Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 18 August 2008 I was at the cenotaph in Hervey Bay. Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, who had been ill, was visited by seven of his colleagues—locals and visitors—who went up with him to lay wreaths on the cenotaph for Long Tan Day. There was nothing particularly spectacular about this, but, as those eight men stepped back from the cenotaph, the gathered crowd broke into loud and sustained applause. To me, they were emblematic of Australians who have for many years felt that many injustices in Vietnam have not been attended to.

I want to talk about one of those instances tonight. It is 18 August 1966 in the partly deserted village of Long Tan, four kilometres east of the Australian base at Nui Dat. It is mid-afternoon; 11 Platoon is out on patrol with D Company 6RAR, and they engage the enemy. They kill one and the rest take flight. What they did not know, and nor did their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Harry Smith, the man at Hervey Bay I spoke about, who was then Major Harry Smith, was that they had contacted the forward units of two and a half to three thousand Viet Cong and regional and North Vietnamese regulars. There were only 105 men in D Company, and they were engaging two and a half thousand. So the odds were over 20 to one. The Vietnamese units came forward to see what was going on, a battle ensued and Major Smith had to send out 12 Platoon and 10 Platoon to try to get 11 Platoon back. Eventually, at about 6.10 pm, he got all his units together. Ten minutes earlier, a helicopter had dropped to them ammunition wrapped in blankets.

Let me divert for a minute. Prior to this, support having been called for, A Company came forward with 10 APCs, seven of which were heading towards the battle. About a kilometre short of Long Tan they too met a group of Vietnamese of company strength. They took them on. One particular man whom I know in Bundaberg rolled off his APC. He and his machine gunner lay on the ground, then got up and went straight into the face of the enemy, firing at them as they went. When their ammunition ran out they went with bayonets. It was such a convincing assault that the company of Vietnamese withdrew—turned and ran, actually.

Then they came on to the battle. By the time they got to the battle proper it had been completed. Major Harry Smith and his men—105 of them—took on wave after wave of battalion strength enemy who tried as they would to pierce the perimeter. Not once did they cross the Australian perimeter and, in fact, some of the battle occurred at the range of only 15 metres.

While all this was going on, Harry Smith was directing the battle. He was on his belly in the filthy mud, with Captain Morrie Stanley, a New Zealand officer who was directing the fire from the 24 guns that were behind them. He directed fire into the rubber plantation at Long Tan, all 24 guns firing at once—3,500 shells—you can imagine the devastation that caused. The effect of all this was that the enemy eventually broke off the engagement at a quarter to seven that night. The 11th Platoon had already lost half its number, either wounded or killed in the initial encounter. So in effect you had 80 Australians taking that fight off. But as Harry Smith himself says, nine of the 12 men that he wanted recognised for that engagement and who have been denied that recognition, were right in the front line. Three of them came up with the APCs with A Company.

Why do I feel so strongly about this? They were recommended for awards, and in fact two senior officers received DSOs. Harry Smith’s likely award, originally to be a DSO, was downgraded and he received the Military Cross. Two of his lieutenants, Sabben and Kendall, were downgraded to MIDs, and his 12 men that he recommended did not receive awards, including one who was killed in action. Unbelievable stuff.

There was a review, as there is at the end of all conflicts—what is called the end-of-war review—and still these men’s awards were not upgraded. Again, what is even more disturbing is the fact that another review was held under Generals Abigail and Gower and Brigadier Warner in 2008. They restored Harry Smith’s award to the equivalent of a DSO, the Star of Gallantry, and the two lieutenants’ to the equivalent of the Military Cross, the Medal of Gallantry—but again, nothing for the 12 soldiers.

There was a further review by a professor, a warrant officer who had not been in Vietnam and who had no Vietnam experience, and a former lieutenant colonel who had a staff posting in Vietnam. They again recommended against these awards. What had happened was that instead of those awards being kept for the end-of-war review, they were destroyed, and there is evidence that they were destroyed. But there is eyewitness evidence that these men acted with conspicuous bravery, and Harry Smith can tell you in intimate detail even today what each of them did. There is no justification at all for those men not receiving awards.

