Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

  but the Senate is of the opinion that the repeal of the Low Income Superannuation contributions should not be concealed in this legislation as it will:

(a) diminish, by around $27,000, the retirement savings of one in three Australians,

(b) negatively impact on almost one in two working women and 80 percent of women who work part time, and

(c) will place further pressures on future governments due to increased costs to the aged pension.

The low-income super contribution is a tax rebate to low-income Australians earning less than $37,000 per year. It is a rebate of $550 per year, which is aimed at supporting their retirement savings. It addresses the discrimination in our super tax system, which favours high-income earners. That system sees low-income earners paying more tax on their super contributions than they did on their take-home pay, while high-income earners pay the 30 per cent flat rate on contributions, even though their marginal tax rate is higher. That means that high-income earners get a tax break while low-income earners do not.

The repeal of the low-income super contribution will impact disproportionately and unfairly on women. As the Australian Greens spokesperson for women, I indicate that the Greens strongly object to its scrapping. Women are more likely to be in casual and part-time employment and are more likely to have caring duties which take them away from paid work for a time. On average, women retire with $112,600 in super, while men retire with $198,000. There are many contributing factors, including caring responsibilities and unpaid work, career breaks and overrepresentation in casual and part-time work. But the fact remains that this bill, with the removal of the low-income super contribution, would deplete the retirement savings of one in every two working women and 80 per cent of women working on a casual or part-time basis.

By seeking to junk the low-income super contribution the Abbott government is making a cash grab on the retirement savings of one in three workers to the value of around 27,000, or 15 per cent, of their expected retirement savings. This raid on super savings will place further pressures on future governments in relation to the age pension. That is why we have moved the second reading amendment, to protect the low-income super contribution.

We come back to the fact that this will have a massive and disproportionate impact on women. It should never have been tied to the mining tax. The low-income super contribution was always about equity and removing it will further entrench the disparity that women face when they retire. The bill abolishes the low-income super contribution for all working Australians and, in particular, will have that effect on working women. This change has significant impacts on everyday Australians and, frankly, has not had the public airing and debate that it deserves.

Tonight, I would like in the very brief time left to me to acknowledge the hard work that has been done by a broad range of groups and individuals who have campaigned for this sensible and much-needed policy to be kept, particularly those working under the banner of 'Women in Super' and many unions and superannuation organisations. I think it is important to put this in the context of the other antiwomen moves that we see from this government. The Abbott government's record on women is bad and it is getting worse. The government's changes to HECS, by imposing the new interest rate on student loans, will again impact disproportionately on women. Women will pay an average 30 per cent more over the course of their working lives.

In terms of workplace gender equality reporting, we know that the Abbott government has delayed a scheduled improvement in that reporting, which would have required businesses to provide additional information on how many women they interview, appoint, promote and retain, compared to men. That leaves us with less comprehensive data on which to base efforts to close the shameful gender pay gap that we still have in this country, of more than 17 per cent.

Debate interrupted.