Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's attack on superannuation.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the House for showing long overdue support for our view about what the government is doing to the superannuation system.

In question time today, the latest excuse for the government not to have an economic plan for this country after 2½ years was that they did not want to 'rush to failure'. That is what the Treasurer of this country says about why he has no clue about tax and why he has no clue about the economy—because he does not want to 'rush to failure'. What an extraordinary excuse! It is the latest in a long line of excuses from this hopeless, hapless and heartless Treasurer. He came up here and said that the reason they do not have a clue about the economy is because they are not in a rush to fail. What a joke the Treasurer of this country is.

They might not be rushing to fail, but they are dawdling to defeat, dawdling to division and dawdling to disarray. The sort of chaos that you see on that side of the House is exactly what happens when the Prime Minister of the country is incapable of providing the economic leadership that he promised. When you pretend that you are all things to all people, it catches up on you at some point. When you say one thing and do another, inevitably it all collides and crashes at some stage. We have seen that with the motion just moved by my very capable colleague, the member for Griffith.

We have a Prime Minister who says that he believes in marriage equality at the same time as he does what he can to cruel the chances of marriage equality in this country. Just like it is with marriage equality, the same is true for superannuation when it comes to the Prime Minister's keenness to say one thing about superannuation and then to do an entirely different thing. The Prime Minister has said over and over again—as has the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer—that they believe in compulsory superannuation. They say that while they work behind the scenes to diminish it and to destroy it.

As always, if you want to know what the coalition actually thinks about these things, you need to listen to the newly liberated member for Warringah. When you listen to the newly liberated member for Warringah you know what they really think about compulsory super. This is what the member for Warringah has said about super:

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

That is what the member for Warringah said. When it comes to economic policy, in the absence of leadership from the Prime Minister and the absence of leadership or competence from the Treasurer, we now know that the shots are being called by the member for Warringah from his perch over there. When he says that super is a 'con job' we should listen, because we know that when he gets up in the party room and gets into the Prime Minister and the Treasurer it causes them to flap around and try to accommodate him. That is the view of the Liberal Party. That is the reason why this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are so frozen with indecision when it comes to the economy. They are so paralysed by the fear of getting off-side the member for Warringah and all of his cronies that now populate that part of the parliament.

Just like it is with super, it is also the case with Medicare. There is a link between what they want to do to Medicare and what they want to do to super. They want to attack universality and access. They want to attack the very foundations of what makes this country good in a policy sense—universal health care and compulsory superannuation. Those two attacks are of a piece. They are all part—as the member for Lilley said yesterday—of their efforts to rip and tear away at the social safety net in this country.

We know that they are working behind the scenes to strangle compulsory super because we get the usual kind of gutless, sneaky leaks to The Australian or to the News Limited tabloids. That is what they do. When they do not have the courage to come right out and say it, what they do is just put it on the front pages of the paper instead. The first one that we got was this ludicrous idea that we should take the 'compulsory' out of compulsory superannuation and make superannuation optional for those pesky people on low incomes in this country—those pesky people earning less than $37,000 a year. These are great Australian people working hard on low incomes, and those opposite want them out of the compulsory superannuation system. They want to make it optional. As the good people of Rice Warner pointed out, that would mean a 24-year-old today would be something like $18,500 worse off at 65. Anyone can see that there would be a massively detrimental impact on low income earners in this country.

That is not the only one they snuck into the papers because they did not have the courage to fess up to it. The second one was, 'Push to end super rate rises' on the front page of The Australian on Friday, 5 February. This story was about how those opposite wanted to freeze permanently the super guarantee at 9½ per cent. We already know that they have frozen it three times with huge impacts for working people in this country, and then they sneak on to the front of The Australian this plan to freeze it indefinitely. That would again have serious consequences for Australian working people.

Then we had the Prime Minister stand up here and say at that dispatch box that they had no plans and that it was no part of their thinking to mess with the capital gains tax discount in superannuation funds. Then we have this story in the Australian Financial Review the next day: 'Cabinet digs in as PM backflips on CGT'. What a farce! What disarray that we see from those opposite. These sneaky plans are dropped into the paper of all of the things they want to do to diminish superannuation, especially for people on low and middle incomes in this country, with the capital gains tax in funds, the super guarantee rate and also, of course, the compulsory nature of super itself.

Already they have done so much damage in superannuation. They have frozen the SG, as I said, three times. They abolished the low-income super contribution. They say they care about women in the super system, but they abolished the low-income super contribution which impacts on 3.6 million Australians, 2.2 million of whom are women. They say they care about the gender gap in super, but this is what they do and this is what their actions mean here in Australia for Australian working people. They are also weakening the penalties for bosses who do not pay super on time. So we have a problem where 690,000 Australians are missing out on $2.6 billion of super they are entitled to by law every year. It is a big and growing problem. The solution from the Assistant Treasurer is to weaken the penalties for people who do the wrong thing. There are all kinds of ways they are weakening the system.