Madam Deputy Speaker, do you know that in the Vietnam War there were 726 awards, 61 going to private soldiers, and only 35 medals? In 1984 the Military Historical Society of Australia, in a paper on awards during the Vietnam War, said that the majority of awards were given to those people furthest from the action. What an absolute disgrace. I would like to go into more detail on this. I saw the reaction of fellow Australians at the cenotaph in 2008 at Hervey Bay. I know Harry Smith and his integrity. I know that these men fought with conspicuous gallantry and I am calling tonight for a further inquiry. I do not care what form it takes. Perhaps we should take it into the parliament and do it as a Senate inquiry. But this injustice cannot be allowed to continue and I will not rest until it is addressed. We go there on Long Tan Day, we put our hands on our hearts, we talk about the glories of what happened in Vietnam and yet we deny awards to 12 people who were seminal to the battle being won. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the motion of the member for Hinkler as someone who has a longstanding interest in this issue. The Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 is one of the legendary battles in our wartime history. The battle saw the 105-strong Delta Company, 6th Battalion RAR, defeat the Vietcong force, estimated to be up to 2,500. The outcome was 254 Vietcong casualties, with some reports of up to 1,000 killed, and three enemies captured. Australia suffered 18 casualties with a further 24 soldiers wounded. It is difficult to comprehend how anyone in Delta Company survived a battle between 105—with three New Zealanders there as well—on one side and up to 2,500 on the other.

During the Vietnam War there was an understanding that a Vietcong attack on the Australian base at Nui Dat was imminent and the attack came on 17 August 1966 when the Vietcong attacked the Australian base by mortar and rocket. Bravo Company was sent out to patrol the suspected Vietcong base on the night of 17 August and were later relieved by Delta Company around midday on 18 August. Delta Company made contact with the Vietcong at 1540 hours when they were patrolling a rubber plantation in Long Tan.

Following the initial contact, the Vietcong and Australian Army soldiers would be in direct contact with each other for many hours. During this time the soldiers were surrounded by enemy battalions firing mortars and automatic weapons. President Lyndon B Johnson awarded D Company, 6RAR with the US Presidential Unit Citation and I read a brief extract from that:

While searching for Viet Cong in a rubber plantation northeast of Ba Ria, Phuoc Tuy, Province, Republic of Vietnam, D Company met and immediately engaged in heavy contact. As the battle developed, it became apparent that the men of D Company were facing a numerically superior force. The platoons of D Company were surrounded and attacked on all sides by an estimated reinforced enemy battalion using automatic weapons, small arms and mortars. Fighting courageously against a well armed and determined foe, the men on D Company maintained their formations in a common perimeter defence and inflicted heavy casualties on the Viet Cong.

The men of D Company still wear that Presidential Unit Citation. The issue of proper recognition of Long Tan veterans first came to my attention through representations from Bill ‘Yank’ Akell, one of my constituents. As I have said to him often, when he first came to tell me that instead of receiving the Republic of Vietnam’s Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation he received a doll I thought he was joking.

Mr Akell is one of the most humble men that I have met. He is a true gentleman who is softly spoken and he is a much loved member of our community. Mr Akell enlisted in the Australian Army on 14 May 1964 and he was a member of the 105-strong Delta Company. As part of the battle, Mr Akell, a signaller, was tasked with rushing alone from company headquarters to 10th Platoon to deliver a spare radio set to platoon commander, Geoff Kendall. The 10th Platoon radio had gone off the air and it was vital that communication was restored between 10th Platoon and company headquarters.

Mr Akell had heard that the 10th Platoon’s radio was out and on pure instinct knew that he had to resolve the matter urgently. He knew that without radio communication 10th Platoon was unable to request artillery or to update company headquarters with vital information. Situated in company headquarters, Mr Akell picked up a spare radio and ran blind looking for 10th Platoon. He weaved alone through the terrain in search of the platoon. He was alone in Long Tan under heavy enemy fire for over 10 to 15 minutes in search of his fellow soldiers. While in search of the platoon, Mr Akell made contact with two Vietcong soldiers who he subsequently killed. Finally, he reached the platoon.

Mr Akell played a vital role in ensuring communication was resumed between the platoon and company headquarters. When you realise that Bill was just 19, it is pretty extraordinary. This is one of a number of stories from the Battle of Long Tan. Mr Akell and D Company were not evacuated until later that night. As a further sign of true courage, the battalion, lead by D Company, were assigned back into the area the very next day.

