Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Minister, what is the government doing to plan for Australia's future and to enhance our workforce's prospects to secure adequate retirement savings? What are the risks to these plans, and how is the government addressing these?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for her question because we on this side of the House know that people being able to retire, and not to retire poor, is very important.

On this side of the House we believe in the value of increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. Twelve per cent is good for individuals; it means that they do not have to retire poor. Twelve per cent is good for taxpayers because it will relieve pressure on the age pension in the next 20 and 30 years. In fact, 12 per cent is good for the whole nation. We are the fourth largest capital funds under management market in the world. There is not a lot that Australia is fourth in the world at, but having a large savings pool is one of those accomplishments.

The value of having those sorts of savings under management in Australia is that it helps to decrease our cost of capital and it means that we have resources here which are the envy of the rest of the world in terms of our savings. But in fact, when we talk about those who benefit, something like eight million Australians will directly benefit from the increase from nine to 12 per cent. That is the number of Australians who do not currently receive 12 per cent superannuation: eight million people.

The member for La Trobe may be interested to know that in her seat, based on 2007-08 tax returns, something like 53,600 people would be better off with this policy. The opposition leader may be interested in a number: in the seat of Warringah something like 55,000 of his voters currently get less than 12 per cent. The member for Wide Bay, too, may be interested that 37,000 voters in his electorate currently do not get 12 per cent superannuation. We all know that life expectancy is increasing and we all know that the garden variety nine per cent super is not going to be enough for most people to retire on. Thirty in every 100 Australians are getting better than nine per cent but there are 70 in every 100 who are not. It is also important that we increase the life savings for women workers who do not get the same chances on average to accrue the same amount of money that they would at nine per cent.

On this side of the House we want to take the pressure off future generations. We do not want to be here in 20 years time saying, 'Remember when we had the opportunity to finish the job and lift superannuation from nine to 12 per cent?' After all, when we talk about missed opportunities it was 20 years ago that the Keating government passed legislation to increase super from three to nine per cent. But, of course, there was one group of people who opposed super going from three to nine per cent and we all know who that was. It was the opposition. It has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity on superannuation. It opposed it then and I believe that it opposes increasing compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent now.

In conclusion it begs one question: how can those opposite, knowing that so many tens of thousands of their voters stand to improve from nine to 12 per cent, receive their defined benefits super or 15.4 per cent superannuation? Got to love the hypocrisy—you take it for yourself but you will not give it to other people. It is not fair and we intend to change that for all Australians rather than the opposition who yet again will be on the wrong side of history.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.