Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, you are right, Senator Watson: 1.1 million people is a lot of people. But I seem to recall the Labor Party having a co-contribution scheme, which we announced in 1995 and the Liberal Party signed up to prior to the election in 1996, which was to provide a co-contribution to some eight to nine million Australians. I want to contrast that with the outcome of the existing co-contribution, which is solid and substantial. I acknowledge that; indeed, the Labor Party has announced we will be keeping what is effectively a much watered down co-contribution compared to the co-contribution that Labor announced some 11 years ago, which this government, despite the fact that it signed up to it prior to the 1996 election, then scrapped in 1997—not in 1996, when the budget balancing measures occurred; it scrapped it a year later. I will just point out for the record that, as I said, that would have delivered a co-contribution to eight to nine million working Australians and, on figures at the time, would have delivered an additional contribution to superannuation of approximately $4½ billion to $5 billion per year.

It is in that context that I remind the Senate, and Senator Watson in particular, that what in fact the government have done is scrapped a massive Labor initiative and announcement, even though they promised and committed to it prior to the 1996 election, and then effectively delivered a considerably watered down version of Labor’s co-contribution. But I accept the generally positive contribution of Senator Watson that the current scheme has made a difference to a substantial number of people. I make my comments in that context, and Labor is committed to continuing the scheme.

I would also point out that, if we look at the latest APRA figures on the total level of savings in superannuation—I think it is at around $910 billion or $915 billion, approximately—and if you analyse the APRA figures for the growth in superannuation from about $35 billion or $40 billion just prior to the introduction of compulsory superannuation, which was a Labor initiative back in 1987, the overwhelming reason for the growth in superannuation assets in this country is not the co-contribution; it is not the spouse rebate; it is that superannuation is compulsory in this country. That is the fundamental reason why we have seen such a big growth in superannuation assets over the last 20 years. The other major reason is that we have had good, positive rates of return, at least in the last three years. They are the fundamental drivers of the asset growth in superannuation in this country. Whilst the government’s watered down co-contribution, as compared to Labor’s proposed initiative, is useful for those people—we acknowledge and accept that, and we endorse the scheme—it should be seen in that context.

Finally, we look forward to seeing the legislation and the detailed costings of the government’s superannuation announcement. I think it is reasonable to actually receive those details before the shadow ministry considers the government’s announcements. We are in general support of those changes, but we want to see those details before the shadow ministry considers them. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.