Our superannuation system is the envy of the world, but it is not perfect. There are all kinds of ways we can work to make it better. We have got issues around adequacy, particularly at the low end. We have got issues around gender, as I have already mentioned. We have got those issues around compliance that I just mentioned. We have also got these ridiculously unfair tax concessions in the superannuation system.

One of the most important contributions was made yesterday, 1 March, by Tom Garcia from the AIST. He said:

AIST's research shows those at the top end of the income percentile receive as much as $660,000 of total government support to their retirement income over a working lifetime (mostly through super tax concessions). This compares to around $300,000 in government support to someone on the median wage of about $50,000 a year.

That does shine a light on the unfairness that we are seeing in the superannuation system.

Faced with these acknowledged concerns and challenges in super—and we have a terrific super system, a proud achievement not just of the Labor Party, although it is certainly that, but a proud achievement of the whole country—what do the Liberal Party do? They do all the things that will make it worse. They are not part of the solution when it comes to superannuation in this country. They are part of the problem.

In superannuation and all across the economic policy field, Labor is filling the void when it comes to good solutions for the future of this country. The Prime Minister of Australia wanders naked into the marketplace of ideas, without a stitch of policy to cover himself up. Whether it is negative gearing, capital gains or, especially, super, as I have just said, we have more concrete, better costed, more intelligently considered policies for the future of this country. We have got a plan for fairer superannuation which starts to address some of that unfairness at the very top of the superannuation system so that we can fund health and education in this country and we can underwrite the future of our country.

The time has long past for those opposite to give the Australian people some clarity on economic policy, on superannuation, on negative gearing, on capital gains, on all of the tax issues—no more just sneaking stuff onto the front of The Oz when you do not have the courage to stand up and say what you believe, when you do not have the courage to say that you do not believe in compulsory super, to say that you want to rip and tear at retirement incomes and the retirement income aspirations of ordinary working people in this country. Have the guts to say it. Put a policy on the table like we have. We put our policy on super on the table in April of last year. For the best part of a year, we have had a policy on super, and they lack the intelligence, the competence or the courage to say what they really think about super. They say they believe in it, but they are working behind the scenes to diminish it. Let's have no more sneaky leaks or half-baked hints when it comes to superannuation, no more saying one thing while you do something else.

If there is one thing that characterises this Prime Minister, it is pretending that he is one thing while he does another. The member for Griffith knows that when it comes to marriage equality. Everyone here knows that when it comes to all kinds of economic policy in this country. My message to those opposite is: have enough respect for the Australian people to put your super policy on the table and let them choose which is better, yours or ours.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I am puzzled by this MPI, because it talks about the government's attacks on superannuation, and yet I know nothing of such attacks. I can only assume one of two things: either this was a typo—and, given the sloppiness of your tax work, I suppose that is a real possibility—or, alternatively, you over there on the other side of this House had forgotten that you were no longer in government, and it is your own attacks we are talking about. Perhaps the topic of this MPI was actually a Freudian slip.

There is one other possibility—that, when you talk about attacks on super, you are referring to attacks on your own union official mates who have found cushy jobs in the superannuation industry. It is true that we are proposing some modest reforms to improve the performance of, and choice we have over, superannuation funds. They are modest reforms, to the average Australian, but I am sure they are not modest reforms to your union official mates, because we are proposing that one-third of directors on superannuation funds should be independent. This does mean, I have to admit, fewer union officials on the boards, and I am sure that is extremely upsetting for you, but those of us who have been involved in the business sector for a long time know that there is a long and esteemed history of independent directors playing a very positive role in investment funds and in all areas of business.

We have also suggested that people should have more choice of funds. Choice—your socialist utopia does not really like that, but two million people at the moment cannot choose because it is mandated by enterprise agreements or workplace determinations. That is two million people who do not have choice because you do not want them to have choice. We plan to give them that choice. We are more concerned for their welfare than the welfare of your union official mates.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so the gallery understands and those listening to this debate understand, the member speaking can look after himself, and I am allowing a robust debate.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is all part of Labor's attempt to have a go at people who want to have a go. This, like so many of Labor's policies in superannuation, is a serious breach of trust with the Australian people, because the real attack on super is coming from those opposite.

Let us have a look at Labor's attacks on superannuation and the impact that they are going to have on people's superannuation over time. The thing you have got to remember about superannuation is that we put it away in our 20s, our 30s, our 40s, even our teens, and we put it away for decades, and we expect the government to show complete respect for that money and how it is treated over that time. Every time you change the rules, it is a breach of trust with the Australian people.

How has Labor changed the rules? To work it out, I went to their website and had a look at what they call the 'fairer super plan'. I found a case study, example 2, of Susie. Susie is on average weekly earnings or a fraction above. She is 63 years old. It turns out that Labor's attack on super, Labor's increased taxation of super, is going to knock Susie around for $2,250

That is a woman on a fraction above average weekly earnings, or median weekly earnings, and you want to tax Susie more. This tax that Labor is proposing is a slug on Susie—the average-weekly-earning Australian—and is a complete breach of trust to Australians who have put their money away, locked it away for decades, hoping that future governments will treat that money with respect.