Following the battle, the South Vietnamese government awarded those involved with a unit citation and singled out 20 individual soldiers who would receive various levels of the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross. Bill was one of those 20 soldiers. At the last minute the Australian ambassador intervened, with the citation and medals not being awarded. On the day these soldiers were set to receive recognition, they instead received cigar cases and dolls.

I have spoke in this House about the Battle of Long Tan on a number of occasions. In particular in opposition I, alongside the then member for Cowan and the member for Brisbane, pursued the issue of the Palm Unit Citation and the awarding of military medals. I must admit to some disappointment that we had so little support at the time from the then government on the issue. I am certainly pleased to hear the member for Hinkler’s voice raised on this issue, albeit now from opposition.

I am very proud to have been part of the actions of the Australian Labor Party on this issue, both in opposition and now in government. On 14 August the government announced that D Company 6RAR commander, Harry Smith, would be awarded the Star of Gallantry. We also announced that platoon commanders Dave Sabben and Geoff Kendall be offered the Medal for Gallantry. This announcement was in response to an independent review into unresolved issues of recognition. As part of this review we also announced the approval for soldiers in D Company 6RAR to wear the Republic of Vietnam’s Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Emblem—a decision that was contrary to the recommendations of the independent review panel.

The Rudd government referred all unresolved concerns regarding individual awards for Long Tan to the newly established independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal—the tribunal we established at arms length from government to inquire independently into these and a number of other matters relating to military recognition. The establishment of the tribunal was a 2007 election commitment of this government. As a result of the tribunal’s inquiry, they recommended that Flight Lieutenant Cliff Dohle be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and that Delta Company 6RAR be awarded the Unit Citation for Gallantry. The government accepted the recommendations of the tribunal.

It took a change of government to resolve many of the issues regarding the recognition of D Company. I understand that for commander Harry Smith that recognition for those Australians who fought in the Battle of Long Tan is an outstanding issue. I certainly commend my constituent Bill Akell in his endeavours to support Harry Smith in his ongoing actions to seek recognition for those in Delta Company. This was a real battle, which has affected real people and their families.

The Battle of Long Tan will always be remembered as one of the most significant engagements during the Vietnam War. It is of course not the only battle of Vietnam, but the bravery and courage of our Australian soldiers in such demanding circumstances will not be forgotten. I would like to finalise my comments on this motion with some words from Mr Akell. He states:

If you believe it is just for a Government to send a military Unit off to war with restrictions in place to limit the number of decorations for bravery its members can be awarded, then you need to do nothing. But, if you believe that Colonel Smith’s 40 year fight for military justice for his men is due for a rightful conclusion, then I ask that you support this motion.

While I respect that the government has taken the decision to accept the recommendations of the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal and I understand the importance that this process be independent of government, I do on this occasion wholeheartedly support the motion by the member for Hinkler.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We used to say in the Army that no plan survives contact with the enemy. In listening to the contributions by the member for Hinkler and the member for Ballarat on this battle of Long Tan motion, I will dispense with the notes I have prepared for this occasion and go from a deeper place. Harry Smith once said in an account of the battle, ‘I’ve little time for the politics, theories or criticisms which detract from the outstanding performance of my company and all the supporting forces involved in the battle.’ How true that really is.

Long Tan was a victory, there is no doubt about it, against overwhelming odds. There will always be a little bit of doubt about the size of the enemy force but I think that it is pretty clear that about 1,500 or more was always going to be the sort of number that is correct. Indeed, at the end of the battle there was debate as to how many Vietnamese or Vietcong soldiers were actually killed. Yet the Americans later found evidence from Vietcong records that they found in the field that suggested that between 500 and 700 enemy soldiers were killed.

I think it is a testament to the courage and bravery of the Australian soldiers, particularly these 105 Australians and the three members of the New Zealand forward observer party, that this turned out to be a victory. It was a victory not just for those on the ground, it was a victory for all those that were in the support roles. We know that some 3,000 rounds of artillery were called in from all the batteries that were back at Nui Dat, including the Americans, the New Zealanders and the Australians. So we know that was the case. We know the desperateness of the fight on the ground, the monsoon conditions, the mist that was rising from the ground, together with the accurate artillery fire and the RAAF being able to drop ammunition from the helicopters directly into the defensive perimeter of the company.

