Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate, I'll be formally moving an amendment which has been circulated in my name. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to commit to ensuring that all Australians have a decent retirement, including by committing to:

(1) no cuts to the legislated superannuation guarantee for Australian workers; and

(2) adequate funding for the aged pension".

The shorter form of that amendment invites all members of this place to affirm their support for the election commitment given by the Prime Minister. If members opposite are not inclined to support this amendment, which invites all members of this House to affirm their support for the election commitment given by the Prime Minister, then they should stand and say why not. Are they willing to affirm their commitment to the legislated 12 per cent superannuation guarantee levy?

This bill extends the range of circumstances under which former and current members who are public servants can contribute to the Public Service superannuation accumulation plan. It allows Australian workers to build their retirement nest eggs and participate more fully in our world-class superannuation system. In a sea of crazy propositions that go in the name of superannuation, this bill stands out as an atoll of sensible measures that have been put forward by the government and government members. We will support it. It's a sensible measure. It will improve the integrity and efficiency of our superannuation system, and it should enjoy the support of all members of this House—as, indeed, should my second reading amendment.

There's been an incredibly important role played by superannuation through this crisis. It has provided access on an emergency basis to much-needed funds—something that Labor fully supports. But, all too often, it appears that this has not always been the case. The early-release scheme has been incredibly poorly administered. It has been subject to fraud and abuse—something that should be subject to the full glare of an independent audit and a commissioned inquiry; I will come to that in a moment.

Our world-class superannuation system may not be celebrated by all members opposite, but it's recognised around the world as one of the best in class. The Mercer Global Pension Index, an annual assessment of the private pension systems around the world, has consistently ranked Australia's superannuation system in the top two or three. Last year, it was ranked No. 3 out of nearly 40 countries—a significant achievement.

We have the fourth largest pool of superannuation retirement savings of anywhere in the world. Australian workers' own retirement savings are equal to 140 per cent of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, this is greater than the United States, whose pension funds amount to 135 per cent of GDP; the United Kingdom, whose pension funds amount to 104.5 per cent of GDP; and Canada, whose pension funds amount to 85 per cent of GDP. It's an incredible achievement. We're the 16th-largest economy in the world, with a workforce of just 13 million people and yet we've created a pool of funds available for local investment and a stream of foreign earnings on overseas investments.

It'd be hard to overestimate the way it's transformed the Australian economy. For nearly 200 years we were a nation that borrowed money from the savings of the rest of the world. The capacity of our businesses to get a loan for investing in new plants and equipment and the capacity of the government to build infrastructure was dependent on the savings habits of other people in other countries. In a few short decades, we have changed all of this. Superannuation has made a significant contribution to converting Australia from a nation that lends to a nation that borrows. These are all benefits of the system.

I want to go back a moment to talk about why we embarked on this path in the first place. Before we commenced building a world-class system of private pension savings—superannuation, as we call it in this country—less than 30 per cent of Australians enjoyed the benefit of superannuation and less than 20 per cent of women enjoyed the benefits of a superannuation savings account. When we embarked on this journey of ensuring that all Australians could enjoy the dignity of private pension savings, the ratio of retirees to workers was one to six. That is to say that for every retiree who was dependent on a government pension there were six people in the workforce paying income taxes. When the vast majority of workers retired—that 70 per cent of the workforce—they enjoyed nothing but the government pension. Their retirement was short, because life expectancy was shorter. They had a reliance on the paucity of the government pension and their circumstances were humble indeed.

After the introduction of universal superannuation, things changed dramatically. Indeed, the landscape around us has changed as well. We now have universal provision of superannuation throughout the entire workforce. We have built a nest egg for people to rely on when they retire, but the world hasn't stayed still. You might recall that ratio that I mentioned of workers to retirees—that was, one retiree to six workers. You might be curious to know what that ratio is today. Well, I can tell you what it was 10 years ago. Ten years ago for every retiree there were five workers—that is, five people paying income tax amongst other things to support the pension payments of one retiree.

Over the last decade alone, that ratio has dropped from one retiree to five workers down to one retiree to four workers—that is, for every one retiree we have four people paying income tax. That number is not staying still; it is dropping rapidly. We are on track over the next 15 years to go from one retiree to four workers down to one retiree to three workers. Over the course of the last 25 years, we have gone from one retiree to five workers down to one retiree to four workers, and, over the next 10 to 15 years, we'll go from one retiree to four workers down to one retiree to three workers. If the experience of the last six months is any indication, that journey from one to four down to one to three will accelerate rapidly. One of the reasons we have managed to push that curve out a little bit is because of immigration. The average age of people who come to this country through the immigration scheme is generally mid-20s to mid-30s. That's enabled us to push that curve out—not stop it, but push it out.