This is part of a pattern because Labor looks under every rock for something to tax and for something to spend. Under every rock in the Australian economy there will be a Labor MP over there looking for some more money to spend and tax. This is the party of spending and taxation but, it turns out, that they are finding a lot more to spend than to tax. Some of these rocks are turning out good spending opportunities but not such good taxation opportunities.

If we have a look at how much they are proposing to spend, over the next four years, and how much they are planning to tax, unfortunately for them, there is a $50 billion black hole. If we look at what they are proposing to spend, there is $1.22 billion of their own hypocrisy as savings in revenue measures proposed by Labor in government, which they are now blocking—$1.22 billion, but that is just the beginning.

We have $5.35 billion of savings and revenue measures proposed by the government that Labor is now blocking. That is our stuff you want to block. We have $34.71 billion of spending Labor says we must restore. You want to just keep spending, don't you? That is $34.7 billion from the 2015-16 budget. We have just over a billion of budget savings Labor has said they will not support. We also have savings, since the 2015-16 budget, that Labor has said it will not support—and another $11.38 billion of Labor's spending proposals since the 2015-16 budget. So it is a total of just under $60 billion.

The bad news, for those doing the counting on that side, is that Labor's proposals to increase taxes over the forward estimates will deliver $7.05 billion, and Labor's savings since the 2015-16 budget come in at the grand total of $1.13 billion. So guess what? That is $59.5 billion against $51.3 billion. You have a $51 billion gap that you have to fill.

How are you going to fill it? They are going to tax everything. Is there going to be a tax on carbon, a tax on consumption and a tax on the next generation? Maybe you will spend it and wait for the next generation to be taxed. A tax on workers? Who knows? Who knows how you are going to find that $50 billion, but you have to find it somewhere. When you do find it there is a piece of bad news, because Treasury is telling us that for every dollar of extra tax and spend you shrink the economy by 40c.

This a plan by those opposite to tax, spend and shrink the economy. Their total planned spending over the next 10 years is $100 billion. That is $40 billion—your plan to shrink the economy. They are the numbers that Treasury gives us. The reality is, any economist will tell you, if you tax more you reduce activity. You reduce good activity whether its investing, saving or working, you reduce activity.

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

Hey, Angus; LBW!

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen the replay. There is an extremely dangerous part to what Labor is proposing in its tax plans and that is the tax on negative gearing. There are three reasons this will have a such a big impact. First, and most importantly, they have forgotten that the supply of housing is inelastic in this country. Go back to economics 101. Inelastic supply: you reduce demand and it has a sharp impact on price. They are the basics. They are the basic economics. If you are going to take a third of the demand out of the market, then you can be absolutely assured that with inelastic supply you are going to whack prices.

The second part of this that you need to be extremely cautious about is that there are over $2 trillion of household debt—160 per cent of GDP. That is one of the highest in the world. We have more household debt than the UK at 130, the US at 100, Spain at 115 and Greece at 75 per cent. Have you forgotten that sharp changes in housing prices were behind the GFC?

We are focused on supporting Australians who want to have a go, who want to work hard, who want to save and who want to invest for their future. Labor just wants to slug Susie—the mythical figure in their policy documents—who is on average weekly earnings. (Time expired)

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

I note the member for Hume is going back to the mythical figures, again. I note that the unicorn policy is a big part of their response. I would have thought this MPI on superannuation might have seen him refer to superannuation or, perhaps, even refer to Australian working people. He is new in the job so, perhaps, that will come in the future.

Before I talk about superannuation, which is one of Labor's greatest achievements, I particularly note on this day, 2 March, the contributors Bob Hawke and, especially, Paul Keating. Paul Keating lost office on this day. He was our Prime Minister from December 1991 through to 2 March 1996. Obviously, I acknowledge his contribution, and Bob Hawke's, to the superannuation contribution that is significant.

Australia has $2 trillion under management, making it the third largest pool of funds in the world—a little country. Incredibly, the vision of people like Paul Keating—obviously, there were a few changes after 2 March when we had Prime Minister Howard. He was Prime Minister from 1996 right up until 2007. He did not do a lot in his time. He tried to take Australia backwards. Sadly, he did not make significant investments in superannuation. Perhaps, if Prime Minister Keating had been there for another three years he could have seen that progression through to 15 per cent, which was always his original plan. Instead, we see those opposite suggesting that we should freeze the contribution. The reality is that there are some challenges in the superannuation industry, but Labor always does the right thing by people who have superannuation funds. Let us look at the record of those opposite when it comes to superannuation. As my good friend the member for Rankin detailed, it was leaked by the newspapers; they are not prepared to put their name on these policy ideas. They floated these balloons namelessly and gutlessly to see what people would say. What were they prepared to do? The most telling is: they were prepared to lower the penalty on non-compliant employers. That is very telling. They talk about the many Australians who are out there working and trying to have a go. What about the 690,000 Australians who are losing $2.6 billion annually in unpaid super, and this figure is actually growing? What about those people—who are prepared to invest, prepared to have a go, but their employers do not put their money into super so they do not get the benefits of compound interest? So what does the government do? Obviously, if you are talking about $2.6 billion you would think that they would jump on it. But no, they say, 'What we are going to do is lower the penalties for noncompliance.' That is going to somehow make it better.