There were a number of soldiers killed that afternoon, 18 of them. I will read into the record their names in commemoration of their supreme sacrifice for our nation: Private Richard Aldersea of Perth, Glenn Drabble of Brisbane, Ken Gant of Brisbane, Ernest Grant of Thurgoona, Vic Grice of Ballarat, James Houston of Wallsend, Jack Jewry of St Mary’s in New South Wales, Paul Large of Wellington, Private McCormack from Launceston, Dennis McCormack from Adelaide, Warren Mitchell from Dalby, Douglas Salverton from Brisbane, 2nd Lieutenant Gordon Sharp of Tamworth, David Thomas of Bendigo, Private Francis Topp of Toowoomba, Private Max Wales of Goondiwindi and Private Colin Whiston of Sydney. And from the APC squadron there was Corporal Peter Clements of Cunderdin in Western Australia. All these men were 19 to 22. These were very young men. Some of them were national servicemen, some were career soldiers within the Army. They paid a great sacrifice. But it was a victory, there was no doubt about it. The Vietcong suffered greatly from that day and they never really controlled Phuoc Tuy province after that. Yet this was a battalion that had only been established for 15 months.

I think the only real tragedy with regard to this victory was the way the recognition of bravery and courage was undertaken afterwards. I found it incredible in reading through the records that we see the brigadier of the taskforce was given a Distinguished Service Order—a brigadier. There is no way he was out there with a rifle, he was up there at the base. There is even some question regarding the battalion commander. There are some records which say that battalion headquarters came out with the APCs but other records say otherwise. There are a lot of questions that still remain about this matter.

I certainly support the member for Hinkler’s call for an inquiry. Maybe we should do something in this parliament to look into this with a lot of detail. It would be good to see this matter finally resolved. I know there has been great work to make sure that medals have been forthcoming but I think we need to search for the truth of this matter a little bit further.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on the issue of superannuation. I have spoken on it many times before. Let me at the outset that one of the things we are dealing with here is the legacy of former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He has spoken many times on this issue and on the need for greater national savings and greater provisions for retirement incomes for so many Australians. I think that it is worth acknowledging his role today.

The government’s superannuation plans do four main things. Firstly, they deal with the great, if you like, international economic challenge—that is, the inadequate savings of developed economies. Secondly, they help to rebalance our economy, which I think is a critical thing. Thirdly, they increase retirement incomes for Australians. Fourthly, they increase fairness and equity in our community.

On the issue of the economic and national savings, one of the critical problems is that in Anglo-Saxon economies there is a tendency to not save enough and to consume a lot. That is mirrored by the developing world’s tendency to save more than they consume. This has led to the sorts of economic problems we have seen in the United States, where debt fuelled consumption binges have led to asset bubbles and ultimately to those asset bubbles collapsing. One of the ways of avoiding that is to have a high national savings rate and to invest those national savings in productive investments, and that is exactly what superannuation does. The government superannuation plans add $85 billion to our superannuation savings over the next 10 years and an incredible $500 billion by 2035. That is an economic buttress against future shocks. That is a way of making sure that the nation’s economic bounty is invested in productive long-term investments. That is good for individuals and it is good for the economy.

The second thing our superannuation plans do is rebalance the economy. This is terribly important. There are a lot of debates about foreign ownership—particularly about Chinese investment and other foreign investment in Australia. One of the things superannuation does is ensure that there are adequate domestic savings to invest in productive Australian assets and indeed to invest overseas. Foreign ownership is always a vexed question, but one of the causes of foreign ownership is that we do not save enough. It is absolutely critical that superannuation is there to increase savings.

The third thing is increased retirement income. I have met many individuals who have had inadequate savings. For an employee aged about 30, on average weekly earnings, the government’s changes will add $108,000 on average to their superannuation. For a woman aged 30 today who has an interrupted work pattern—which is typical amongst women, particularly if they have children—it will add another $78,000 in superannuation. They are tremendously important figures, and people know the difference, when they come to retire, that having those extra savings will make. Overall, the superannuation savings of 3.5 million Australians on low incomes will be boosted by $830 million over the forward estimates.

