Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said a few moments ago, Australia's system of occupational superannuation is something that most Australians are very, very proud of. There is $2.8 trillion in worker capital. These are savings that Australians have put aside to fund a dignified retirement. But it is providing additional benefits to 15 million Australians and to our national economy. It is providing money to invest in domestic infrastructure and it is providing funds which are earning overseas remittances because our superannuation funds are investing in infrastructure and shares overseas.

Against this background you'd think our superannuation system would be something that members opposite could find a cause to celebrate in. But, no! Speaker, after speaker, after speaker continues to fight the battles of the last decade. We note that there is not a member opposite who voted in favour of the increase in superannuation from 9½ per cent to 12 per cent when the matter was last before the parliament. We know that they opposed it. In fact, we know that the coalition parties have opposed every single statutory increase to superannuation when they've had the opportunity to vote for it in this House. So they have form.

But when you look at the performance of our superannuation, well into its 30th year now, you would think they could look at that and say: 'Do you know what? I voted against it, but, against all the evidence, we were wrong. We've got to get behind this, because it's good for the workers and it's good for our national economy.' But, no! Speaker, after speaker, after speaker commits to fighting the battles of the last decade. Somehow, they think that every bill that has the word 'superannuation' on it is an opportunity to reheat the culture wars between the retail funds and the industry funds. We don't believe there should be a battle between the industry funds and the retail funds. We believe that the only measure of whether superannuation is good or bad is its performance on behalf of the members of the fund.

Yes, it is true, that certain sectors of the superannuation industry didn't fare very well in the Productivity Commission's review of the performance and effectiveness of superannuation. Yes, it is true. Yes, it is true that certain sectors of the industry didn't perform very well in the Hayne royal commission into banking, insurance and financial services. It is true; but you won't hear the member for Mackellar talking about that, you won't hear the member for Goldstein talking about that and you won't hear the member for Hughes talking about that. You won't hear them talking about that, because they are committed to fighting the old culture wars and the old battles of yesteryear.

They see occupational superannuation somehow as a conspiracy. They see it as a conspiracy. They somehow reject the fact that ordinary working people are saving through occupational superannuation for a dignified retirement, it's true. I rather suspect that the thing that really, really offends them, the thing that really sticks in their craw, is the fact that occupational superannuation has seen a bust-up of the old, exclusive chaps' club where members of boards are appointed by previous members of boards, where the old school tie somehow dictates whether you find your way through the upper echelons of the financial sector. It is true that occupational superannuation has seen new entrants to the finance industry, and aren't we better off for it? There are now more women in senior positions in the superannuation industry. There are now more women in senior positions in the finance sector. More women are finding their way onto boards within the banking and finance sector, and isn't that a good thing? This $2.8 trillion worth of occupational superannuation was a gift to the country by previous Labor governments. They have opposed it at every single opportunity. They've had a chance to stand in this House and vote that workers get an increase in their superannuation and they have opposed it. You'd think the evidence would be enough, but no.

On current settings, if the superannuation guarantee legislation stays unamended by those opposite, a worker in the workforce today will retire with a superannuation balance of somewhere between $300,000 and $600,000. That has to be a great thing. They get some dignity in retirement—less reliance of the pension. Perhaps they will have the ability to pay off a mortgage that they were unable to completely pay off during the course of their working life, because people are taking on a mortgage later and later on in life these days. Perhaps they'll have some money to put away to deal with healthcare concerns that they have as they approach their older years. These have got to be seen as good things. Between $300,000 and $600,000 in average retirement savings through their superannuation account. Do you know what the only threat to that is, Deputy Speaker? The only threat to that, because this mob over here who are running an insurgent campaign, because they don't believe—

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

He makes a lot of noise but not a lot of sense. The member for Goldstein seems to think that it's okay for him to take home 15 per cent superannuation but the person who cleans his office is not worth it. He thinks he's worth 15 per cent but the person who cleans his office is not worth it.

When they drop their kids off to the childcare centre in the morning, they get back into their car knowing that they're earning 15 per cent superannuation but the childcare workers aren't worth it. The childcare workers aren't worth it. When they go and pick up their coffee in the morning, they're comfortable in the knowledge that they're getting 15 per cent but the person who's making them a cup of coffee is not worth it. That is literally what they are arguing. Not one of them is saying: 'I'll forgo my 15 per cent. I'll go back to 9½. But for the people who clean my office, who look after my kids and who make my coffee in the morning, 9½ is good enough for them.' We will fight you every step of the way. If you are silly enough to fall in line with these clowns over here, then go your hardest. We won't fall for it. This is a gift to the Australian people, which you have opposed every step of the way. Every step of the way!

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say to the House and all contributors that I don't have a position on anything. You can refer comments through the chair, not at the chair. The question before the chair is the bill be read a third time. All those in agreement say aye, those against no. I declare the ayes have it. The noes have it?

Honourable members interjecting —

The House will not yell at the occupant of the chair! Minister?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Deputy Speaker: when you called for the noes, only one voice was heard.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the House and to ensure that the view of the House is expressed, I'll ask the question again. Those in agreement say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it.

Honourable members interjecting—

The noes have it? A division is required. Ring the bells.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a third time.