What else is the Abbott-Turnbull government doing? They are freezing the superannuation guarantee and abolishing the low-income super contribution. Who does that hurt most? It hurts women in particular, and I flag this coming up to International Women's Day. Of the 3.6 million Australians affected, 2.2 million of them will be women. I hope they remember that on Tuesday, on International Women's Day. Their contribution to women in Australia has been to make their retirement more impoverished. The super accounts of average Australians are $20,000 worse off because of this policy from those opposite. Shame.

The zealots opposite have also decided that it is important to attack the best-performing superannuation funds in Australia. What are they doing? They are attacking how these representative boards—

Mr Wyatt interjecting—

Mr Taylor interjecting—

I should point out to those opposite that they perform at 10.2 per cent compared with 9.6 per cent for retail. I need to point out to those opposite: do you know why they are called industry funds? It is because they have employees on the board and employee representatives. That is what you do not understand. And they are performing better—10.2 per cent, consistently.

Government members interjecting—

They do have a choice. There is a choice of employers and a choice of employee representatives on the boards. I know these funds. I am in two of those funds already. The Labor Party's plan for fairer super will return $14 billion to the budget over the next decade.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

I did mention independent directors. Why would you tinker with a system that is delivering for working Australians right now, with employer representatives on those boards? It is crazy. It is short-sighted policy. (Time expired)

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened the conversation on both sides, and I am not sure whether I am on the crossbenches or where I am but I hope to add something edifying to the debate. One in three Australians—this is a very disturbing statistic—do not make it to 65. We have a vision that everyone is going to make it to 65 but one in three Australians do not make it to 65, and life expectancy in the Mallee is nine years less than in some of our cities—largely because of extraction rates with strokes and heart attacks. Whilst we are talking about the discussion around superannuation, we have to always remember that not everyone, unfortunately, is going to make it long enough to realise money that is put aside in superannuation.

I am also mindful that if a casual employee earns $450 a month with an employer, they do not receive superannuation. I think this is a fault. I can see the simplicity of it, but I think they should receive superannuation as part of their packet so they can put some money aside. I am mindful that I also represent, and I also have been one of those people who have been on a casual wage with multiple employers in shearing sheds and those sorts of things and have missed out on the benefits of superannuation.

It does surprise me, I have got to say, that Labor did not touch superannuation very much when they were in power last. They touched everything else. They essentially put the price of everything else up, with carbon taxes and those sorts of things, and in real terms what that meant was that people who did have savings had to draw on more of their savings to pay their living expenses. So the question about looking after people in retirement is also about keeping people's living expenses down rather than just being a simplistic debate about superannuation.

I think that keeping it at 9.5 per cent does have some value. In my patch, people would rather have the money in their pocket than in their estate. It needs to be said that there are pressures on people and they would rather have the money in their pocket. I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about accessing superannuation to be able to buy a house—to get that first deposit on a house. I hear those who are critical of that discussion say, 'People would be $18,500 worse off by the time they got to 65'. But might I add, to people who would say that: it is very easy, even on a $200,000 house over a 10-year period, to pick up at least 10 per cent. And when you talk about being able to purchase a house at 25 as opposed to not being able to—particularly for our low-income earners—we should have a very robust discussion about first home ownership. There are people in my patch who will be able to pay $200 a week rent but will never be able to save a deposit for a house that might have a value of $120,000. Allowing them to access their super as a deposit would give them a chance to own a home—and surely home ownership is something that we should aspire to as a country. It is home ownership that gives people a sense of self-worth.

Ultimately superannuation is a percentage; it is a percentage of a gross economy. If you can grow the Australian economy you grow the wealth that comes into the country and therefore we have more to spend. You can spend a lot of time arguing about the percentage but you can grow the Australian economy. I note today that the GDP is up 0.6 per cent—unexpectedly up. It has been quite remarkable that we, as a country, are walking our way through the transition from the mining industry to other opportunities in our economy. Largely that has been on the back of rural Australia, largely that has been on the back of the service economy, and seeing our currency now at 71c has afforded us an opportunity to diversify and grow our economy and, as a result, that in turn grows real wealth, and real wealth ultimately grows a better standard of living for Australians.

Our suggested changes about better governance, more choice for people about where they can invest their superannuation and better transparency should be welcomed by all. I am not here to say which super fund is doing best, but I am saying that I do trust the wisdom of the Australian people to be able to make a choice. Why shouldn't they have a choice as to where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have better governance about where their super goes? Why shouldn't they have greater transparency?

