Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was not expecting to get the call for a few minutes, so bear with me for one moment.

I did want to start with a brief rebuttal of some of the issues that Senator Bullock raised, because he did go a little bit beyond the motion—and I will stick to the motion, I assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I do have to rebut some of the statements that were made and some of the assertions that were made on a range of issues by Senator Bullock. He touched on things like superannuation, car industry jobs and unemployment. I want to touch on those before I go to the detail of the motion before us.

Firstly, on superannuation: we heard it again from Senator Bullock, and it seems to be this modern Labor Party approach—or, at least, a post Hawke-Keating approach—which is blind, it seems, to the impacts of policy. What Senator Bullock seems to be suggesting on superannuation and what Labor seems to be suggesting is: when you increase compulsory super, there is no impact. You can do it. It is always a good thing. It never has any impact. Of course, economists will tell you different. They will just tell you that it is a deferred pay rise. Bill Shorten has said that it comes out of your wages. There is less money for wages. If you do not believe that, Senator Bullock, and if you think that what most economists say—what virtually every economist says—and what Bill Shorten has said is true, then you would double or triple compulsory super, because it would have no impact. We know, of course, that—

Senator Bullock interjecting—

But that is the logical extension, Senator Bullock, of what you are saying, because if it has no impact on wages, if it has no impact on businesses, then jack it up as high as you like! It is a magic pudding! We know that that is not true. We know that as compulsory super goes up there is less money for wage rises. That is a fact. And no serious economist will dispute that. So we believe in compulsory superannuation, but if you do not increase it as quickly as the Labor Party would like, that does mean that there is more money for people's wages. It means that people have that money now, to choose what to do with. They can choose to put it into their super. They can choose to put it into their mortgage. They can choose to live a different lifestyle. That is an individual choice for individuals and families to make, not one to have dictated to them by governments.

Senator Bullock touched on car industry jobs.

Senator Lines interjecting—

'No understanding'—I hear from Sue Lines about how I have got no understanding of the magic-pudding theory on superannuation and everything else.