Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to be able to contribute to this debate. I welcome it because it's almost like a dorothy dixer for our side, because it allows us the opportunity to talk about our proud record in working hard in this place each day to help the financial security and financial retirement of millions of Australian women.

We understand that the best way to achieve financial security and to boost your retirement savings is to be able to get a job. I'm pleased to say that under our government there are more Australians in work than ever before. And there are more Australian women in work than ever before, and they are working full-time. There are more Australian women working full-time than ever before—unlike the statements that those opposite have made.

By contrast, when Labor left office, women's full-time employment was going backwards. In fact, on other measurements, like the gender pay gap, under the previous Labor government the gender pay gap increased. It increased from 15.5 per cent to 17.2 per cent. But under our government it's, in fact, come down. It's come down to a record low of 14.5 per cent. But, of course, we're not prepared to accept that pay gap. We will continue to work hard to make sure that it is closed even further.

We hear that Labor claim that they are interested in improving women's superannuation. I'm pleased to hear that, and I'm pleased to hear that they are interested in measures that will assist with this. Let me just remind them of the coalition's record. In the 2016-17 budget, the government announced a number of changes that directly improved the flexibility, sustainability and equity of our superannuation system. Most of these changes commenced on 1 July, and they include the low income superannuation tax offset. This supports low-income earners and makes sure they are not paying more in tax on their superannuation than they would otherwise be paying at their marginal tax rate. The LISTO benefits around 1.9 million women by over $500 million.

We've levelled the playing field by expanding access to personal deductible superannuation contributions. We've removed the restriction on individuals earning more than 10 per cent of their income through salary and wages. This benefits around 800,000 Australians and is particularly useful for those men and women working in roles without access to formal salary-sacrificing arrangements. From 1 July this year, we're allowing the rollover for five years of unused concessional contribution cap amounts, which means that individuals for the first time will have the capacity to catch up on their superannuation contributions if they are in a financial position to do so. It benefits around 230,000 people—in particular, those people with interrupted work patterns or irregular incomes. We are increasing the number of people who can claim a tax offset of up to $540 for spouse contributions to superannuation by increasing the income test threshold for recipient spouses to $40,000. Previously, the limit was $13,800.

These measures complement the government's existing superannuation co-contribution scheme, which matches after-tax contributions of low-income earners at a rate of 50 per cent up to $500. In 2015-16, almost 320,000 low- and middle-income women were paid $100 million of co-contributions as a result of this.

We are not resting on our laurels though. We know that there is more to do in protecting people's superannuation. That is why the government has introduced a Protecting Your Superannuation Package, which caps fees on low-balance accounts—those accounts with less than $6,000 in them. This will help around seven million Australians save around $570 million in fees in just the first year. Why is it necessary? It is necessary because the Leader of the Opposition, when he occupied the treasury bench, scrapped the protections for low-balance accounts. He let it be a fee free-for-all. It is not acceptable and not right, which is why it will change under us.

We are banning exit fees on all accounts. These exit fees are charged by about a third of the industry and cost people around $52 million in the most recent year. We are going to make insurance opt in rather than opt out for those categories of people who are most at risk of having their superannuation eroded. Those are young people aged under 25, low-balance holders and those with inactive accounts. This will provide around five million Australians with the opportunity to save up to—wait for it—$3 billion in insurance premiums in just one year, whilst still giving them the opportunity to have insurance cover should they wish to do so. For the first time ever, as a result of our bill, we are going to provide the Australian Taxation Office with the power to proactively reunite people with inactive funds that they have scattered about. We know from the Productivity Commission that this multiplicity of accounts is costing people billions of dollars in retirement income. It will mean around $6 billion will be reunited with around three million Australians.

This is legislation that those opposite should support, but they're not supporting it. I'll tell you why they should support it. As Minister for Revenue and Financial Services I received letters from so many people right across the country who talked about why it was necessary. Young people wrote to me to say:

In year 10 I learned that "money is exchanged for goods and services". In this case I had paid for a service—

because they had a part-time job and were putting money into their superannuation—

that quickly took what I had and shut me down. I didn't receive any of these elusive 'goods' or 'services'.

We also had letters from older Australians who said:

I've just spoken to your office regarding superannuation. My problem, and that of many others I know, is that we only work part time now and then—

this is from an elderly woman—

My position is I am 76 years old and I work at a school supervising exams on a casual basis, I also supervise the HSC at the end of each year. I have been forced to have another super fund for this purpose, but each year it gets eaten up with fees and I have to open another.

She goes on to say:

I now have a letter to say that it has been closed (again eaten up with fees). This is happening to so many people I know, we are all cross, as it is the employers money and our money going to a superannuation fund for free. I now have to open another fund so that I can work for the HSC this year, and I won't see any of the money going into that fund. I am a self-funded retiree, not costing the Gov a cent as such, pay my own way everywhere and all I want to do is keep my mind busy, enjoy working supervising exams so I'm not a burden on society.

These people are crying out for these changes that would make a difference, but those opposite refuse to support them. They like to talk about how people will benefit from their changes, but let's test that. As part of their announcement today they said they had removed the $450 threshold and said that would increase retirement savings by around $30,000 for those impacted. Let me tell you: our bill will benefit Australians by billions of dollars. Let's take the example of Emily, who's 32 years old, earning $40,000 a year and, like many Australians, has more than one superannuation account. She would be, after our bill passes, more than $36,000 better off by retirement. Julie, who started her first job at 25 with an annual income of $24,000, changed jobs, defaulted into another superannuation account, would be better off to the tune of $57,000 if our bill passes. Those opposite, who claim—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

It has been brought in. It's in the Senate. You can vote on it. Use the opportunity in the chamber today to tell us that you're happy to support it and we will bring it on for a vote. (Time expired)

See this speech in context