Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I listened the conversation on both sides, and I am not sure whether I am on the crossbenches or where I am but I hope to add something edifying to the debate. One in three Australians—this is a very disturbing statistic—do not make it to 65. We have a vision that everyone is going to make it to 65 but one in three Australians do not make it to 65, and life expectancy in the Mallee is nine years less than in some of our cities—largely because of extraction rates with strokes and heart attacks. Whilst we are talking about the discussion around superannuation, we have to always remember that not everyone, unfortunately, is going to make it long enough to realise money that is put aside in superannuation.

I am also mindful that if a casual employee earns $450 a month with an employer, they do not receive superannuation. I think this is a fault. I can see the simplicity of it, but I think they should receive superannuation as part of their packet so they can put some money aside. I am mindful that I also represent, and I also have been one of those people who have been on a casual wage with multiple employers in shearing sheds and those sorts of things and have missed out on the benefits of superannuation.

It does surprise me, I have got to say, that Labor did not touch superannuation very much when they were in power last. They touched everything else. They essentially put the price of everything else up, with carbon taxes and those sorts of things, and in real terms what that meant was that people who did have savings had to draw on more of their savings to pay their living expenses. So the question about looking after people in retirement is also about keeping people's living expenses down rather than just being a simplistic debate about superannuation.

I think that keeping it at 9.5 per cent does have some value. In my patch, people would rather have the money in their pocket than in their estate. It needs to be said that there are pressures on people and they would rather have the money in their pocket. I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about accessing superannuation to be able to buy a house—to get that first deposit on a house. I hear those who are critical of that discussion say, 'People would be $18,500 worse off by the time they got to 65'. But might I add, to people who would say that: it is very easy, even on a $200,000 house over a 10-year period, to pick up at least 10 per cent. And when you talk about being able to purchase a house at 25 as opposed to not being able to—particularly for our low-income earners—we should have a very robust discussion about first home ownership. There are people in my patch who will be able to pay $200 a week rent but will never be able to save a deposit for a house that might have a value of $120,000. Allowing them to access their super as a deposit would give them a chance to own a home—and surely home ownership is something that we should aspire to as a country. It is home ownership that gives people a sense of self-worth.

Ultimately superannuation is a percentage; it is a percentage of a gross economy. If you can grow the Australian economy you grow the wealth that comes into the country and therefore we have more to spend. You can spend a lot of time arguing about the percentage but you can grow the Australian economy. I note today that the GDP is up 0.6 per cent—unexpectedly up. It has been quite remarkable that we, as a country, are walking our way through the transition from the mining industry to other opportunities in our economy. Largely that has been on the back of rural Australia, largely that has been on the back of the service economy, and seeing our currency now at 71c has afforded us an opportunity to diversify and grow our economy and, as a result, that in turn grows real wealth, and real wealth ultimately grows a better standard of living for Australians.

Our suggested changes about better governance, more choice for people about where they can invest their superannuation and better transparency should be welcomed by all. I am not here to say which super fund is doing best, but I am saying that I do trust the wisdom of the Australian people to be able to make a choice. Why shouldn't they have a choice as to where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have better governance about where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have greater transparency?

Everything that we are suggesting is not to undermine superannuation; it is actually to enhance it. It is to our credit, as Australians, that we have $2 trillion in superannuation. It helps us in our forward liabilities as we look at an ageing population. But do not look at it as something that cannot be touched and cannot be improved. I think we should have an open mind to addressing the challenges that we face, as Australians, in the future.

See this speech in context