Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Marielle Smith today relating to superannuation.

As our population gets older, ensuring a fair and proper superannuation system is vital. This is especially the case for women, who have child-raising breaks in their career and a longer life expectancy than men. In the early nineties, the very idea of compulsory superannuation was denounced by the LNP, those opposite, and the business lobby as a 'company killer'—that unemployment would rise and the economy would be damaged. All that was wrong, of course. Now we have the LNP again, led by Senator Bragg, telling low-income earners that superannuation isn't working for them. It's a bit rich for someone on over $200,000 a year to tell someone on less than $50,000 a year that they don't need a decent retirement income. How dare they? Not to be left out on his own, in the other place Mr Tim Wilson and Mr Craig Kelly also want to talk about the planned super rate rise to 12 per cent being handed to workers as being a 'pay rise', not superannuation.

This LNP government want to get their hands on the superannuation of workers. They want to take it away. They want to stop them getting the rise. Senator Cormann stood here today and said he refuted that, but he didn't rule out that it would be in the review. He didn't rule that out. How dare they come in here and tell people on low incomes that they're not worthy of a decent retirement income, that they should look forward to their retirement existing on the age pension—that's what they expect them to do—and not have anything extra to enjoy those little things in life like maybe a visit to their interstate family or that little trip that they could not afford in their younger days when they were raising their kids, struggling every day on a pension to pay their power bills, to buy food, to buy medications. They want them to do all that again while existing on the age pension.

We know that women have less superannuation than men. I've highlighted that many times in this place. But until the superannuation guarantee act came into place in the early 1990s, many working women had no retirement savings at all. There were many men who also had no retirement savings until that act came into place. But let me tell you a little bit about the working women. Women currently retire with 47 per cent less superannuation than men. On average, women live five years longer than men. Women only receive a third of the government tax concessions on super. Men receive the other two-thirds. Forty per cent of older single retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in their retirement. Some 46.9 per cent of women are in the workforce. So the statistics are skewed. Forty-four per cent of women rely on their partner's income as the main source of funds for their retirement. The average female salary is $44,000. That includes part-time workers. Female graduates earn $5,000 less than male graduates in the same role. Women spend an average of five hours more per day caring for children than men. Forty-three per cent of women work part-time and yet they earn under $50,000. The statistics are glaring. What the backbench over there, and in the other place, are supporting is that that money should not be going into a superannuation fund for these workers to retire on. It is outrageous. Women take an average of five years out of the workforce to care for their families. So what we're seeing here again and again are deep divisions in the government ranks, with the Prime Minister urging his MPs to go through the usual internal party processes. But there are a growing number of Liberal MPs who are agitating on this issue. To them and to the Prime Minister I have four words: hands off our super. (Time expired)

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

Isn't it interesting how afraid those opposite are of bright ideas? This is the season of maiden speeches and, thanks to a very successful election outcome by the Liberal and National parties on 18 May, you're going to hear a lot of new ideas from our bright new senators and MPs elected in that particular election, where Australians chose to back the Liberal-National parties and our candidates to continue to deliver a strong economy and to continue to work to ensure that that strong economy delivers local jobs right around Australia. We're not afraid of ideas, so you're going to hear a lot of different reasons why people have come here. On your side, you'll only hear one reason: 'My union has a view, and it wants it expressed in the Australian parliament.' That's all that your new senators and MPs will be contributing to this place. 'My union needs me to stick up for them here in this place,' Whereas our new members and senators have a whole range of things they want to see delivered over a period of time, and their maiden speeches are the time to do that.

What you shouldn't get confused about is a maiden speech by a new senator or MP and government policy—two very different things. We're not afraid of new ideas, and we look forward to discussing and debating the many wonderful ideas that have been raised—and some old chestnuts, as well, that always get dusted off and brought out at maiden speech time—over the course of our careers, but the government's position on superannuation is clear. It has not changed, and to try to use people's contributions here in their maiden speech—the philosophies that they've all brought, the diversity that our party rooms bring to this place—as somehow a proxy for government policy is just ridiculous and actually shows how desperate you are, how despondent you are at the result of 18 May.

Our government's policy on superannuation guarantee hasn't changed. Let me be unequivocal on that. To come into this place and bray on as if somehow we're going to dismantle the retirement of senior Australians on the back of someone's maiden speech is absolutely ridiculous. Our focus on superannuation is actually to get rid of high fees, duplicate accounts, underperforming funds and unnecessary insurance, because one thing we on this side of parliament want to see is that hardworking Australians get to keep more of their own money. We did that by promising income tax cuts and, thanks to this place passing those income tax cuts in the last sitting, more Australians—94 per cent of hardworking Australians—will get an income tax cut over coming years, getting to keep more of their hard-earned cash. We don't apologise for that. That is actually why we sought election and is actually part of our mandate.

Australians need to have confidence in our superannuation system and be assured that it's going to be used for its core purpose, which is actually providing income into retirement. Our government believes it's essential that the superannuation sector be managed with the highest level of responsibility and integrity for the benefit of members. If only we could be confident that the Australian union movement could be managed in a way that workers could have confidence in its integrity and that it was actually being focused on members' interests and not on the interests of the union thugs such as John Setka. I'm really looking forward to Anthony Albanese explaining how supporting the expulsion of Mr Setka from the Labor Party but not supporting legislation that would actually make it happen—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Gallacher.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the senator to the appropriate title of the person in the other place.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind you, Senator McKenzie, to refer to others by their correct titles.