Everything that we are suggesting is not to undermine superannuation; it is actually to enhance it. It is to our credit, as Australians, that we have $2 trillion in superannuation. It helps us in our forward liabilities as we look at an ageing population. But do not look at it as something that cannot be touched and cannot be improved. I think we should have an open mind to addressing the challenges that we face, as Australians, in the future.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that every day we are seeing dysfunction at the heart of the Turnbull government. They lack both vision and direction. They have no economic agenda, just dysfunction; no plan, just complete chaos. And we are seeing media ideas leaks almost daily on a range of issues, but no policies and no decisions. This is happening because they cannot agree on anything, We hear different stories. First it was the 15 per cent GST, which we know is still on the table. We know they will bring it back. That is their plan. It is not dead and buried. Then it was negative gearing—lots of talk, but nothing happened; capital gains tax, nothing happened; superannuation, nothing happened.

The government cannot agree on the central idea about tax reform. We have asked the Prime Minister on a number of occasions to rule out many things, but he won't; he is just too weak. That is at the heart of this dysfunction—his weakness and his indecision. But he does allow the constant attacks on superannuation. Why? It is because they do not believe in superannuation. Well, we believe in it.

Superannuation is one of Labor's proudest achievements. Australia's superannuation assets are now worth more than $2 trillion, making it the third-largest pool of funds under management in the world. The fact is the Liberals and the Nationals simply cannot be trusted with the huge responsibility of managing our superannuation system, just as they cannot be trusted with managing any part of the economy.

Before the election they promised no changes to super, but we know this was just a lie, like the other broken promises—no changes to health, education or pensions; the list goes on and on. When it comes to super, this government have done nothing but make the system worse for workers and they continue to attack it. The people who will be hurt the most are, of course, low-income earners. Especially in regional areas, locals know that it is the Nationals who are attacking their super.

We constantly see the government leaking new attacks on super. Just last week, we heard that the government was planning to make superannuation opt-out for low-income earners. The fact is this would fundamentally undermine the compulsory super system for low-income Australians, casual workers and young workers. These are the people who would be hit the hardest. Let us look at the government's record on superannuation so far.

Firstly, they lowered the penalty on noncompliant employers. So their highest priority in the super system is to make it easier for employers to dodge super guarantee obligations. The government's attacks go further. They have frozen the superannuation guarantee, which directly hurts the retirement savings of millions of Australians. The super accounts of average Australians will be $20,000 worse off because of this single policy decision. Then last week, the government floated the idea of permanently freezing super at 9.5 per cent, which would have an even greater impact. The government have also scrapped the low-income superannuation contribution, which will hurt the super savings of 3.6 million workers. Scrapping this will rip up to $500 off the super accounts of workers earning $37,000 or less.

All of these policies from the government are in direct contrast to Labor's plans for super and Labor's plans for better economic management. We want to make super stronger and fairer, and we are committed to ensuring the sustainability of the retirement income system. We have outlined and costed detailed plans for high-income superannuation. These plans tighten the excessively generous, unsustainable super tax breaks for the very wealthy. To improve the fairness and sustainability of our super system, we will ensure earnings of more than $75,000 during the retirement phase are taxed at a concessional rate of 15 per cent instead of being tax free. It is a plan that would return more than $14 billion to the budget over the next decade.

The government still does not have a plan to address the excessive superannuation tax concession for high-income earners. Why don't they have a plan? It goes to their dysfunction and chaos. Labor, on the other hand, have been up-front with the community about our plans for super and about our plans for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. We have been up-front and we have put all of these plans to the community.

With our policy for negative gearing, we will limit it to new housing from 1 July 2017. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. Also, we will reduce the capital gains discount for assets from the current rate of 50 per cent to 25 per cent—also fully grandfathered. We have been very up-front with these plans. Our reforms will strengthen the economy and provide an additional $32 billion in revenue over 10 years. Labor's plan would be the most important structural budget reform in a decade.

When you talk about superannuation, we are the party of superannuation. All the Liberals and Nationals do is make the system harder and worse, especially for low- and middle-income Australians, particularly for women and people in regional areas who will be severely impacted by the government's harsh changes. On the Labor side, we will continue to fight the government's attacks on super. We will fight them every day here in the parliament and out in the community. We will fight them every day up until the next election. We will stand up against this government's very cruel attacks on workers. In the country, we blame the National Party for these cruel attacks on our superannuation system.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is all a bit half-hearted from the Labor Party. We know the Labor Party have one guiding principle with superannuation and that is just treat it like a pinata—whack it a bit more, and you get a bit more money out of it. Over six years of the Labor Party in government, we saw them make 13 changes to superannuation—not to transparency, not to make it easier for people; 13 changes to increase taxation on superannuation by $9 billion. That is the recent legacy of the Labor Party—13 changes to super, $9 billion in tax.

Then last year, the Labor Party hadn't learnt and the shadow Treasurer made a solemn commitment to not increase taxation on superannuation, they made an announcement that they would increase super by $14½ billion over 10 years—again, just treating it like a cookie jar that you raid when you need to get a little more money. We do not treat superannuation in that way.

