Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to take note of answers from Senator Abetz to Senator Bullock with regard to the very important question of superannuation for Australian workers. In government, federal Labor put in place mechanisms to lift the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent from 1 July 2013. That would have boosted the retirement savings of 8.4 million Australians and would have lifted retirement savings more than $500 billion by 2037. A person aged 30 today on average full-time earnings would have retired with an extra $127,000 in superannuation savings.

Before the election, on 14 different occasions, Mr Abbott promised there would be no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation. Because of a tawdry backroom deal with Mr Palmer, over nine million working Australians will be worse off in retirement. Mr Abbott, we know, does not believe that superannuation is necessary. I have a quote from him that says:

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

He said that back in 1995, but I do not for a minute think that he has changed his mind with regard to superannuation. In March 2012, he said:

We have always as a coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.

They were being honest, for a change, about what they think about superannuation. But in 2013 the Prime Minister appeared to have moved a bit, because he said in a doorstop interview:

… the commitment I give is that there will be no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation.

If people's not being able to put away enough money to have a comfortable retirement is not an adverse change, I do not know what is. In my book, that is an adverse change.

The government's freezing of the superannuation guarantee is another broken promise, which will hit the retirement savings, as I said, of nearly nine million Australian workers. If you are 25 and you are earning an average income, you will be $100,000 worse off by the time you retire. I would like people to think about that, because, with an ageing population, people are going to rely more on their superannuation. I notice that those on the other side—the couple that are able to be here—have their heads down. I think that is because they are very ashamed of that fact. They realise that people work very hard all their life to be able to live in their retirement in a comfortable—I am not talking about lavish—lifestyle. But, no, according to that side of the room, you do not deserve to have that comfort. In question time, Senator Abetz said words to the effect that people would receive the difference in their wages. Senator Abetz, I have news for you. Talk to some of the local small businesses in the area in which you and I live, because they are telling me that they are not going to pay it into wages. Those people are going to miss out altogether. It is not a swap; it is a dud deal by those on the that side. I am not saying that all employers will not pass it on, but I know already of a number in Tasmania, Senator Abetz's and my home state, that will not pass it on.

We have people who will be worse off in their retirement, due to the heartless, cruel tactics of the government. They have come in and said, 'No cuts to pensions, no adverse effects to superannuation, no cuts to education,' but all we have had from them is exactly the opposite. They do not have the honesty to face the people before the election and say that there will be no changes to superannuation. Superannuation is an important part of most people's future planning and future strategy. People plan a long time ahead for their superannuation and their retirement. So not having that money available to them because it has been frozen by this government, because allegedly there is some budget crisis— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.