Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Why would this government introduce a bill that gives dodgy employers who may have stolen super for the last 26 years an amnesty? Maybe it's because members of this government don't support superannuation at all. We know that during his first speech Senator Bragg said super should be voluntary. He was a little gun-shy the other night in his speech on the second reading, but that is what he said in his first speech. Someone who wasn't as gun-shy was Senator Rennick, the LNP senator from my home state of Queensland. In his second reading debate speech he said:

Of all the rorts that exist in this country, nothing compares to superannuation … At the end of the day, super isn't working … At the very least, superannuation should be voluntary, not compulsory. This is a view that I'll be putting to my colleagues …

He concluded that he had conducted internal polling showing there was support for his push among coalition senators and MPs. The move threatens to open up another front of backbench discontent, with a handful of Senator Rennick's colleagues supporting abandoning legislation on the increase of compulsory superannuation from 9.5 to 12 per cent.

'At the end of the day, super isn't working.' That's what Senator Rennick said. They don't support superannuation. That's why they're bringing in a bill to give people who've underpaid super a 26-year amnesty. Right now we know that nearly one in three Australians are missing out on the superannuation they—