Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to measures contained in the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014.

What happened yesterday and today was we heard from ministers who made it absolutely clear that the Liberal Party never supported workers getting superannuation and still do not today. Twenty years ago the Liberal Prime Minister said:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

The only con that is happening here today from the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance is just that: the removal and freeze of superannuation. The absurd claim that workers will get more money in their pay packets because of a delay in superannuation increases is ludicrous in the extreme. It shows yet again that the party of markets has absolutely no sense of how markets operate. Do they really, seriously think that an employer will pass on the equivalent superannuation increase in wages, or are they just that naive?

Even Kate Carnell, head of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has come out and hosed down this outlandish spin and deception by the Prime Minister. She said a long freeze on super will not guarantee pay increases of equivalent value. Bell the cat. They want people to work longer and harder and not to have access to their own pool of savings. The Liberal Party believes that capital is only for the bosses. They want it to remain a secret locked box not for workers. They hate industry funds as well. They hate working people in control of serious investment and serious capital accumulation.

We all remember it was employer groups that took to the High Court the industrial issue in the late nineties to try to prevent superannuation being included in awards. It was the employers who did not want superannuation in awards to be paid to workers. They wanted to keep it to themselves in defined benefit schemes so they did not have to pay workers when they retired. These are people who also line the Liberal Party pockets. The biggest employer groups and businesses never, ever supported superannuation, and those opposite have got their script from them. They still do not support superannuation, and every opportunity they get they demonstrate why they do not support superannuation for workers.

The Liberal Party are the economic vandals, the socially irresponsible, the party of idiotic cruelty which always will dance to the tune of those who do not believe in workers controlling their own destinies through managed retirement funds. The Liberal Party wants superannuation gone, and there is no doubt about that. Given half a chance of another dodgy backroom deal, they would repeal superannuation overnight. They would ram it through the parliament just like they rammed the raid on super funds yesterday. Of course, Labor will not stand for it. We will continue to campaign for workers' retirement savings just as we always have and always will.

It does not take much for the Liberals to lash out at super. They did it again yesterday and today in saying that super is an impost borne by employers. If you look at the record and the statistics, it is untrue. As former Prime Minister Paul Keating demonstrated at the macro level from 1992 to 2002, compulsory super went up, labour unit costs went down, profit share of the economy went up and productivity went up as well. As the national economic tide went up and productivity increased, it paid for generous wage settlements including superannuation. Yesterday, as the government attacked workers' superannuation, it also attacked mums and dads, small business and, in particular, working women, who are amongst the greatest beneficiaries of compulsory superannuation. A freeze on super takes away from mums and dads and especially from women.

As the government's own documents showed, they did not leave it at that; they then traded the schoolkids bonus. It is gone as well. It is not hanging around. The dodgy, dirty deal they did yesterday took that as well. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind Senator Ludwig that the dodgy deal was done in the shadow of the 2010 election by Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan, when they designed one of the worst taxes in Australia's history. What sort of a tax raises no revenue? At the end of the day, nobody paid the mining tax. I would remind those opposite that we were told that in year one the mining tax would raise $4 billion. The pre-payments raised $200 million—95 per cent less than Wayne Swan told us it would raise—and that now has to be refunded because of the dodgy deal that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan did in the shadow of the 2010 election. This was a terrible tax. It was bad for us internationally in terms of attracting investment into Australia and it was also bad for us in terms of costing us jobs.

Can I remind those opposite that it is understandable that Senator Wong and her colleagues are now upset and it is understandable that they are angry. However, Senator Wong, whilst ever you sit there in denial about what happened at the last federal election you will continue to put yourself outside the process. You have become irrelevant. That is why the deal was done yesterday. Is it perfect? No, it is not. But, in the end, when you deal yourself out of the process, Senator Wong, there is no point coming in here and shouting across the chamber at us, venting your frustration. It is your job as the opposition to be a constructive alternative, but you have chosen to forfeit that role.

The government has delivered on two key commitments: we have repealed both the carbon tax and the mining tax. I would remind those opposite that we took this to both the 2010 election and the 2013 election. Along with scrapping the failed mining tax, we are also abolishing or rephasing all the unfunded promises that you irresponsibly and recklessly attached to this tax. Indeed, this was a tax that was so poorly designed that it was, in fact, costing us billions of dollars each year. Had the mining tax not been abolished it was expected to raise $668 million in total over the forward estimates, compared to the $3.3 billion in revenue that you continued to claim as part of your so-called budget savings strategy. But, despite all of this, you actually locked in more than $17 billion of spending over the forward estimates.