This brings me to my final point, which is that the government’s superannuation changes increase fairness and equity in our community. That is one of the most critically important things, I think. We have a problem not just with the distribution of wealth between rich and poor but also with the distribution through the time of life when you get to spend it. Typically, when you are working, you do tend to have enough money in your pocket to get by. Unfortunately, when you retire, you often do not. This is not just about redistributing wealth from rich to poor or from capital to labour, but also from a time in your life when you have an abundance of income to a time in your life when you do not. That is a critical point. It is important for fairness, it is important for economic efficiency, it is important to the country and we can only hope that the opposition sees the light and supports the government’s changes.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion moved by the member for Wakefield. It is interesting to note that the government’s definition of adequacy is a percentage by which the government extracts from the pay of workers a sum on a mandatory basis. This government demonstrates through its actions in the economy and through its great big new tax on mining that Labor does not understand how superannuation adequacy depends on a strong and stable economy. Around 9.3 per cent of all superannuation accounts are invested in the Australian resources sector and since the great big new tax on mining was leaked to the media on 13 April over $20 billion has been stripped from mining investments of superannuation funds.

This is a fact that the Rudd Labor government has been deliberately misleading the public on. On Friday the Treasurer came clean. He provided advice to Senator Ludwig that because of the great big new tax on mining, Labor’s great big new tax, there was a need to waste $38 million of taxpayers’ money on a propaganda campaign. The advice was:

… the tax reforms involve changes to the value of some capital assets, they impact on financial markets.

This contradicts the Prime Minister who told the House only on Thursday that the opposition and those in the private sector were ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ for suggesting that Labor’s mining tax had any effect on financial markets and on superannuation balances. The member for Wakefield’s motion talks about the government’s approach to superannuation. This Labor government’s approach is to mislead and ignore any advice that contradicts their agenda unless and until it suits their purpose.

To consider Labor’s approach to superannuation generally, I can refer to comments by the head of the government’s review into superannuation, Mr Jeremy Cooper, who was reported in the media today as saying:

When you’re forced … to buy a product which is simultaneously complex and boring, it’s quite a rational thing to shrug your shoulders and walk away until you really need to pay attention.

The government’s approach to superannuation has not been about asking workers and retirees to pay attention. If there is nothing to engage workers in their superannuation savings and encourage them to actively participate in their retirement, workers will still shrug their shoulders and walk away from engaging in super—a very important concept. The government would also be aware that the public are not even paying attention to their superannuation policy.

But superannuants are paying attention to Labor’s great big new tax on mining. They are paying attention to how this tax is hurting their superannuation balances right here, right now—not in 2012 or 2014 or 2019, but here and now. Whilst both sides of the House want to increase the adequacy of superannuation levels, Labor has taken a very paternalistic approach. The government is not considering whether employees actually want to contribute an additional amount to their super balances. Instead, it is slugging businesses an additional three per cent on their payroll to pay for this increase. The former minister for superannuation, Senator Sherry, recognised this point when he promised before the 2007 election:

We won’t be increasing the nine per cent superannuation guarantee for a number of reasons. I have said time and time again at many conferences to many people in the financial services sector, privately and publicly, that nine per cent is enough from the employer. It would be unfair to increase that nine per cent any further and we won’t not be doing it.

‘We won’t be doing it,’ were the words of the then the minister.

This also follows the Prime Minister’s comment before the election—and a lot of things have changed since ‘before the election’, I must say. On Radio 4BC the Prime Minister said that the government would not change superannuation laws, ‘not one jot, one tittle’. Well, with this track record, how can the public believe one word of what this government says about superannuation?

The member’s motion is only Labor’s spin in an area of policy that has been marked by just about more backflips and more misrepresentations than any other issue in which this government has failed. As the Treasurer has now admitted, it is the economy and superannuation balances that are paying the costs for this government’s approach. The cost is neither adequate nor equitable, and the coalition does not support this motion.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was amazing to hear that the shadow minister against superannuation could not even go for five minutes. I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Wakefield and thank him for his strong commitment to the future prosperity of his electorate and of all Australians. It is people like the member for Wakefield who recognise that more needs to be done to ensure all Australians can enjoy a comfortable and economically secure retirement.

