Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the broader context of superannuation. The shadow Treasurer today confirmed in the House of Representatives debate on the bill that the coalition support superannuation. In fact, shortly after 11:10 am, the member for North Sydney told the House that the coalition strongly support superannuation. But if one wants to make the large, grandiose statement of intent then surely the time has come for the shadow Treasurer to answer some questions about what support by the coalition actually adds up to.

If the coalition really support superannuation, what are their plans to increase every Australian worker's superannuation savings? For instance, do they support the Gillard government's plans to lift the universal superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent? Do they support an increase in concessional caps for people over 50 which allows people to boost retirement savings without incurring excess contributions tax? If they support superannuation, do they support providing 3½ million Australians on incomes under $37,000 more superannuation by refunding their contributions tax? Sixty per cent of the beneficiaries of this measure are women. Given the profits of Australia's biggest resources companies and the records that are being set—the most recent today reported by BHP—why is it that the coalition will not support an MRRT which would help fund an increase in retirement savings of 8.4 million Australians, including 55,300 in the shadow Treasurer's own electorate of North Sydney?

If the coalition mean what they say, if the coalition actually strongly support superannuation, then it is time for those questions I have just enumerated to the House to be answered. I am prepared to provide every member of the House details of how many people in their electorate are set to benefit from an increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. The coalition have promised time and time again that they would provide a response to the Henry review recommendations on superannuation and thereby release a retirement savings policy. It is now well over a year since the Henry review was released. There are many more questions about the coalition's retirement savings policy—or should I say lack of a retirement savings policy by the coalition—than there are in fact financial service businesses in the shadow Treasurer's own North Sydney electorate—and there are, of course, many of those in that electorate.

This past Saturday, 20 August, we celebrated the 20-year anniversary of one of the great economic reforms of the modern era in Australia: the announcement in parliament of the tabling of the bill to lift compulsory superannuation from three to nine per cent. Superannuation works. We do not mind the coalition supporting it; we do not even mind them owning some of the achievements. We just wish that whenever they had the opportunity to vote for improvements in superannuation they would actually do as they say. Superannuation works; it has proven to be an idea in the best interests of the nation. It is a policy that is in the best tradition of what Labor governments should do.

The economic history books record that the introduction of compulsory superannuation coincided with the rise of all the major economic indicators. I reassure the member for Wright about his concerns. Somehow he viewed this as a tax on business. Throughout the period of the increase of superannuation from three to nine per cent in each increment, it was shown that it did not increase business costs and that it was offset against real wages movements. For workers, it was not a tax on them either, because what it allowed was compulsory savings that they might not have otherwise been able to make and which would have an anti-inflationary offset on the other wage increases they were receiving at the time of the mandatory increases.

I believe that in 2011 it is time for us to improve the rewards of hard work and to allow Australians to reach out confidently for the goal of lifetime income security. I believe that people who work hard all their lives should be able to view the prospect of retirement with some degree of comfort and certainty about the adequacy of the income that they will have saved. Given that the great gift of the 20th century is increasing life expectancy for Australians in the 21st century, and given that retirement now is much more an experience of decades for Australians than the experience of a few years, nine per cent is simply not enough. This is especially the case for women, who may have breaks in their careers to raise families and who indeed have a longer life expectancy than men.

This is why the Gillard government is committed to raising compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent. Lifting the rate means that an employee aged 30 today on average weekly earnings will retire with an additional $108,000 in superannuation. A female aged 30 today on average weekly earnings with an interrupted work pattern could retire with an additional $78,000 in superannuation. Why on earth would any political party in this place want to encourage the idea that Australians should work hard their whole lives and then face retirement in an income environment which does not provide for an adequate replacement rate? (Quorum formed)

See this speech in context