Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. I'm going to put a challenge to those opposite that will clearly demonstrate that what we're seeing from them is not anything other than ideology. But before I do I want to make this point: on this side of the chamber, a lot of us feel strongly about the issue of super. A lot of people say: 'Why do you get worked up about it? It's superannuation. It's financial services. Who really cares?' The reason why we feel so strongly about this is that the people we know in our communities, the people we've grown up with, the people from all backgrounds slog hard for most of their lives in their jobs. They work really hard. They work, in many instances, on low and middle incomes. As a nation, we made a deal with them that, when they get old, they're going to do better. They're going to do better than the age pension. They're going to retire in a way that gives them dignity. They're going to look after themselves and do it in a way that they don't have to question where their next meal is going to come from. They're going to do it in a way that they can have something they can give to their grandkids as a present. They've got a bit of income; they can relax after all those years of hard slog. And superannuation does that. What the income from superannuation does for working-class people—low- and middle-income people—in terms of giving them something better than the age pension is something that is absolutely worth fighting for and that we on our side of the fence will fight for every single day of the week. As the shadow Treasurer just indicated, we are absolutely prepared to have that fight, because this is about dignity, not ideology.

It is not, as the other side try to make out, some sort of campaign to protect union bosses on industry super funds, on which, as was rightly pointed out by the shadow Treasurer, business are equally represented. Business and unions sit on super funds, and they are compelled by the law to make the right decisions in the interests of members—not union members or industry association members. The directors of those super funds are bound by law to make the right decisions on investment in that way. Those super funds do the best possible thing to make sure that the returns are healthy and that people, when they retire, are supported well. That's why we feel strongly about it, because it's about dignity.

So here's the challenge if those opposite hate super so much, because it's clear they do. They don't have the guts to come out and say that they hate it and want to end it; they just want to get it cut into small slices, deny it every possible opportunity and make the case as to why super's not working so they can drain confidence in the system. They make those little changes such as, for example, what we've seen in the middle of this crisis with the pandemic, where they just open the doors to super. Six hundred thousand people have drained their accounts dry. Those opposite just do it that way, nice and slow. They don't have the guts to come out and say it. Here's my challenge: if they think they can run it better, they should put $3 trillion on the table, because that's roughly what superannuation funds amount to in this country right now. Are the government going to do that? No. They can't even increase the pension now. They will, for the first time in a quarter of a century, refuse to increase the pension, but they're telling us that superannuation's no good, and they don't have a backup plan.

I'll tell you what I back: I back the common sense of the Australian people, because most people out there get that the Australian population's getting older. We have more grey hairs than not in our community, and we have to find a way, when people retire, to pay for it, because we can't just have people survive on the age pension. There are fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay for pensioners as we get older as a country. How do we know that? The government's own side first found that out when they had their first Intergenerational report under Peter Costello, then Treasurer. They have been saying for ages that we've got to find a way to pay for it. The deal was that we wouldn't rely so much on the age pension but would have a system to pay for people, when they retire, with superannuation. Those opposite tell us they're fiscally responsible. We have a system in place, superannuation, that is supposed to be able to accommodate the ageing nation we have and that can put in place something better than the age pension so that we'll be less reliant on the taxpayer. And what's the main game in town from those opposite? Basically to destroy superannuation. It's not because it's practical or because there's a compelling policy reason; it's all ideology.

They fight it, as I said, in small ways. For example, they're obviously limbering up to deny the increase in superannuation. Someone from their side actually had the guts to step forward and say it. I think these people are gutless. They won't actually front up to the Australian people and say what they really think. Tony Abbott, though, just says it. He says what they're not prepared to. Tony Abbott said:

We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.

That's Tony Abbott's view. It's what their view is. They're always at it. As the shadow Treasurer rightly points out, you would never have a Minister for Health say, 'I'm not pro hospital or pro health care,' but here we have the responsible minister, Senator Hume, saying, 'I'm not pro increasing the superannuation guarantee and I'm not pro the actual system.' They've basically got the ideologues running the show, including Senator Andrew Bragg, who was an industry lobbyist for superannuation and is going around now just saying the most outrageous things about superannuation.

It is absolutely staggering what we are seeing from those opposite. And the thing is it's not just the backbench; as has been noted, it's straight from the top. I'm sick of seeing claims that the Prime Minister is somehow practical and he's not into ideology. Garbage! This is the absolute proof, exhibit A, if anything, that he has given up on solid policy and fiscal responsibility and that this is all a bit of a rah-rah moment to his backbench. They don't have the guts to step forward and say this is what they're going to do; and, on top of that, they deny Australian industry access to investment.

We used to have to beg the rest of the world to get investment dollars, because we just didn't have enough here. We did not as a nation historically save enough. We never had that. Right now we have one of the largest savings pools on the planet—I think it's No. 4, generally speaking. Again, Senator Bragg, who has gone out and bagged out superannuation funds—those superannuation funds are responsible for some of the biggest investment in venture capital. The VCs know it and they're all nervous about the fact that Senator Bragg, a bloke who is supposedly pro tech, is going around bagging out the superannuation funds that are the only major platform providing investment support to venture capital and technology in this country. That's what led to the revival of venture capital.

Those funds are there to support the growth of industry, strengthen the economy and lead to the creation of jobs, stemming from a superannuation system that can fund that. It earns the returns that can then go and build people's super accounts. In the one system we have something that's good for the economy, provides for growth, supports jobs, ultimately also reduces the impost on the taxpayer and, as I said earlier, delivers one of the most important things: dignity in retirement through a superannuation fund. That's what it delivers more than anything else.

Take into account the fact that we're not getting a pension increase—for the first time in 25 years—and what this coalition have done since 2013 in terms of making it hard for people to even get on the pension and all their reforms to knock part-pensioners off and make life hard for them as well. So there is no increase in the pension, they make it hard for people to get the pension, they deny an increase in the superannuation guarantee and they undermine the superannuation system. It's clear that the only retirees the coalition cares for are the wealthy ones—not the ones on low and middle incomes, not the ones depending on pensions and not the ones depending on a modest superannuation scheme.

If you are able to get a great gig, if you worked a senior role and were able to have a big income, you'll be looked after by the coalition. If you're anyone else outside of that, you're on your own. That's what's so offensive about this attack on superannuation that we're seeing, and the way it denies people the right to aspire to a better life. They say they're all aspiration—except when it comes to the time for paying for it. They say that they want people to do well in their lives, to be able to secure wealth in their lives. And what do they do? In this superannuation system, they undermine that. We are actually pro national wealth. We are actually pro the wealth of the individual through this system. We are pro dignity in retirement. What we are seeing from those opposite is the greatest example of public policy vandalism that you could ever witness—through the course of this pandemic in terms of what they did with the early release scheme. It drained 600,000 accounts. We certainly understand that, from time to time, people will experience hardship. We certainly appreciate that they should have ways to access their super when their backs are absolutely against the wall, and we never deny that. But we do deny the reality that we've seen under this scheme—it wasn't to help people out. It was to fund discretionary spending. It was, in some cases, to fund gambling. It was, in some cases, to pay off a credit card. That's not the deal with superannuation. People may not like that, but they do realise there is a deal in place to support people in their retirement if we have that money put aside wisely.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context