Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer's statement on 2 May 2010:

We think certainty is absolutely paramount when it comes to the retirement income system ...

Given that the Prime Minister has ruled out tax on super withdrawals for the over 60s, will the Prime Minister provide further certainty and rule out increased taxes on super savings through even lower concessional contribution caps or higher taxes on super earnings?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member who asked the question, I remind her first and foremost that superannuation is compulsory in this country because of a Labor initiative and a Labor plan, resisted every step of the way by the Liberal Party and the subject of a mammoth and irresponsible fear campaign. That is something the member would be familiar with, having been a member of this parliament during another irresponsible fear campaign over carbon pricing. There is only compulsory superannuation because of the actions of Labor. Having invented compulsory superannuation for this country, we have seen the benefits that it brings working people as well as the ballast it gives our economy. It creates a huge pool of national savings and that pool of national savings is very important, particularly during difficult economic times, and was very important during the global financial crisis. We, as the party of superannuation—the party that invented it—will always be the party that nurtures it and nurtures it well, which is why we are increasing superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent and why we will also make the right decisions to ensure that the superannuation scheme in our country meets our nation's needs.

If the member opposite is truly concerned about superannuation and the plight of people in her electorate who are low-income earners, let me give her an example of that. It might be a mum who has been at home with two children—maybe one school-age, one pre-school age. She is deciding to go back to work part-time. Because she is a part-time worker, she is not a high-income earner, but she will want something in her superannuation when she retires. Maybe she might consider the position of that electorate member of hers—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her seat.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: when the amendment was made to make an answer directly relevant it did make a difference. It means to be tangibly relevant is not good enough, as is that answer. She was specifically asked to rule out two forms of impediments to superannuation. She has not mentioned either of them. She has not mentioned the cap and she has not mentioned the tax that is paid.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am dealing with a question on superannuation and its future and answering that. I indicate to the member she may, when she next meets a constituent—a woman like that, in that position—try to explain why she wants to hurt that woman's superannuation.