Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yet another erudite speech—no, that's the wrong word—empty speech on superannuation from the member for Whitlam. We have this almost every day. In fact, I think this is the second or maybe the third time that he has come into this chamber and shadow-boxed and dodged and punched these key arguments that nobody is actually making. He doesn't actually deal with the fundamental issues. No matter what the member for Whitlam thinks, we can all see what is going on right here, right now.

Once upon a time the Australian Labor Party was the party of the worker. They recognised that Australians wanted to work, earn a good day's income, support their family, own their home and recognise, yes, that they also wanted dignity and safety in retirement. That was when they represented organised workers. They did—a long, long time ago. What the Australian Labor Party today has become is the party of organised capital. What they seek, day in, day out, is an ever-increasing volume of Australians' incomes to go into funds managed by their mates so they can use it to achieve undemocratic means, using the superannuation system for things they could never get through this chamber and the other place. That is what they are.

They are not the party of the organised worker; they are the party of organised capital. They are going to trade the invisible hand for the shadow fist of the trade union movement and their political objectives. That's what this is all about. It's not a debate about Australian retirees because, truthfully, they don't care about them. They don't care about Australian workers. They'd literally rather take more money out of the hip pockets of Australians today when they desperately need it and funnel it into the funds of their mates than improve the material conditions of Australian workers right now.

I don't think this is bad; I think this is scandalous. I think it's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen in public policy. And they do it coming into this chamber with crocodile tears as they stab the people in the back that they claim they're representing. And they do so on the basis of a dishonest argument from the outset. The dishonest argument is that the most important thing for retirement security is the size of your superannuation balance. It is not. The most important thing for your retirement security is to own your own home. Yet, we turn around the priorities of this country in the legislation that they will consistently support and will attack vehemently much more than if you ever criticised the unions these days. It is to keep in place an entrenched system where the priority for young Australians—people who are only 20 years old—is to save for the compound benefits of something that's not going to happen for another 50 years at the expense of them having that income to save for a home that they'll get a benefit from for more than 50 years.

This is scandalous, and a complete reprioritisation of human need for their political interests. And what happens? Australian incomes, 10 per cent of their incomes or nearly, goes out of the hip pockets of Australians into the funds that they support. And where do the donations end up? But in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. It is a form of political money laundering, and that is the basis of their political objectives on this issue. And so, once again, we have had this silly amendment because the member for Whitlam, like the member for McMahon and all those on the other side, go rabbiting on about how they care so much about Australian retirees' security, yet in this chamber—and the member for McMahon will experience this; I know he had a go at me in the previous speech. I know his policy on franking credits. We exposed his policy on the retiree tax, and I know that burns still to this day because you can hear it in the snark in his voice. In the end, they went to the last election saying, 'We are going to push Australian retirees below the poverty line,' and they have the gumption to come into this chamber and then lecture people on this side about how they care about retirees' security. No matter how much we pointed out to them that their retiree tax would smash the livelihoods of people who are independent—people with sicknesses, people who have disabilities, people who are low-income earners or, particularly, women—it didn't matter what we said, and it didn't matter what Australians said, they wouldn't listen. They sat arrogantly on the other side of the chamber and lectured us because they knew better and because this is their mad ideology.

The good news is that the people of Australia had their say and exposed their empty policy then like they would expose their empty policy now. There are so many bodies that have looked into the economic consequences of what happens if you keep increasing the compulsory contribution to superannuation. The Australian Council of Social Service says that this will hurt low-income earners, that it will make it harder for them to get a job. That doesn't matter—it's the Labor Party who's the priority here. The Treasury says, 'This will cost wages and wage growth.' Those opposite say: 'It doesn't matter. We've got to get that money into our friendly funds.' The Grattan Institute has looked at the long-term impacts of enterprise bargaining agreements and the impact on wages and come up with exactly the same conclusion—but that's fine, because, if we didn't do this, the Labor Party would lose cash flow.

The Reserve Bank of Australia appeared before the House Economics Committee meeting, and the Reserve Bank governor drew an explicit correlation between increasing the compulsory super guarantee and slower wage growth and then went on to draw a broader correlation between that and jobs. Let's face it: if there is anything at this time—at this recession caused by the coronavirus—that is going to be critical for young Australians, for families and, frankly, for everybody, it's to create the job opportunities for the next generation of Australians. If you haven't got a job, you're not chipping into your superannuation account. But those opposite don't care, because their only interest is themselves. This is why we have to stand up on this issue. They would trade the future opportunity of young Australians for themselves. To feed their own interests, they would force them to continue to lose the opportunity to own their own home. And where does the money go? It goes into funds where you lose out on the fees and make donations to the Australian Labor Party. It is a scandal. If you want to know how much of a scandal it is, you just need to go and look at the answers from Industry Super Australia themselves. In answers to the Economics Committee, we got research that they wouldn't publish otherwise and that they wanted to keep secret. It only reinforced what everybody else was saying—while they turned up in other public squares and said the opposite.

This is the mad ideology that sits behind the Labor Party today—the party of organised capital. They don't prioritise the interests of Australians and how those Australians want to pursue their lives, their opportunities, their aspirations and, yes, their retirement security. I keep making the point—because it's so important—it is madness that we turn around to a 20-year-old and say, 'You must save for your retirement, which is in 50 years time, at the expense of owning your own home earlier and having more than 50 years of ownership and security that comes with it.' The people who do worst in retirement are not people with lower superannuation balances. They are people who rent, because they face ever-increasing rents as time goes on. Yes, there's also a correlation, often, with having a low super balance—that's true. But they are the people and they are the ones who are shown the most contempt by the people sitting on the other side of this chamber.

I get passionate about this issue because I can see the rort that sits at the heart of it. For the member for Whitlam to come in here and constantly rant and rave in defence and say that he's standing up for workers when he's doing the exact opposite and facilitating a system that feeds his friends at the expense of small business, the worker and their retirement security, I find truly extraordinary.

We ultimately have to stand up on this one. We on this side of the chamber want to create jobs so that young Australians have a go—so they can have a go, so they can have some chance of getting their go. But we don't hear that from the other side. You hear their sneers towards those Australians who, in a time of crisis, were given the opportunity by this government to be reunited with their own money. Those opposite come in here and say, 'We voted for it.' Go back and review the speeches on the day—they did so very reluctantly because they knew they would be exposed if they didn't. They continue, in public and in this chamber, to oppose it rhetorically. There's a sneer in the heart, because in the end they would rather the money stayed with their fundie mates than let Australians keep their own homes. I heard it in question time today. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'So it's supposed to be used towards mortgages?' Yes, if it's a choice between people losing their homes and drawing down early on their superannuation balance, I'd support them drawing down on their super balance if they wish. The material impact, the long-term impact, the societal destruction, the family destruction that can happen from the alternative is so much greater.

We're all going to face choices during this recession. We will all face choices when we come into this chamber and decide whether or not we want to build an Australia for future generations. That's not the priority that sits at the heart of the Labor Party today. I can give you one guarantee that is absolutely square focus of what I stand for: I want young Australians to have their go too, and I don't want it taken from them by the Labor Party so they can feed themselves. Now is the time to stand up and to call out the empty rhetoric and the empty logic of those that sit on the other side of this chamber.

See this speech in context