The Labor Party has a proud record when it comes to mainstream access to superannuation. Put in place by the Hawke and Keating governments, the superannuation guarantee ensures that millions of Australians will retire with a sustainable retirement income. But more needs to be done to ensure that in the future more Australians benefit from these tough, historic reforms. As the Rudd government faces up to the reality of an ageing and growing population, now more than ever we need to ensure that as many workers as possible can retire without the need for pension support from the government. That is why the Rudd Labor government is from 1 July 2013 gradually increasing the superannuation guarantee contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent, reaching 12 per cent on 1 July 2019—not that far away. Also from 1 July 2012 a superannuation contribution of up to $500 will be provided for workers with incomes up to $37,000, effectively refunding the contributions tax they pay on their superannuation guarantee contributions.

This kind of investment demonstrates that the Rudd Labor government’s strong commitment to the long-term security and prosperity of working families is to be acknowledged rather than just picked at by those opposite without actually putting up an alternative when it comes to superannuation. You will not see the benefits at the ballot box in six months time or whenever the election is held, but when working Australians reach retirement age 20 and 30 years from now they will be far better off because of the tough decisions made now. In fact, a 30-year-old employee on average full-time weekly earnings will retire with $108,000 more in their retirement savings thanks to the Rudd government’s long-term improvements to superannuation. A 30-year-old woman—those who tend to have the interrupted employment—will be $78,000 better off in their retirement.

But the coalition wants to rob ordinary Australians of fair superannuation for the future. When I am talking about super I am not talking about Clive Palmer’s retirement income, but the retirement incomes of ordinary Australians. That is who the government makes decisions for. The coalition stands against this government’s reforms to increase the superannuation guarantee and incentives for lower income earners and those nearing retirement age. The opposition leader and the coalition do not fundamentally believe in compulsory superannuation. It was a Labor initiative back in the early nineties. You might well remember the sacrifices that workers made in forgoing wage increases to kick-start the process. Instead, the opposition would rather see Australians, even those on lower incomes, somehow save and invest for their own retirement.

These changes are also good for our economy. In an age when we are saving less and less and putting more money on credit cards, superannuation, thankfully, is one way that we can ensure we do save the future. We have a record that is almost second to none throughout the world—certainly throughout the OECD—in saving with superannuation. By 2035 of the Rudd government’s boost to superannuation will deliver additional private savings of $35 billion per year and additional national savings of $19.5 billion. It will reduce age pension outlays by $3.5 billion a year. An extra $500 billion will be added to the pool of superannuation savings.

The Rudd government is driving these reforms to boost retirement savings and deliver a fairer distribution of superannuation tax concessions. We want to ensure that more Australians can enjoy a comfortable retirement and help us prepare for an ageing population and the many challenges that that will present. We do not just make decisions for the short term, for the polls and for the electoral cycle; instead we need to make tough decisions for what happens over the horizon. These reforms ensure a strong and growing economy today to deliver the superannuation savings we need for the future and also, incidentally, help to build Australia’s record as a great manager of funds and attract funds from around the world. That was something that was laughed at during the election, but already we are seeing some great advances. I support this motion and once again thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I hope that the superannuation guarantee contribution will be supported by the next speaker from those opposite.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Far be it from me to rain on the parade of ashen-faced, first-time Labor MPs desperate to reconnect with their voter base while looking at Newspoll results. But let us be honest about this motion on superannuation and say that the measure of this government is not the fancy projections that its economists can generate for next 10 years. The measure of this administration is what it does this year for those working class families that it so often alludes to. The government has provided those families with a massive budget deficit—enormous government debt—that is getting worse, not better, and it will continue to do so next year and the year after.

It is okay to prepare a budget that refers to 2014 but, honestly, what we are looking at is what is happening in this year. What we are looking at this year, of course, is uncontrolled spending. The best way a government can demonstrate its commitment to working Australians and their superannuation is to run a budget surplus. When a government runs a budget surplus it is empowered to offer greater superannuation contributions. The Rudd government is asking small business to pay the higher amounts while, at the same time, offering them miniscule tax cuts in 2013. I am definitely of the view that this administration will not be around to fill that promise.