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

I'm looking forward to Mr Anthony Albanese explaining how Labor is not supporting legislation to ensure that members of unions can have confidence in the integrity and the responsibility of those managing their money and the millions of dollars that the Australian union movement uses.

At least $30 million of workers' money is being siphoned annually from militant-trade-union-owned worker entitlement funds that are meant to administer workers' money for workers' benefits. This is what our legislation in the other place is seeking to address. So, instead of coming in here and mistaking a maiden speech for government policy, why don't you get serious about supporting Australian workers and support— (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Cormann to a question asked by my colleague Senator Marielle Smith. At the outset, in response to Senator Cormann's statement, 'All this was transparent throughout the election campaign, all this was part of the policies we put to the people,' I want to use one example from Senator Bragg's speech, and it goes to the point:

We have the fourth-largest private pension pool in the world with only 25 million people. It remains a strange but huge experiment.

Where, in what land, does a contribution in this chamber about having the fourth-largest savings pool in the world from a relatively small population become, somehow, a 'strange but huge experiment'? It is a very successful example of what Australia can do well. It's not without challenges, but you never went to the election saying you're going to delay superannuation payments of 12.5 per cent. You never went to the election and said: 'We've got this strange, huge experiment; we've actually got too much money in workers' retirement accounts!' Try and sell that out there!

Kerry Packer said, 'You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime and I've had mine.' Maybe the senator will be the one we get. We'll only get one Senator Andrew Bragg, who's so ridiculous in his ideology that he's going to go try and tell 10 million or 12 million Australian workers they've got 'too much money in their accounts! Too much money! It's a strange experiment!' What a load of you know; come on. Anyway, we're lucky to have him. This is good for us. I'm sure that people who have an $80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 investment account in super are going to look at his comments and say: 'They're more than passing strange. I get comfort from having a retirement balance of whatever amount. If I get TPD, income protection and, dare I say, life insurance from a respectable group life insurance policy, I get some comfort from that as well.'

Senator Urquhart is exactly right. There is no greater example of the disparity of the earning capacity of women than in superannuation. Their accounts are invariably lower, they're invariably out of the workforce for longer periods of time and they're almost always lower-paid.

I've had people put it to me that the actual value of that superannuation account for most of their 35 or 40 working years, is the security of having group insurance for death, TPD and income protection. When they do get to that retirement phase, they have had that security overlay in all their working life. If you lot take it away for younger people and for less fortunate people in the workforce who earn less money, what happens when they get injured? What happens when they're totally and permanently disabled and can no longer work? What happens if, unfortunately, someone gets killed and they've got dependants? I actually know, because we used to have a barbecue—I worked at mine sites where we donated a day's pay after a death. I know what the system was before, and you lot want to take us halfway back there. It's an absolute disgrace! And you let loose those ideologues over the back there—the Patersons, the Stokers—probably never done a decent hard day's work in their lives! You let loose those ideologues—

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

On a point of order: can I remind Senator Gallacher of his own point of order that he raised against Senator McKenzie—that is, that people in this and the other place ought be referred to by their proper title.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Abetz, and I'll remind you to please direct your remarks to the chair. Senator Gallacher, again, people need to be referred to by their correct titles in this place. Please continue.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely my intention is also to refer to the people on the other side by their correct title. I don't know if 'ideologue' was the point of order, but I don't really think that that is disparaging; I think it is the correct description of some of those on the other side.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallacher, it was using their last names without their title of 'senator'.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said 'Senator Stoker' and then 'Paterson', so thank you—point of order taken. The reality is we know what the world was like prior to '84, '86 and '87, when unions created industry super funds. We know how immeasurably better the world became in '92 when it became the superannuation guarantee. We've had 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, and our pride in our savings pool should be a national pride. We can do better, and no-one on this side of the chamber says anything other. But to take away that security overlay that is there in group life insurance is fraught with real challenges, and it will impact on the most vulnerable. And you need to see that, rather than having the tax take in the forward estimates of $600 million.

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

You know the Australian Labor Party's on the back foot when they raise, as the issue of the day, two sentences out of the maiden speech of the most rookie senator in this place. To pick two sentences out of an excellently crafted speech and to try to make that the issue of the day tells the Australian people, yet again, something they already know—that the Labor Party are devoid of a forward agenda. They have no policies to pursue. Indeed, today's great agenda item for the Labor Party is to attack two sentences in Senator Bragg's first speech. Really? Is this the best the Labor Party can do? Regrettably, the answer's yes—that's the best they can do.