When you look at the number of taxpayers who are actually contributing to the mining tax, fewer than 20 miners have contributed to the net $340 million raised by the mining tax to date. Further, 125 other miners had been required to submit the mining tax instalment notices even though they were not making net payments. So here you have fewer than 20 paying the tax and 125 required to comply with the paperwork for this tax.

The mining repeal tax package will deliver a significant improvement to the budget of around $10 billion over the current forward estimates and it will remain budget neutral over the medium term.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it interesting that here we have the government, as usual, completely unable to defend the dirty deal they did yesterday. There is no mention of the brand new dirty deal on super, there is no mention of taking billions of dollars out of retirement incomes—but that is what we expect from the government. They are a government of no fact and all fiction. As long as they are hurting someone else other than their rich mining mates and those in the big end of town, they are pretty happy.

No matter how the Abbott government tries to dress it up, there is no getting away from the fact that they have stolen superannuation entitlements from 8.5 million Australian workers. They have reduced 8.5 million Australian workers' retirement incomes by their seven-year freeze on superannuation contributions. Despite the many questions we asked them today in question time, they were not able to defend their actions and they were not able to truthfully explain what they had actually done. But Australian workers will not be fooled.

They have done this dirty deal in partnership with the Palmer United Party and on the back of the Prime Minister's clear promise on 6 April 2013, which I am going to quote from, because it is worth reminding the chamber. The Prime Minister said:

Our clear categoric commitment to the Australian people is that we are not going to make unexpected, adverse changes to superannuation.

Let us be very clear—what the Abbott government did yesterday in its dirty deal, assisted by the Palmer United Party, was betray 8.5 million Australian workers by freezing increases to their super. That is both unexpected and adverse. Abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution is an adverse outcome. No matter how they try to dress it up and no matter how they say they support super, they do not. Mr Abbott is on the record calling super 'a con job'.

So what does the freeze mean for 8.5 million Australian workers? With the compounding effect it will mean the loss of $100,000 over a lifetime. On ABC radio we heard another blunder by a senior minister. Mr Pyne said this morning that the 2.5 per cent difference—the difference between the frozen super contribution of 9.5 per cent and the 12 per cent—would somehow end up in the pockets of workers and that workers would somehow be better off. If that is the government's view, they need to guarantee that the 8.5 million Australian workers will receive from every boss in the country in addition to their next wage increase an extra 2.5 per cent that compensates them for their stolen super. Just like the so-called carbon tax on electricity bills, the pay packets of 8.5 million workers should clearly show, according to the logic of Mr Pyne, this extra 2.5 per cent as the stolen super levy. Are the government going to guarantee that? No, of course they are not because they know that is not the truth.

I can say as an experienced and proud union official that when I sat down with workers to negotiate no employer ever said that there was this much for super and this much for the wage increase. That is a complete furphy. If the government are going to stick to that line, it is time they passed legislation that says that the 2.5 per cent additional levy that workers lost on their super will be in their pay packets. That is the only way Australian workers can be guaranteed. But the government will not do that because they have done a dirty deal, are embarrassed and do not really care about the 8.5 million Australian workers who will be worse off under the dirty deal that they did yesterday. It will be on their conscience when they look workers in the face and pretend they are somehow better off.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My conscience is absolutely clear, as is the conscience of every single government member, about the negotiated outcome that passed the Senate yesterday. I am very happy to look the 8.5 million workers in the eye and say: 'We got rid of the carbon tax. This government got rid of the carbon tax. We are ensuring that our higher education system will be sustainable for your grandchildren to be able to achieve and attend.' There are a whole range of measures that the government have brought forward that will mean the 8.5 million workers of Australia will be better off both now and in their retirement.

What we see today, about a year later, is so much denial in this place. There has been a year of promises delivered by the Abbott-Truss government. Yesterday we saw once again another promise being delivered. It has been a year of strong budgetary reforms that deal with the economic malaise left by the ALP-Greens government, yet the denial continues. A year is quite a long time actually, FYI.

The majority of voters, the majority of Australians, voted for the platform of the Liberal-National Party at the last election. I know it hurts a lot—and it must because it is a year later and we are still hearing denial—but that resounding, convincing result at the last election was based on commitments by our side of politics to: one, repeal the carbon tax—check; two, stop the boats—check; three, get the budget back on track—and, hello, yesterday's result starts to do that in the long term; and, four, repeal the mining tax. You would have thought everyone would have been on board for repealing that tax because it actually raised no money. Despite your best attempt at arithmetic, the innumeracy and illogical perspective of the ALP government resulted in a tax that could not raise a brass razoo. In fact, it actually cost us money. It hurts most because the negotiation yesterday ensured that our track back to surplus remains focussed going forward. We will save over $50 billion over the next decade, and that has to hurt.