So, when we embarked on the journey of superannuation, we did it for a reason. We did it in the knowledge that we had an unsustainability in our ageing population. Our ageing population is a great benefit; it's a great tribute to this country. It means we are living longer and healthier lives. A better diet, better health care and a better lifestyle mean we are living longer, but it also creates challenges for the budget. The answer from the mob on the other side is to make people work until they're 70 or 80. We know that's their plan because it was baked into their budgets not too long ago. Make somebody work till they're 70 or 80—that's their plan. There are many on the government side who are sowing the circumstances to ensure that is where we go into the future. The campaign that is being run by those on the other side to cancel universal superannuation flies in the face of our demographics—one retiree to six workers when we started, one to four now, and on the way to one to three.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

The member for Goldstein is on the speaking list. He will have something to say, sure.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

What the member for Goldstein needs to understand is that the people who say they want people to be self-reliant used to sit on that side of the House, but they don't anymore. They don't want people to be self-reliant. Their answer to the ageing population is to say: 'Put it on the tab. Let the grandkids pick up the bill, because we don't care!' Remember when they used to talk about debt and deficit? That was before they added to the government debt. It's heading towards a trillion bucks—you won't see them campaigning on that! Their answer to our ageing population is to say: 'Put it on the tab. Work till you're 70; work till you're 80. Put it on the tab. Let the grandkids pick up the bill.' That is quite literally what they are saying in response to our budgetary challenge. We say this is utter nonsense.

Those opposite imagine a world without superannuation, without the dignity and the benefits of superannuation in this country. Can you imagine what the last 12 months would have looked like if we hadn't had our superannuation system? Not one cent of the $32 billion that has been drawn down on would have existed—not one dollar—if you had listened to the member for Goldstein, because he has voted against every single dollar! I invite the member for Goldstein to tell us, when he makes his erudite contribution, how many superannuation increases he has voted for. Not one. Not one dollar. The coalition have opposed every single cent that has gone into universal superannuation through the SGL. They have the temerity to say, 'We wish this away.' Where would we have been over the last 12 months if it had not been there?

It might surprise many people in this place to know that our superannuation system has not yet fully matured. The reason it has not yet fully matured is that, when the people who are now approaching retirement started their time in the workplace, they did not have universal superannuation, or they didn't have it to anywhere near the levels that it is today. That fact is undeniable. Despite that, our superannuation system is already contributing more to retirement income than the government contributes. Do you know how much the government contributes to pension payments each year? Around about $43 billion. That is a significant amount. We don't begrudge a cent of it. We opposed this mob when they tried to cut it. It's in their plans to do so again. Superannuation lump sum payments are in excess of $40 billion a year, and allocated pensions are in excess of $40 billion a year. So, over the last 12 months, more than $80 billion was paid into national income through the superannuation system. Yet these nongs over here want to do away with it! There is a $110 billion contribution to our national income over one year alone, and every single cent of it is opposed by the member for Goldstein and his outfit. Every single cent of it! Where would our economy be if we did not have the contribution of superannuation over that 12-month period? Yet they want to smash the system. They're like blue suited Talibans—it doesn't conform with their religion, so they want to blow the whole thing up. We will fight them every step of the way.

Our superannuation system has not only provided benefits to individuals through its contributions, lump sums and retirements pensions; it has been absolutely critical to stabilising our capital markets during the heady days, particularly those first two months, when we saw the stock market swing and drop by amounts of up to 30 per cent. We have seen enormous turmoil within our capital markets. Had it not been for the long-term, steady, patient capital of our superannuation system, those fluctuations would have been even greater. It's been a critical part of recapitalising those large listed companies that have gone to the stock market in search of additional cash, and the unlisted companies. There are significant plans to reinvest in our economy to ensure we are creating investment and jobs and growth as we come out of this recession. And this mob wants to do away with superannuation. They like to pretend they understand capital. They're clueless when it comes to capital, because here we have a $3 trillion pool of domestic savings, dedicated to improving the lot of retirees, but patiently investing in wealth and jobs and capacity and industry here in this country.

