Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It has been clear not just in this debate but by the comments made by the government in the media and in this House that those opposite just do not understand how superannuation works. When superannuation was introduced, the guarantee was a generational change. We are not talking about people who are retiring today having enough money in their superannuation accounts to live on. Low-paid workers will still need a pension. We are talking about a generation of young workers, the people who will have a working lifetime of superannuation when they retire. We are talking about people in their 30s who started to accrue super when they started working. They are the people who will really benefit from a working lifetime of superannuation.

People in my electorate who are older and a bit worried about what is in their superannuation accounts sometimes say to me, 'I feel a bit guilty about needing a pension.' I always say to them, 'You've worked hard, you've paid your taxes and you are entitled to a pension when you retire.' Let us not forget that superannuation was only introduced in the 1990s under the Hawke-Keating government. This is the point that the other side misses. The people you are really hurting by stopping the increase in the superannuation contribution are the young people, the people currently working in low-paid jobs. The Treasurer said on radio, 'But that is okay; they will get it in their wages.' I want to see legislation come before this House in which he increases their wages. He is relying on all those really good employers out there to increase their wages. I have never met an employer yet, particularly a big employer, who would just say: 'Guess what? We don't have to pay super, so we are going to give it to you in your next pay rise.' Is that what the government is relying on? If you are deadset serious about putting that money back into the wages of low-paid workers, then bring the bill before the House. To all those Nationals members that are sitting here: you have some of the most disadvantaged electorates—people on very low incomes, people working insecure jobs. Why are you not standing up for those workers to ensure that they have decent superannuation accounts when they retire? All that we have seen from this government, all we have seen from the coalition—all we have ever seen from them—is a tax. It is a tax on low paid workers.

Superannuation is a really good area to look at. When Labor was in government, we introduced a plan under which self-funded retirees whose incomes were over $100,000 paid some tax. It was a tax rate of 15 per cent, once their superannuation income was $100,000. To put it into context, we were asking those people to pay the same amount of tax as a worker on $68,000. As an example of this government's twisted priorities, one of the first things they did was to repeal that measure. In the legislation that they introduced yesterday, we now see them taking away superannuation from the lowest-paid workers—yet another example of the twisted priorities of this government. They are quite happy to look after their own, the people who do really well in the top end of the income bracket, and they are subsidising that by taking away from those who are on the lowest incomes. The only way we can ensure that people have enough self-funds, enough put away to retire on in the future, is by continuing to gradually increase the superannuation guarantee—so that people in their 30s will have enough to retire on in their 60s. That is how we get control of our pension bill—by empowering people, working people, to have enough in their superannuation accounts. The government have got their priorities wrong. They are putting a few mining companies ahead of nine million workers. They are putting mining companies ahead of 1.3 million families and ahead of 3.2 million small businesses. (Time expired)

See this speech in context