What happened to the days when governments talked about tax cuts sequentially, starting with the current year? If this administration has any form at all, it is for announcing changes for the years ahead but doing nothing in the current year. It is all well and good for the government to apologise to Indigenous Australians, but its fear of apologising for its own actions right now shows its true measure. What we have had from this government is rhetoric about national savings but conduct that has been the complete opposite to that. This government talks about national savings immediately before an election, but it has already engaged in the disproven exercise of writing $900 cheques to people in the hope of securing their support. The money is long gone that could have funded this superannuation increase, and now we are watching a government in demise and decline. It reminds me of those fabulous words, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that I know you love just as much as I do: ‘Did they make you exchange your heroes for ghosts, your hot ashes for trees? Did they get you to exchange this hot air for a cool breeze?’

What we have seen in 2010 is a desperate pre-election struggle to reignite the class warfare for which that side of parliament is famous. It is picking on our own mining sector. It is using everyone’s taxes to fund its battle against its own mining sector. It is a completely preformed and fabricated pre-election battle to feed into its own beliefs that anyone who has a little bit more in resources should be handing it over now to pay for its pre-election promises.

I do not mind a government that looks five or 10 years ahead but the Rudd administration is simply unaccountable for what it does right now. That was no better exemplified than by the bizarre double twist with pike on election advertising. Mr Deputy Speaker, don’t you remember that waxy, polished, almost seductive face of the opposition leader in 2007 as he said: ‘You are all brothers. You are bearing witness to my words that there will be no pre-election advertising in the three months before an election.’ What do we do now in the final pre-rigor mortis struggle of that Prime Minister who will promise 10 years in advance anything on superannuation in a desperate move to retain his job?

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is a motion before the chair. The speaker needs to address the motion.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I strayed slightly from one broken election promise to another, but it is easy to do when you have a government that has done it 52 times. It is easy to stray from one broken promise to another because this is a desperate, scurrying government that is looking for anything to energise its voter base. The three young Turks speaking to this motion are exemplars of any promise to retain power. The Prime Minister has simply run out of ideas. He is quite happy to talk about the 12 per cent that he will never deliver. He will not be there to deliver it. He is simply there to make the 2,019th promise. Small businesses around this country have not fallen for the government’s 2013 tax cuts because we are looking for a government that acts in 2010. We do not have one at the moment, but I hope we do by the end of this year when the day of the election comes and, with it, the day of reckoning for the Rudd administration.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is anyone really surprised that those on the other side would come forward and oppose this motion on superannuation by the member for Wakefield, oppose a motion that supports investment in the retirement savings of Australians? It is little wonder, because those on the other side have always opposed superannuation. They opposed superannuation when it was first introduced, because their view of the world is that the superannuation industry should have stayed the way it was 100 years ago when it was largely the preserve of the very wealthy—white collar—those that were associated with the financial sector and those in the Public Service.

We on this side believe that one of the great moves towards a more egalitarian and fairer Australia was the shift that occurred with compulsory superannuation. It was a shift that was first championed by the trade union movement in the eighties and a shift that was reinforced by the first compulsory system introduced by the Keating government. The opposition opposed superannuation back then for all of the reasons that they now oppose an increase in the superannuation guarantee. ‘It will put too much pressure on business,’ they say. ‘It will put businesses out of business.’ These are all the same arguments that we heard once before, but had we allowed those on the other side to carry the day this country and the people of this country would be much worse off than they are.

Superannuation has grown to become a $1.1 trillion industry. It is one of the key reasons we weathered the financial storm of the global financial crisis. The member for Bowman comes forward and mocks the cash payments. He would have to be the only person—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Scoff!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that continues to scoff, as the member for Dunkley suggests, at the cash payments when all of the evidence, which is supported by economists all around the world, is that what was done here in Australia with the cash payments stimulated the economy and kept businesses moving. I invite the member for Dunkley to come and walk through the Penrith Plaza with me one day. Throughout the year that involved the stimulus payments, retail sales increased by 10 per cent in the Penrith Plaza. At a time when everywhere else in the world retail sales were in decline they were growing and they were growing because of the stimulus.

