Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is a strange day to get a question like that given those opposite are in a total nuclear meltdown over net zero policy, as the energy minister just ran through. It's a strange person to choose to ask the question given his role in that nuclear meltdown, and the timing is strange, too, given they have just been towelled up by the energy minister on disunity on their side of the House.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what every single person on this side of the House believes in: the fundamental importance of superannuation. And that's why this side of the House has played an enthusiastic role in taking superannuation from 11½ to 12 per cent when it comes to the superannuation guarantee. We won't be taking lectures on superannuation from those who always try to diminish and undermine and vandalise super at every turn. From John Howard on, they've always opposed superannuation. They've always tried to undermine it. They've always tried to take the 'compulsory' out of 'compulsory superannuation'. Every member on this side of the House takes a different view to the view taken on that side of the House.

We believe in compulsory superannuation, because it's all about making sure, when people earn more and keep more, they can retire with more as well. That's our motivation when it comes to superannuation. Part of our responsibility when it comes to superannuation is to make sure that there are generous concessional treatments for people putting money in super, and they will continue. Even after the proposal that we made, the change that we proposed, around 2½ years ago now, the treatment of super will still be concessional, and the concessions will still be generous. We take our responsibilities to the system very seriously, and that includes making sure—

That's what I'm trying to do, if you listen.

See this speech in context