We often see members of the National Party come in here and decry the fact that we've got foreigners, people from overseas, coming in and buying up our agricultural companies and buying up our agricultural land. It's actually Australian workers, through their superannuation funds, who are the foil to that. I'd expect we'd enjoy support from members of the National Party if ever that mob over there get their way and manage to convince the Prime Minister to renege on his election promise. Australian workers and Australian households investing in Australian agriculture, Australian farmland, Australian industries and Australian infrastructure are ensuring that Australians retain the wealth and benefits of those investments through their superannuation funds, which adds to our national wealth and our national productivity and to the retirement benefits of individual fund members. When described like that, who could be against it? Only a mad ideologue, somebody who is committed to destroying something either because they don't understand it or because it wasn't their idea in the first place. That's that mob over there.

Labor have built this system for all Australians, and we're committed to defending it. We invite every member of the coalition to come in here in a moment and vote in favour of the policy that they took to the last election. If they don't have the courage to vote in favour of the policy they took to the last election, they should stand up and say why. They should stand up and say why they looked the voters of their electorate in the eye and said, 'I support your superannuation,' but now they're going to renege on that promise.

Well, we can tell you this, each and every government member: we will hang it around your neck if you renege on the promise that you gave to electors in the last election. We will hang it around your neck at the next election. We will hang it around your neck. I see the member for Goldstein beckoning with his hands—that is, if the Assistant Treasurer doesn't get to him first, because, whatever differences I might have with the member for Goldstein, the Assistant Treasurer is out there saying a lot worse things about him than anything that I could ever imagine. He might get to you first, sunshine; don't you worry about that. The member for Goldstein shows a lot of courage. But maybe the Assistant Treasurer will get to him first, unless of course the Prime Minister does the right thing and puts the Assistant Treasurer towards the back bench, and maybe the member for Goldstein, the Assistant-Treasurer-in-waiting, can fulfil his ambitions by becoming the Assistant Treasurer—if his factional enemies in Victoria don't get the best of him between now and then.

Let's be clear about this. Let's be very clear about this. A cut to superannuation is a pay cut. Those opposite promised they were going to guarantee it; now they're backing away from it. We will ensure that they stick to their promise or bear the electoral price of that, because we made a solemn promise to the people of Australia that we would ensure that we protected their retirement savings and we protected their pay, and we'll do exactly that.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

If those opposite want to—

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

I'm glad the member for Goldstein has raised this. This is a bloke who campaigned at the last election on something called a retiree tax. Nothing amounts to a retiree tax like taking an axe to the superannuation system, the retirement system for all Australians. This bloke wants to take an axe to a $1 trillion system, something that is providing dignity in retirement savings not for the pinstriped suits he stands up in here and defends but for ordinary Australians.

I met with a delegation of workers from my electorate in Canberra a few months ago and I was struck by the story of Gay. She could have been my mum. She lives in Bowral, in my electorate, and she's been a shop assistant her entire life, working for a large supermarket chain. Gay is lucky enough to own her own home, and when she retired from full-time work she used some of her $100,000 of superannuation to buy a new car—a modest car, a Kia—to replace her old run-down Subaru, which was on its last legs, and, in her words, 'This one's going to see me out. The other one was costing me heaps and heaps of money every year on repairs, but I know, with this one, it'll will see me out. It'll ensure that I can get around and see my family and ensure that I can visit friends, and get to the one shift I do each week to help me top up my pension on top of my superannuation.' One of the moving stories I've heard. Again, she could have been my mum. It was the first new car she'd ever owned. Because of Gay's super, her quality of life is much better.

Now, $100,000 in superannuation mightn't sound like a lot to people in this place. The member for Goldstein pulls in 15 per cent superannuation, like all members in this place; the person who cleans his office, 9½ per cent. After he makes a contribution in this debate he'll go back and stick his feet on his desk, feeling pretty confident that he's made a great contribution to democracy. Meanwhile, the person who cleans his office will politely knock on the door and say, 'Mr Wilson, can I empty your bins? Can I pick up those glasses? Thank you so much,' and clean his office. She or he is on 9½ per cent.

The member for Goldstein has got to explain why he wants to cut the superannuation for the person who cleans his office because that person's not worth 12 per cent but he's worth 15. Good luck with that, because we made a promise to all Australians that we'd increase their superannuation, and we're going to stick it. We take the view that it doesn't matter whether you're a corporate boss, a member of parliament, a cleaner or a shop assistant; you're entitled to a dignified retirement. It's not something that's the privilege of the rich and the wealthy. The rich and the wealthy have their superannuation savings, hundreds of thousands of dollars squirrelled away, and everyone else, penury and mendicant on the pension.

