Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight I want to talk about an issue that is significant for low-income earners and significant for women—women like Barbara. Barbara is a teachers aide from Queensland, and in 2014 she earned less than $37,000. Fortescue Metals earns a little more than Barbara! In 2014, it made a US$2.7 billion net profit, up 56 per cent on 2013. Barbara is over 50. She has some concerns about the future, and she said to her union, United Voice, 'I'm looking at the end of my working life and find myself asking, "Do I have enough?" With the cost of basics forever going up, I just don't know if I'll be able to support myself.' Fortescue is a little more bullish about the future than Barbara. After posting its 2014 results, its CEO stated:

Fortescue's record net profit reflects an outstanding performance across all areas of our operations.

Fortescue and Barbara—two Australians, each contributing in their own way.

One year ago, the Abbott government took from Barbara to pay Fortescue. It legislated to cease a program that helped low-income Australians save for retirement, in order to partly fund the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax. I am here to eulogise that program, the low-income superannuation contribution scheme. It was a good program, a program that made sure people earning less than $37,000 did not have to pay more tax on their super than they did on their ordinary wages; a program that helped families on low incomes save for retirement; and a program that the Institute of Public Accountants supported on equity grounds, because it restored some balance. Thanks to the Abbott government, this program will cease to operate in 2017.

Yesterday, the government tabled reports by the ATO on how the low-income super contribution scheme has gone thus far. The reports tell us a positive story. Over 2.6 million Australians were helped during the 2013-14 financial year, with the quarterly report suggesting a similar number for the 2014-15 financial year. What those reports do not contain, however, are the stories that lie behind these figures.

Thirty-seven thousand dollars a year is not a lot of money. The people who have been helped by this program are honest people working honest jobs. They are teachers aides, security guards, cleaners and shop assistants, and for the most part they are women. Women vastly outnumber men as low-income earners. Part of this is due to the gender pay gap, which sees lower wages paid in female dominated professions. Part of this is due to women bearing the bulk of caring responsibilities and needing to take flexible or part-time jobs to care for their children, their loved ones or their parents. Whatever the causes, the results are very clear: women face retirement insecurity. From the age of 35 until retirement, men typically have double the superannuation of women, and 35 per cent of women have no super at all.

This is not a lifestyle issue. It is the cause of real hardship. More single women over 60 live in poverty than any other social group in Australia, and this problem is not likely to disappear. Most women who will retire in the next 20 years do not have enough superannuation to allow a modest retirement. They are women like Barbara.

The low income super contribution could not solve this problem on its own. There is no simple solution to the retirement insecurity that faces women and low-income earners more generally. But the Low Income Super Contribution did at least provide people on low incomes with at least a little more peace of mind. It was a program that directed assistance at some of Australia's more vulnerable workers. And in cancelling it, the Abbott government has directed its contempt at some of Australia's most vulnerable people and their families. (Time expired)