The low-income superannuation guarantee is money in the pay packet. Senator Lundy in her question spoke about a worker on $40,000 a year. I know that a worker on $40,000 a year would rather put the $83 a month that this actually represents toward their kids' excursions, because you do not have a lot of disposable income when you are on $40,000 a year. You may want to put that amount on your mortgage so you can access equity in your house. We know that the best form of retirement savings for most people is owning their own home. If you are on $40,000 a year it is pretty tough to make those mortgage repayments.

Let us not forget the ALP's track record on focusing on the retirement savings of Australians. They cut $3.3 billion and they increased taxes on superannuation by $9 billion. Ken Henry and Bill Shorten conceded that this issue would affect people's wages. A slower path to 12 per cent means more money in people's pockets right now, and that is exactly what low-income Australians need. The ALP sells it as a cut but, like so much of the ALP's rhetoric, that is so unlike the Australian people's conversation, because Australian people do not spend money before they get it. They actually do not plan what they are going to do with it before it is guaranteed and in their pocket. That is so unlike the ALP's approach.

In terms of meeting our commitments, the government were very up-front—and people still voted for us—that we would abolish this measure, and we will come 1 July 2017. We will revisit incentives for lower-income earners once the budget is back in strong surplus. In terms of the income support bonus, the government was up-front at the last election that we would abolish this measure, as it is funded by a tax that does not raise any money.

We are keeping our promises. Start backing the Australian people's vote. (Time expired)

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity to take note of Senator Cormann's answer to Senator Lundy's question. As I indicated in my first speech, when issues come before the Senate my instinct will be to examine them from the perspective of their effects upon shop assistants.

Superannuation is an issue of great interest to shop assistants. In the early 1980s I was the national industrial officer of the SDA, charged with the responsibility of developing our superannuation policy. Back then, few shop assistants had access to superannuation funds, which were then run by their employers and which therefore offered no portability from job to job and in which the vesting of employer contributions was deferred, often for many years.

At the time, I proposed an accumulation fund with full vesting of contributions immediately to the employee and with portability to allow employees to move around the industry without forfeiting their superannuation. I was pleased to find that Garry Weaven of the ACTU was advocating the same idea and, from this idea, developed industry superannuation funds.

In the retail industry we have developed the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, REST, and CARE, two of Australia's leading industry superannuation funds. Today, shop assistants have almost universal access to superannuation, and REST has over $32 billion in shop assistants' retirement savings and is consistently among the best-performing funds in the country.

Initial claims for superannuation were modest but, under the wage-fixing principles of the time, were offset against wage increases. Superannuation has always been opposed by the Liberals. First, the Liberals joined with employers to argue that superannuation was not an industrial matter. Then in 1992 they opposed then Prime Minister Paul Keating when he increased the superannuation contribution. Then Prime Minister Howard reneged on a promise to increase superannuation, after he was elected in 1996.

Now they propose the freezing of superannuation contributions of 9½ per cent for seven years—yes, seven years. July 2014 to July 2021 is seven years, not six as Senator Cormann tried to tell me yesterday. It will not reach 12 per cent until 2025.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll still be here!

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hopefully.

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

Ignore the interjections.

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government could not be trusted out of sight on superannuation, let alone until 2025. They sought to defer the first increase for a year, then two and now for a seven-year freeze. Heaven knows what their position will be in 2025.

What is this going to cost Australian workers? The Financial Services Council calculates working Australians will have $128 billion less in their accounts by 2025—that is, $128 billion less—and this from a government in which Prime Minister Abbott repeatedly promised there would be no adverse changes to superannuation. This is the Prime Minister's $128 billion broken promise to the workers of Australia. This no-surprises government has this vision for Australian workers in their retirement: work until you are 70, accumulate less superannuation and when thrown onto the pension subsist on a pension which increases at a rate lower than your working-neighbours' wages. It is $128 billion—and Senator Cormann says this is not an adverse change!

I have negotiated wage increases for shop assistants for 37 years and I have never heard an employer say, 'Well Joe, there's no superannuation increase this year, so we're going to top-up our wages offer by half a per cent.' In my experience employers negotiate hard, to limit wage increases to the lowest amount possible. Arising from the super freeze, there will be no increase in wages, no lift in spending, no lift in consumer confidence and no increase in tax receipts. What will this do to the government's proposed budget improvement of $1.23 billion? I will leave it to you to find out. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.