We have a very different view. We think the pension should be adequate, but people should be able to save for their retirement and ensure that they can look after themselves, their families, their kids, maybe have a holiday and buy some presents for the grandkids or maybe like Gay, buy that new car—one that'll see you through after retirement. That's the vision that we have for Australians, something that provides a dignified retirement system together with all of those other benefits, economy, in terms of jobs and in terms of domestic investment if superannuation is added to this country.

I've got to say, at a time when business investment has absolutely fallen off a cliff, it didn't start with the COVID recession; it started under this mob. They had no plan for business investment, nothing to incentivise business to invest in this country. They talk about it a lot—jeez, they do. You could have built three new capital cities in this country if they were powered by Hansardwith the amount that these guys talk about business investment. However, they were unable to shift the dial on it.

The patient capital of superannuation, investing in infrastructure, investing in capital formation and investing in listed equities are big parts of the solution to capital investment falling off a cliff in this country. And this mob who pretend to know something about capital want to pull all of that apart. Well, we'll fight them on it every step of the way. In this place and in the community, we will not make it easy. We will not make it easier for the Prime Minister to break his promise to the Australian people to guarantee their superannuation. A superannuation cut is a pay cut, and we'll be fighting for the people of Australia.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded? The amendment is seconded.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Gillespie, can I start by saying thank you for pronouncing the electorate of Goldstein correctly. This is not a point of pedantry; it's extremely important because it is named after one of Australia's greatest suffragettes, Vida Goldstein, and every time we mispronounce it the member for Whitlam and others disrespect Vida Goldstein and her legacy. I think it's very important to get it right and I think it's a pretty basic expectation that I refer to other members' electorates correctly as well.

In saying that, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and this motion, because it's an important piece of legislation around something relatively minor but it's a pathway for making sure Commonwealth public servants are able to be in the best position to contribute to their own superannuation system. Despite the deceptive arguments put forward by the member for Whitlam, the coalition government has no issue with superannuation. More to the point, I don't think he quite realises that the superannuation system existed before 1992. In fact, people used to have superannuation as private citizens. It was actually quite common. People had it. There were even public sector services as well. Private businesses had it. They had their own funds. But in their mad ideological world view—self-referential, where they see themselves as the only basis for the success of the country—the Australian Labor Party have a collective memory lapse on this basic point of history. For them, this debate about superannuation isn't actually about Australians. It's actually about themselves, the Labor Party, because the Labor Party only see the success of Australia through the political success of themselves, so they constantly refer back to their own legacy to try and justify and rationalise their existence. They do not see the success of our great country through the material aspirations and achievements of individual citizens and families. It's one of the great dividing lines across this chamber.

The Liberal Party, the coalition, want to build up strong Australians and strong Australian families, because we don't want people who are dependent; we want people who are independent. The Labor Party are mad ideologues. They simply cannot confront a brutal reality—that the most important thing for retirement security for an Australian is not a large super balance; it is to own your own home. The hard evidence shows this. If you own your own home, then you can get additional assistance if you need it if there is a gap. If you do not own your own home and you rent in retirement, then you face ever-escalating costs and you still then have to draw it down from the taxpayer. But, no; they think there is some sort of logic that means a 20-year-old, rather than saving to buy their first home, should prioritise sacrificing their savings into a superannuation fund that, funnily enough, is controlled by the Labor Party's political mates. This debate is not about retirement security for them. This debate is about power for them.

This is not a new debate. It has gone on for many years. Go back and look at two different speeches, by Ben Chifley and Sir Robert Menzies, in 1949. You can go and read them on the Museum of Australian Democracy website. At the time, Ben Chifley talked about how we have to use Commonwealth-state housing agreements to promote a nation of renters, to make people dependent on others and, more critically, dependent on government. What did Sir Robert Menzies do in the election, which he won? He talked about how we had to use Commonwealth-state housing agreements to create a nation of homeowners, of people who have an interest in the state, in the status quo, in the foundations of this country, because it would build independence for individuals and families as the foundation for a great nation.