The Labor Party do the most egregious thing with super: they tax retrospectively

They forget that people made contributions under certain rules. Regardless of the fact that people contributed their money under certain rules, they will tax contributions once they are already in the fund. We will not operate in that way.

Then we have their policy on negative gearing, which is the most ill thought out policy that this parliament has seen in 30 years. The most ill thought out policy for 30 years will be the death knell for half of them over there, so that is fantastic. But they really should have read the policy, because every single superannuation fund that has invested in Australian property will be hit hard by that policy. Every single self-managed super fund that has invested in Australian residential property will be hit by that change. So for them to have the gall to get up today and criticise our policies on superannuation is quite extraordinary. The Labor Party have a track record of continually taxing superannuation—treating it like a pinata, whacking it a bit harder and hoping a few more lollies will drop out of the bottom. We do not support that.

We also think that people have the ability to make decisions in their own best interests. We also want to see the $2 trillion superannuation industry grow to $9 trillion by 2040 and to have the best possible corporate governance arrangements available—corporate governance arrangements that have been proven to work in the private sector. So it is extraordinary that the Labor Party, under pressure from their union masters, who control their preselections, would vote against a change to see more independence on boards. This is $9 trillion. It is not the HSU that you can treat as your own little fiefdom to raid for money like the Labor Party and the unions have done over many years. This is $9 trillion by 2040.

We must have the best corporate governance arrangements available, and that means that industry super funds, of which there are 43 out of about 250 funds, have to get with the program of the rest of the industry and have a mandatory part of their board represented by independent directors. What party could argue against that? The only thing that I can put that down to is that their union bosses put undue pressure on these members to ensure that they vote in a certain way.

The other thing we are doing is making it easier for people to choose their own fund. What could possibly be wrong with a principle that everybody should have the freedom to choose their own fund? Presently, in Australia, up to 800,000 people will have a fund mandatorily chosen for them under an enterprise agreement. What could be wrong with giving those people the ability to change that fund and to choose the fund that they would like their hard-earned money to go into? Let's remember—and the Labor Party needs reminding—that it is not the government's money. It is money that we mandatorily take from people's pockets and invest on their behalf. They should have the right, at the very least, to choose where that money goes.

The Labor Party is standing in the way of better corporate governance; they are standing in the way of giving people more choice as to where their money is going, and they are mercilessly whacking the superannuation of Australians through ever-increasing taxes. It is not a cookie jar for you—the Labor Party—to raid. It is Australian workers' money, and we, on this side of the House, will always stand up for those individuals.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What interesting contributions we have heard from those opposite. They come in here and say that they are the workers' best friend and that they want to look after the workers. But we should have a look at their actions and not their fluffed-up words—and their actions are quite clear.

One of the first things they did was remove the low income superannuation contribution—the $500 that the government put towards the superannuation of people who were earning less than $37,000 a year. These are people on low wages, part-time workers and women who are in and out of the workforce. They shamelessly sit there and take that money away from them and say that they are looking after the workers.

Let's look at the next thing they did. They decided to freeze the superannuation contributions. Instead of raising them, so that people have money to live on in their retirement, they froze them. What is the third thing they did? In true Tory, conservative, right-wing, nut-job fashion they went out and removed the penalties for businesses—their big business mates; the people who line their pockets—who do not pay the superannuation contribution.

This is the key to what happens opposite. They come in here and absolutely disingenuously say, 'We are here to look after workers', but they do not. The first thing they do is attack the people who are on fixed and low incomes. They do not particularly care about workers in any way, shape or form. But they will stand there for the handful of people like their Gina Rineharts, who have lots and lots of money, and do their bidding. We have seen that on many occasions.

Let's look at superannuation for what it is. It is something that Labor put in place because Labor wanted to support people with their retirement incomes. This government attacks superannuation and says that it is not on. Then their hand-picked Small Business Commissioner Kate Carnell—a former Liberal MP—says you should make people sell their houses to fund their pensions. This is the thought that has come out of the mess that is called the T-A-T-A—the Turnbull-Abbott-Turnbull-Abbott—government.

We do not know who is going to be there at the next election; they do not know. But what we do know is that, whatever happens, they will, first and foremost, be out there attacking people who can least afford to be attacked. That is why they looked at bringing in the 15 per cent GST and putting it on fresh food and other services. They do not particularly care. None of those opposite particularly care about the people at the bottom end. They are more worried about lining their own pockets and making sure that they are comfortable.

Let's talk about the superannuation boards that were so ineloquently spoken about by the previous speaker. The ones they want to attack are the industry boards. The industry boards are made up of workers and employers, who work together. And guess what? They outperform every single one of the boards that those opposite put their Liberal mates onto. That is why they want to attack them. They want to attack them because they are building wealth for people. They are building the opportunity for people to have a comfortable retirement.

