Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always pleasing to stand up in this place and speak about this very important topic for the future of a great many Australians who have superannuation accounts from small balances through to the 475 that the member for Charlton mentioned. But what he did forget to mention, and this is common in this debate, is that there is no analysis in this debate of how those people actually got the money into their superannuation funds. They got it into their superannuation funds perfectly legally—probably under the rules that, in a lot of cases, those opposite created when they set up the superannuation system. Isn't the whole point of super that Australians can save for their retirement, that they are not then a burden on the government and on other taxpayers that they need to receive an aged pension from? Everybody in this place agrees with that notion.

I think it was the member for Kingsford Smith who spoke about a survey by the FSC—interestingly, sponsored by ING Direct. I wonder what their interest in the outcome of that survey was! You can gather their interest in the outcome of that survey from the question that was actually asked that got that 83 per cent response—that is, people would prefer to have the SG contribution increase to 12 per cent. For the edification of the House, the question is:

In Australia, it is the law that people (or employers on their behalf) make a compulsory contribution to superannuation of 9.5% of employment income (wages or salary). Do you support or oppose this system?

Of course people would support that system. The next question, which is the important one, said:

You may be aware that the Federal Government will continue to increase these compulsory contributions from 9.5% up to 12% of income over the next decade.

It asked: do you support that? The majority support that, yes.

The final question is about where that is paused, at 9½ per cent. What the question does not ask, or does not say, which is very important in this debate for those opposite and for their historical edification, is that the super system was set up in a way that in part was a trade-off for future wage increases. It was set up in part as a trade off for future wage increases. So what those questions do not ask, Member for Charlton, and those opposite, is: are you prepared to trade off a potential future reduction in your wages for an increase to your superannuation contributions? I would respectfully suggest that if that was actually the question asked, you would get a very different result—an enormously different result! That is the important thing, that this is about moving money from people's pockets for them to spend day to day, to cover everyday living costs—and we know that many families in this country are under financial strain and financial pressures because of rising living costs—as opposed to taking that money out of their pocket and putting it into their superannuation fund. That question has not been asked. Before we go compulsorily adding more money to people's superannuation accounts, that should be the question asked.

People are still free to make the choice. That is a very important but overlooked aspect of this debate. Yes, the SG contribution has been frozen at 9½ per cent, but that does not mean that people cannot use salary sacrifice or other means to put more money into their super fund if they have the free cash flow to do so. That is entirely their own personal choice—it is not compulsory, it is their own personal choice. It is interesting to note that when those opposite were in government, they reduced the contribution limits for concessional contributions for people under 50 from 50,000 to 25,000. So they complain about the fact that people cannot put money into superannuation, yet they are the ones who made it even more difficult! It is this side of the House that has an interest in seeing our superannuation system continue to grow and be strong for the future of all Australians.

See this speech in context