This debate, for the Labor Party, is about making dependency, and dependency where they can harvest the fees of the superannuation of young Australians' savings to be redirected back to themselves. Today the Labor Party are not the party of organised workers. They once were. They once believed that workers should save and own their own home. That was once something they believed in. But today they are not a party of organised workers; they are a party of organised capital. You heard that explicitly in the member for Whitlam's speech, where he talked about how he wanted to use people's money to decide how the economy should be run. It's trading the invisible hand for the shadowed fist of the Labor Party and their mates over the capital of this country and the future direction of this country. In pursuit of making this argument, he put forward a silly amendment. The member for Whitlam, like every other member on the other side of this chamber—although I exclude some of the Independents; they had the good sense to oppose it—supported Labor's giant retiree tax, which would have whacked Australian retirees, those people who've sacrificed and saved, in spite of what they were compelled to do by the law. They would have lost a third of their income overnight—not 0.5 per cent; a third. It would have pushed people below the poverty line.

Before the last election they mocked and derided me and my colleagues, who gave a platform, and made mischievous slurs and deceptions to the Australian people to distract from the reality. They said it only affected the wealthy. We gave case after case of people with a disability and those who were living very close to the poverty line, people on $20,000 or $30,000 a year. It was only after the election and the shellacking they deserved, because they wouldn't listen to the Australian people, that the Leader of the Opposition finally acknowledged they'd got it wrong.

In this debate, we have a lot of deceptions continuing today. The latest was only the other day from Industry Super Australia, who outlined that I am, apparently, 'a hypocrite', because we in this chamber get 15.4 per cent of superannuation on our salary. I have said it in this chamber and I will say it again and again: I only expect the legal mandated component, and the rest should be cashed in as salary. That is an utterly consistent position. I have no reservations about that, whatsoever, because superannuation is only deferred wages. As I've argued that it is better to help young Australians buy their homes now, I also argue that it is better for people to have access or the choice of access to that capital now. And, if they want to contribute more to superannuation because they see there is some tax benefit to it, that is their freedom to choose.

By the way, while we talk about hypocrisy, I am curious, Deputy Speaker Gillespie, although I don't expect you to know the answer: what is the superannuation contribution of those employees at Industry Super Australia? Do you think it's the 12 per cent they want or do you think it's the legal component that's required? What we know is that the constant obsession with trying to increase the amount of capital, in the hands of funds who want to fester it for fees and harvest it because they know that young Australians don't pay attention to their superannuation until much later in life, comes at the expense of two things. Firstly, it's wages. In fact, the member for Whitlam doesn't even try and pretend it doesn't come at the expense of wages anymore. We welcome that sort of new honesty. They used to contest this point!

The problem they had was that the Grattan Institute—not a body I normally quote, I have to declare—has made it nakedly clear, looking at long-term research about the impact. Of course, the Treasury has always held this view. The Australian Council of Social Services—this is really starting to be an unlikely group of people who get together on the same page—acknowledges that it has an impact on wage growth and that lower-income Australians need that money now. Then, of course, we have Industry Super Australia's own research, which they tried to hide but which through the economics committee we managed to get out. It clearly showed that, yes, increasing the compulsory super guarantee will have an impact on wages now. But there was no-one clearer than the Reserve Bank Governor, before the House economics committee, in response to questions I asked only a couple of weeks ago. He made it crystal clear that increasing the compulsory super guarantee would have a direct impact on wage growth, an explicit correlation with wage growth. Under further questioning, he pointed out that there is also a correlation with the number of Australians who'd be employed.

Let's just think about that now. In the middle or start of a COVID recession—and we know we're there, because of the virus—the Australian Labor Party would rather prioritise money that can go into the funds managed by their friends, to fester for fees, than create the jobs that unemployed Australians, particularly young Australians need, right now. They are not the Labor Party anymore. They're the industry fund party. They're the organised capital party. They would rather put their own interests ahead of those of workers. That's why I find their position so untenable, so difficult to digest, because they're literally seeking to advance their own interests at the expense of workers. Admittedly, we know they've always done that through the industrial relations system, but never has it been more nakedly clear and, more to the point, costly, not just to those who are workers today but the people who are unemployed, who, I would hope, we all desperately need to get back into the workforce to rebuild the strength of this country.

If people don't have a job then they're not going to be making contributions to the superannuation system. But that is the mad ideology that sits at the heart of the Labor Party's approach to superannuation: it's how they empower themselves, not Australians and their families. It's how they make sure that young Australians can't own their own home, so they can promote dependence, rather than what we on this side want, which is Australians having jobs so they can save for their retirement and also buy their own home so they can be strong and independent themselves and not always turn to Canberra when they need support. That's how you build the strength of a great country. It isn't from Canberra bureaucrats or even from decisions that we make in this place. The wisdom of the nation sits around the kitchen tables of family homes. I would rather see 26 million Australians empowered over 600,000 bureaucrats in Canberra, because that is the true foundations of a strong nation.