I know there are a couple of members—only a couple—over there who are probably uncomfortable with the way the government works. But most of them are there because they think that that is the right way to go. You should not be going out and attacking people who cannot afford a big retirement income. Many people who have worked in casual employment or have been in and out of the workforce do not have a large superannuation income to retire on. That is why we have put in the low income superannuation contribution to help people and to give them the opportunity to live well once they get past their retirement age.

As we are talking about retirement age, let us have a look at another thing they did: they lifted it up straightaway, to the age of 70. They are going to make you work longer, they are going to give you less and they want to take more. That is the history of this government over the last 2½ years. It has been nothing but a tangled mass of lies, deception, backstabbing and all of that.

When it comes to superannuation, look at the people who put it in place. Look at the people who actually went out there and said, 'This is what we need to do for this country's future.' That is what built the wealth. The wealth that they talk about in superannuation was built by Labor governments. It started off under Keating and it continued under us. When we were in government, we actually lifted the rates to make sure that people got more superannuation to help them out in their later years of life. As soon as this lot came in, they cut it. It is the story of this government—cuts for the people who cannot afford it, while, at the same time, making sure that they look after themselves and their big business mates.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McEwen, twice in that speech you made references to members of the parliament that suggested impropriety. You should know better, and I expect that in future speeches you will address yourself to that.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for McEwen. As usual, the contribution from those opposite adds absolutely nothing substantive to the debate on the issue we are seeking to discuss. I remind the member for McEwen that when super was introduced it was actually a trade-off for wage increases. So every increase in the superannuation guarantee has an impact on future wage increases. As we stand here, after six years of your government, with the damage that you did to household budgets through the carbon tax and any of the other tax increases that you presided over, is it any wonder that people find life and their budgets very difficult at this point in time? Increasing SG contributions at this time and further impacting on the capacity of people to meet their day-to-day budget requirements is a long stretch.

It is also interesting to note that when those opposite were in government they reduced the concessional contribution limit from $50,000 to $25,000. They wax lyrical about supporting workers and wanting people to save for their retirement, yet one of the things they did quite early in their government, back in 2009, was to actually reduce the capacity of people to put money into super, where they had the ability to put money into super. They halved that capacity for people. Labor's solution to anything is only ever to increase taxes and spending.

The member for McEwen also touched on increasing the retirement age, or the age for accessing the age pension, to age 70. What he did not say was that the preservation age for super is actually 60—that has not changed. Maybe the member for McEwen might like to take some time to get his facts right.

If the member for McEwen and those opposite are so interested in the capacity of people to manage their own superannuation, they might support some of the changes that we are proposing, particularly in terms of the ability for people to choose the fund that they so wish and not to be tied up in union funds under EBAs.

Let me talk about a Western Australian truck driver, Paul Bracegirdle, a member of the TWU. He wanted to choose his own superannuation fund, yet he was prevented from doing so because his super fund was the TWU super fund, which was mandated in the EBA. If you really want to support workers and their choice of super, and their capacity to manage their own superannuation funds, how about you allow people the capacity to choose their own super fund, irrespective of what is in their EBA? How about you allow that and give people true choice and mobility for their super funds?

How about you support the corporate governance changes to superannuation funds? I remind the member for McEwen that they actually apply to all super funds and not just to industry super funds. Additionally, Member for McEwen, they were a recommendation out of the Cooper review, which your government commissioned. You introduced all of these other changes out of the Cooper review, but, strangely, you did not touch the corporate governance ones, which may affect some industry funds. Why not?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are performing better than your lot!

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen says they are performing better. It helps some funds to perform better when you do not price your units on a daily basis. If you are going to have a true comparison, make sure that your unit pricing is on a daily basis, the same as retail funds. There are any number of failures in their argument across the way, because they purport that they want to support the worker, but, when push comes to shove and the rubber hits the road, the reality is that they do exactly the opposite.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is basically lowering—and making it easier for employers not to pay—compulsory super contributions. This government has put forward the fact that they want to reduce the penalties for employers who do not pay their staff properly. The one thing I agree with the previous speaker about is that superannuation is wages. It is wages that people have earned. It is wages that they have decided to defer until they have retired, for their retirement income. It was workers who decided, through collective bargaining, to defer these wages and to save them for superannuation.

It was a Labor government that introduced the compulsory super contribution so that all Australians would have access to super. Prior to this, it was only those at the very top end of the wage bracket who had access to superannuation savings schemes—or people who were in collective agreements. Now the government want to say that people do not have the power to decide collectively which super fund they will have. They want to weaken that opportunity through some of the attacks that they have made on super.

The government have clearly not sat down and spoken to somebody who has lost super as a result of an employer going broke or an employer not paying their superannuation. Time and time again, whether they be cleaners, people working in hospitality or security guards, people who work in a number of businesses lose their super because their employer has chosen not to pay it. Whether it be fraud, whether it be theft, these are people who are not paying people what they are entitled to. This is part of their wage that they are not being paid.

