Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

We're talking about providing superannuation contributions for people receiving parental leave pay. I think it's great these people who are bringing up future generations will have some extra money tucked away in their super when they retire. But one policy that really makes sense to me is paying super on carer payments. There are 2.8 million people who provide informal care across Australia. About 300,000 of these people receive carer payments. Half of them are over 55 and three-quarters of them are women. When introducing the bill we're debating here, the Treasurer said that paying super on government payments would mean a more dignified and secure retirement for Australian women. Given that so many women receiving carer payments are providing care on a full-time basis, why are we not also paying super on their carer payments?

Becoming a carer happens in an instant for so many, with the need to provide full-time care overtaking any other commitment. It's not planned. If your child suddenly requires daily care, you can't work and care for them at the same time. If your partner's health deteriorates, you now manage your day-to-day care needs rather than go to work. If an elderly parent needs your support so they can stay at home for longer, you can't help them to do that every day if you're at work.

People receiving carer payments mostly take time out of the workforce to provide care. Some of them won't go back to work, because their caring responsibilities overtake everything else. Others return to work, but they restart super contributions at a disadvantage, because their balance is less than it was before they left. They take a break for a year or two to care for a loved one, so there's a break in their income. It also means one or two years with no super contributions from their employer. And if, when they return to their work, they go part time, the super gap will continue to grow; it will never close.

Women already retire with less super than men. We know that's not fair. These gaps in super are making it worse for carers, most of whom are women. Paying super on carer payments would be an investment in future superannuation savings, meaning less reliance on the age pension. It's basically the Australian government putting money into carers' superannuation on their behalf.

What I'm suggesting is not going to send the country into a huge deficit either. While it would be nice to be able to top up super payments for all carers, I know that won't work, because about half of the people receiving carer payments have been on them for more than 10 years. Paying super for people in this situation will take the pressure off the pension, but because they've been out of the workforce for so long, it won't bring up the balance enough and they will still have to rely on the age pension in retirement. But I have what I think is a fiscally responsible alternative that will help younger carers. If we limited payments to carers under 40 and made superannuation payments for the first two years, that would cost about $60 million per year. As that $60 million grows in carers' super accounts, it will save money in the long run. These payments would not only make our budget healthier but also support carers to retire with dignity, so it provides equity.

Are you thinking this sounds good but wondering where the $60 million will come from? In response, I ask: where are the billions we spend every year on super concessions coming from? This is the kind of thing you can afford to do if you are prepared to shave one-tenth of one per cent from the existing superannuation tax concessions or just one per cent of the tax deductions we give to mostly high-income earners. Consider the difference this could make to early-career carers. Instead of retiring in poverty just because a loved one develops a terminal illness and you need to take leave from work to help look after them, a carer will know they have some extra support they can draw on at the end of their career.

Nobody should have to choose between dignity in retirement and the dignity of a child, a partner or a parent in the final months of their lives. This is one way we can make sure that that choice does not ever have to be made. Yes, it costs us something and, yes, I know the money must come from somewhere, but choices about superannuation are already being made every single day, and we've been making these choices for decades. The policy is something we could easily choose to accept and adopt. From where I'm sitting, the current super situation is not equitable, but this is a sustainable solution that provides for carers once they have supported their loved ones.