But I do not want to be distracted by the member for Bowman. I pick him up on that point. I do not want to be distracted by his sideshow. I want to get back to the issue of superannuation. That is because, as I said earlier, those on the other side have always opposed it. There is no greater example of the strident opposition to superannuation of those on the other side than their very leader, the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has had many positions on many issues. You have to have a look at his positions and determine whether each position was one articulated in the heat of the moment or one that was carefully crafted—the gospel truth. But I will take a comment in this place, something that is recorded in the Hansard, as being something that is a little more than a comment in the heat of the moment. On 25 September 1995, the member for Warringah came into this place and stated:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

Those are hardly the words of someone that is lukewarm in their opposition to superannuation. This is someone who has been a consistent warrior against securing the compulsory retirement savings of working people to ensure that they have a decent standard of living in their retirement.

That is what superannuation is about. It is about ensuring that, after having worked all of one’s life, one can move into one’s declining years or halcyon days, whichever way you like to look at it, with some confidence that one will have some sense of comfort in retirement. That is what we are about. We want to deliver that sense of confidence to people—that they will be able to retire with a comfortable standard of living. That is what those on the other side continue to call ‘one of the great con jobs foisted on the Australian people’. It is not a con job. It is essential and it is one of the key tenets of this government’s approach to ensuring that we are able to cope with the ageing population and secure adequate retirement savings for the people we represent.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak of behalf of many in the community in regard to the member for Wakefield’s motion before the parliament. It is a reminder of where we were before the election of the Howard government when then Prime Minister Keating used to run ads to try to convince people that superannuation funds grew on trees. It is that kind of shallow, poor, economic logic that is really at the heart of the concerns many have about this increase in the superannuation guarantee levy.

I, from my modest background in the community I represent, think superannuation is a good thing. It is a good thing particularly when it is a preparation for people’s retirement savings and when the people who are planning to retire actually have some say over it. At nine per cent, Australians are in a position to prepare for their retirement, and there is scope and opportunity to increase those contributions if that is a pathway they choose to go down.

What is interesting about the Rudd Labor government’s approach is that they say to working Australians, ‘No, we won’t give you that choice. We will compel this contribution,’ and then they run two quite contradictory, narrow-cast messages to the Australian public about just who is paying. You have some in this place wanting to say it is money coming from the mining tax—to quote the Prime Minister’s words, ‘wrong, wrong, wrong.’ Employer superannuation contributions come from employers. They make those contributions and are compelled to make those contributions. The Rudd Labor plan is to force them to increase those contributions by three per cent, which is effectively a three per cent payroll tax on all Australian employers that employ people for whom they have a superannuation guarantee liability.

The irony is that the Rudd Labor government and its hackneyed Labor members refuse to turn their minds to where these funds are coming from. You have—at times when it suits—the minister for finance and the Assistant Treasurer trying to make it sound like the government is stumping up the money when nothing could be more false. Nothing could be further from the truth. You then have them talking to a business audience saying, ‘It will be a trade-off for wages and salaries.’ Then when they go out and talk to working people it is, ‘No, no, it’ll be paid for by the employer.’ These narrow-cast, dishonest and completely incoherent messages that the Rudd Labor government puts out underline the fact that they have no policy credentials whatsoever on superannuation.

The Rudd Labor government must have understood that this was important. Why else would it have sent out shadow ministers prior to the last election? In a joint press release on 5 November 2007 Nick Sherry and Wayne Swan, who were so emphatic about the need to reassure employers at a difficult economic time that they were not going to cop another three per cent payroll tax, said: ‘Labor has made it clear on many occasions that it will not be increasing employers’ nine per cent superannuation guarantee payments.’ Well what was the shelf life of that promise? It is another broken promise; the undertaking on 5 November 2007 has not lasted to this day.

Then there were the Prime Minister’s famous words when the concern of the Australian public was that the Rudd Labor team would mess with superannuation. He sought to reassure people. Remember that famous quote about superannuation changes? ‘No, no, no. Not one jot, not one tittle.’ This shows you the completely bereft nature of this Rudd Labor team in terms of consistent and coherent policy development. They cannot fess up and face the fact about who is paying. This is not money that grows on trees, as the Labor Party would have you believe. It is either coming out of the wages and salaries of employees or it is being paid for by employers. It cannot be anyone else; it is one of those two. If it is coming out of the wages and salaries of employees, then the Rudd Labor government needs to fess up to that fact and confront that simple truth that, at a time of increased cost of living—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the debate having expired, the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—