While sometimes we get into a debate on these issues, and the member for Whitlam likes to wax lyrical and carry on like, well, I won't say, this debate goes to the core of the type of country we want to be. I think that as a country—and I hope every member on this side of the chamber believes as strongly as I do—we want a nation of empowered individuals and families and communities as a foundation of a great country, not a strong Canberra. But that is what our political opponents want. That is why they sit on that side of the chamber. When in doubt, whether it is through the government or through the funds that their mates control, they see themselves, not Australians, as the solution to the problem; to give themselves, not Australians, more control; to empower themselves, and not Australians.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking in support of the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam to the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill. Members of the government should come into this chamber and explain to the Australian people who elected them why they don't support increasing compulsory superannuation contributions, as was promised by the Prime Minister and this government. They should explain to the Australian people why the Australian people don't deserve that increase in their compulsory superannuation contributions, particularly when the hypocrites on the other side are very happy to pocket 15 per cent in their superannuation contributions under the scheme that we're privileged to enjoy in this place.

Compulsory superannuation is about providing Australians with dignity in retirement. It's about the government really saying to Australian workers, 'Thank you for your contribution, for all your hard work over your working life in building the economic wealth of this country. We will provide you with support through a savings tax concession for you to be able to save and to be able to have dignity in retirement, to buy your own home,' as the member for Goldstein pointed out. The problem with his argument is that it is premised on the notion that if the money doesn't go into compulsory superannuation contributions it will go into wage increases for workers. We know that is not the case. We know that the last time the conservatives in this country stopped an increase in the compulsory rate of superannuation, which was under the Howard government, the money didn't go into the pockets of workers. It didn't go into wages. It went into the pockets of employers, and profits went up. It didn't go to the workers, who deserved the money that was deferred from superannuation contributions. That is the problem with the member for Goldstein's argument and with the rabble of backbenchers on that side who are now claiming that the government should abandon their promised, their committed to, their guaranteed increase in superannuation for Australian workers. People who have worked hard for our nation and have worked all of their lives deserve a commitment from the government to support them in retirement.

The Australian superannuation scheme has been remarkably successful in achieving the dignity that Australian workers deserve in retirement. The evidence of that is in the fact that although Australia is the 16th-largest economy in the world we have the fourth-largest pool of investment savings of any nation in the world—the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings for our workers. That in itself is evidence that our superannuation system has been remarkably successful. But you don't need to worry about the statistics. All you need to do is ask the average Australian worker who has benefited from superannuation contributions throughout their life, when they get to retirement. Someone, perhaps, who is retiring now may have had the benefit of voluntary contributions through an enterprise bargaining agreement, before they became compulsory, and then benefited from the government's compulsory scheme, retiring with a decent nest egg so that they can pay off their home and own it, as the member for Goldstein has suggested, so they do have some money for a holiday each year, to spend on their kids and their grandkids, as they so wish. That is the promise. That is the commitment of superannuation that was delivered by Labor when we implemented this scheme under the Keating government.

It's a scheme that has been remarkably successful and one that Labor is very proud of because of its success and because it achieves those goals of providing dignity for people in retirement. We will defend it to the hilt, because it works. It works better than any other scheme in the world and that's evidenced by the fact that we have the fourth-largest pool of retirement savings of any country in the world.

We all know that those opposite have never supported the notion of compulsory superannuation. They vote against it at every opportunity. When it was first introduced by the Hawke government, they voted against it. When there have been legislated compulsory increases in the rate, they weaselled their way out of the commitment to the Australian people that they made during election campaigns, and then, later on, they removed those compulsory increases that are legislated and built into the system. We know that they have always opposed superannuation and they don't provide the support that Australian workers deserve.

Now they're at it again. There's a campaign by backbenchers to again stop the government from increasing compulsory superannuation contributions in Australia. But this isn't an ordinary attack. This is a double-barrelled attack, because they have recently introduced the early release super scheme, where they're encouraging Australians to raid their superannuation and their retirement savings. We've all seen the likes of the member for Goldstein get up and encourage people to raid their super accounts. It was a hastily put together scheme that didn't work. We know that because it was shut down by the Australian Federal Police while they investigated fraud into what was going on with people accessing their superannuation early. We know from studies of the bank transactions of people who have accessed their superannuation that 40 per cent didn't need to access their super. They had no reduction in their actual incomes, yet they raided their super accounts. What's worse, 10 per cent of those who did spent a lot of the money on gambling and on alcohol and tobacco.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.