superannuation tax concessions go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. There are 475 Australians with super in excess of $10 million who earn $1.5 million tax-free from their superannuation every year. How is that justifiable? It is extremely difficult to justify when you look at the people who are calling for change in this area. The reform of super tax concessions has been supported by the IMF; the chairman of the government's Commission of Audit, Tony Shepherd; the head of the government's own financial systems inquiry, David Murray; and many in the industry itself, such as the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. And what do they say? What is the problem here? Well, as the IMF says:

… higher-income earners gain relatively more from the favourable tax treatment of retirement savings (indeed, low income earners lose: subsidies are insufficient to offset the effectively higher average tax rate on superannuation contributions than on other earnings), which undermines the progressivity of the income tax system.

The member opposite who spoke previously said, 'Well, this is people's own money; they ought to be able to do what they want with it.'

Mr Hawke interjecting—

Do you support progressive taxation or not?

See this speech in context