This government wants to go weaker on them and make it easier for them not to pay what they are supposed to. It is like the minimum wage. If you do not pay somebody their weekly wage, you can be pulled up before Fair Work. It should be the same for super. It is compulsory to pay super, yet this government wants to weaken the compliance measures. Already the statistics are out. Roughly 700,000 Australians are losing because employers are not paying super. The Australian National Audit Office believes that it could be as high as 20 per cent of employers that are failing to meet their super guarantee obligations—20 per cent! Imagine if 20 per cent of employees did not receive their pay cheques on Friday. What would the government be doing about that? Maybe this government would be doing nothing about that. Maybe it does not care about low-paid workers. But, if you are required to pay wages on time, you should be required to pay and have the toughest penalties against you if you do not pay super on time.

If we are serious about lowering the pension obligations of the government into the future, that is linked to how much people have in their superannuation. Superannuation is about empowering people in their retirement to have the income that they need to live, and the sooner they start saving superannuation the more they will have in the long run. I know. I am in the generation of superannuation. When the people in their 30s retire, they will have a working lifetime of super to retire on, if we continue as a parliament to support measures to boost those savings.

That is why this government's attacks on super are hurting not only the people of today who are retiring but also the people of my generation and of the future who will retire. There is the fact that it has frozen the super guarantee. Let us just remind people: it is a minimum guarantee. Like the minimum wage, it is the decision that we have made for the minimum amount of savings that people need to ensure they have an income when they retire. That is what this is about: the lowest paid workers in our community, who have worked really hard their whole lives, having enough income to retire on. It is about our cleaners, our nurses, people working in hospitality, people working in food processing—making sure that they can have a decent life in retirement. All they get from this government is attack after attack, whether it be their basic weekly wage or their superannuation. This government needs to stop attacking people's super.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a privilege to follow the bleater from Bendigo, but I have to address three things she said. She was formerly an industrial advocate for United Voice.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. First, I ask you to remind the member to refer to other members by their seats, and, second, I would ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I would ask the member for Barker to withdraw.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Bendigo. She is a former industrial advocate, of course, and she just proved why it is that United Voice took the decision to plant her in this place. As the industrial advocate, she must not have been all that successful, because she just said to the House that superannuation is wages that have been deferred, and that is a decision taken by the employee. She might want to check the definition of 'compulsory'. Joe Bullock knows what compulsory means. He got a bullet to the head, and he got it last night.

She might also want to check about the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. She spoke about workers missing out on their superannuation when companies or individuals go into liquidation. That is why we have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.

Finally, she said people cannot get hauled in front of the Fair Work Commission for failing to pay their superannuation. Of course they can. Newsflash for the member for Bendigo: it is an offence for an employer not to pay the compulsory—you heard it again: compulsory—superannuation contribution. But that is enough about the member for Bendigo. I do not know what I have done, but I seem to follow her every time in this place, and I suppose I will keep doing that for some time going forward.

Enough of the negative. Enough of the not-so-scary scare campaigns that seem to be the order of the day in this place. I want to talk about how we are strengthening superannuation. There are a couple of ways you can go about strengthening superannuation, but the principal one is that you can get more people into jobs, because people going into jobs means people receiving—guess what?—superannuation. There are 421,400 people in this nation who have achieved a job since we came to government. That is 421,400 people who are now receiving superannuation payments who formerly were not. I think that is a pretty strong indication of how one goes about strengthening the system.

The other way that you can strengthen the system is that you can encourage people to make voluntary contributions. Note to the member for Bendigo: voluntary not compulsory. One way that you can do that is that you can keep the rules around superannuation and particularly the way we tax superannuation consistent. If you do not do that, you discourage people from using superannuation as a vehicle to save and invest for their future.

What did Labor do on this? You heard from the member for Deakin earlier: 13 changes to super rules, pocketing $9 billion of extra revenue. Nine billion dollars—that is more money than you can fly a rocket over. It has the effect of discouraging people from investing in superannuation.

What are Labor proposing at the forthcoming election? It caused me to go to their website, which is a pain in and of itself. But I did that and I printed off Labor's fairer super plan. And—surprise, surprise—it is a plan for increasing taxes. They really are a one-trick pony. The only tool in their fiscal toolbox is ratchetting up taxes on the economy. Of course they have got form. Today they are also talking about changing the negative gearing rules—increasing taxes for those attempting to negatively gear. Some will say, 'It is not an increase in tax; it is just taking away a deduction,' but, of course, it is an increase in tax. Not happy with that, Labor are also looking at increasing capital gains taxes. I go back to what I said—they have only one tool in their fiscal toolbox, and that is to ratchet up taxes on Australians.

Note to those opposite—the member for Bendigo and others: you cannot tax your way to prosperity. Do you know what you also cannot do? You cannot legislate your way to prosperity. What we need to do is take the red tape away, reduce taxes and allow the economy to grow because a strong economy means a stronger superannuation system. I think we both agree that that is a good thing—a strong economy and a stronger superannuation system.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has concluded.