And why is it that the two particular senators that raised this issue felt so compelled to do it? All you've got to do is ask, 'What did they do before they came to this retirement home for washed-out trade union officials?' Oh, they happened to be trade union officials and trade union bosses. And from this super scheme that Senator Bragg referred to, who are the great beneficiaries? Oh, it happens to be the trade union movement. The trade union movement milks money from these funds, and guess where the money finds its way back to? To the Australian Labor Party! And guess what they do with it? They run campaigns to elect their union officials to this place. It is the full circle of the money-go-round of ripping off workers to ensure that the Labor Party gets sufficient funds. Why do they need these super schemes? Because the union officials who have just spoken have seen a decline in trade union membership. They can no longer run on the voluntary contributions of workers wanting to join a union.

Membership in the trade union movement has collapsed. It is now about one in 10 in the private sector. Ninety per cent of Australia's private sector workers don't want to be in a union. 'Oh, how do we get money out of them in that case', asks the Labor Party, 'if we can't force them into a union anymore?' What better way than to have a super scheme which, with a few little add-ones, can be milked to ensure a stream of income for the trade union movement? That is what we've seen today from the contributions of Senator Urquhart and Senator Gallacher, both former trade union officials concerned about the funding stream for their unions for their ongoing longevity.

Let's be clear, Labor senators come into this place basically as ventriloquist's dolls from the trade union that they formerly represented, whereas senators that come in on this side of the chamber come from a unique and varied background. Senators on this side of the chamber aren't ventriloquist's dolls for certain interests. They are not the cookie-cutter types of senators that come from the Labor Party's side. They are all individuals with good dynamic ideas that are worthy of consideration and worthy of exploring.

As the leader in the Senate quite rightly said, just because a new senator in his first speech explores a particular idea in two sentences out of a 20- or 25-minute speech does not make that idea government policy. That is why the Labor Party's latching onto this shows the desperation of the Australian Labor Party. They have no ideas of their own, nothing to offer by way of a positive contribution and nothing to suggest how the cost-of-living pressure might be able to be reduced for the Australian people. They say, 'What is the issue of the day? Let's pick on two sentences from the speech of a brand new senator who floated an idea for consideration.'

Whilst the Labor Party continues to wallow in this type of activity the Australian people will be quite right in their ongoing rejection of the Australian Labor Party. I would encourage the Labor Party to use this facility in the Senate to take note of answers to advance positive ideas for the benefit of the nation. (Time expired)

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we're doing on this side of the House is seeking clarity, better information and understanding. The desperation is not from this side of the House. The desperation is in those families who are struggling to feed their children, who are struggling to live on CDP—$11 a day—and who are struggling to live on Newstart. That's where the desperation is. So when a senator comes into the chamber and brings forward ideas we naturally will ask and examine: 'Where is the government going on this? How can Australians bank on what Senator Cormann says when members of his own government are touting more interference, in this case in superannuation?'

In the Northern Territory alone we have a figure of more than $200 million in lost and unclaimed super owed to people in the Northern Territory. I realise that this may be a small amount in the nationwide figure of $17.5 billion in lost super, but it is a huge amount for a population of less than 250,000 people. Thirty per cent of the population in the Northern Territory are First Nations people. So it is imperative that, when an idea or a concept as important as superannuation is even questioned, we challenge it and ask questions around it.

We have an ever-growing number of government members speaking out and undermining assurances from senior cabinet members about superannuation increases. It should be straightforward. These increases should proceed as guaranteed in law, yet we have even brand new senators talking about what they want to see happen with superannuation. Good luck to them, obviously, and welcome to the Senate, but also welcome to the scrutiny that is required of each and every senator. We all know that.

Senator Bragg made a very interesting first speech last night. Much of it I was very happy to hear, in particular that part around First Nations and their voice to parliament. But he also threw in the idea that, for some reason, superannuation contributions should be voluntary for low-income earners. So people who are low-income earners can look forward to an old age of poverty? These are the questions we have to now examine and ask. Or maybe they can live on the pension that Senator Ruston thinks is so generous.

Senator Bragg's statement that First Nations people should be rightly and properly recognised in the Australian Constitution is to be applauded. He's one of the first members of the government to support the inclusion of an Indigenous advisory body in the nation's founding document. But what is the government's actual position on constitutional recognition of Australia's First Peoples?

When we come in here and talk about superannuation, there is a lot that the government can turn its attention to to make sure the super system is working for all Australians. I've given you the figure in terms of the people of the Northern Territory. Recently, a Victorian charity called First Nations Foundation was in the Top End helping Territorians, particularly residents in our remote areas. As we know, in the Northern Territory over 100 Aboriginal languages are spoken. Those people were able to listen to the First Nations Foundation on how they can reclaim their lost super. Understanding the super system is a massive struggle for First Nations people and others with English as a second or third language living in remote areas. I mean, oh my goodness, you can have the best education, but understanding the super system is still a complex process, so imagine what it's like for those people who have English as a second or third language. It's extraordinarily difficult.

The Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation's chief executive, Alastair King, has rightly said that the superannuation industry really needs to lift its game for people living in remote regions. In areas where internet access is poor or basically non-existent, it can be incredibly difficult to access this sort of information. Most people don't even know where to start looking for their lost super funds or even know they had superannuation funds they could rollover or access. The superannuation system has been pretty slow in adopting strategies that protect vulnerable customers. That's why this side of the house needs to keep you guys accountable.

Question agreed to.