Senate debates

Thursday, 20 September 2018

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Superannuation

3:57 pm

Photo of Jenny McAllisterJenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

More than two years ago, a Senate Economics References Committee inquiry, which I chaired, published its report titled 'A husband is not a retirement plan'. That reflected the very words said to our committee by an older woman who wanted to make it clear to younger women that they would need to take responsibility for their own financial future. The truth is, of course, that a third of Australian women enter retirement single. Many other Australian women may enter retirement with a partner, but their partner, like them, has a very modest superannuation account. The idea, in any case, at the level of principle, that a woman ought to be dependent on a man in her retirement just does not fly in 2018.

Last month, the government released their response. It took them two years to come up with their response to the recommendations made by that Senate inquiry. The shorthand version of what that response said to the proposition that a husband is not a retirement plan is basically this. They said, 'Well, actually, ladies, a husband is your best bet.' That is essentially the response that was provided by the government to the more than 18 recommendations that were in that report.

Today in question time, I asked about whether or not the government would match Labor's commitment to pay superannuation for women when they are on parental leave. All we got was waffle. The truth is that they don't have any meaningful response whatsoever when it comes to the appalling state of women's economic security in retirement.

There are a couple of measures that the coalition like to point to when we raise this issue. I want to just take the time to point out how the answers that they provide, the things that they say answer this question, are no answers at all. Senator Williams pointed to the opportunity for people to make catch-up concessional superannuation contributions. What the government claim is that this measure will help women by allowing them to make additional tax-free super contributions when they're working to make up for the period of time that they spend out of work caring for someone else. The problem is that the majority of Australian women, and particularly those who spend extended periods of time out of the workforce, do not make the kind of money that allows them to make these catch-up contributions.

Industry Super Australia did the numbers. They ran the numbers on this proposition and they said that this measure would assist less than two per cent of women who have super accounts. They said that it would mostly help women with superannuation balances of over $600,000 a year. Well I can tell you that's not your average woman who's been off on maternity leave. And your average woman doesn't have $30,000 lying around that she's just going to chuck into her super account now that these arrangements have been relaxed by the government. This is a measure that will benefit high-income men. This is not a measure that benefits women, and it is absolutely shameful that, time and time again, Senator Cormann comes into this chamber and asserts that this is a measure for women. It is actually a lie and he should stop saying it.

They also say that they will provide measures to allow men, essentially, to tip money into women's super accounts. They'll change the arrangements to make that easier. I tell you what: this tells you a lot about the Liberals' view of gender relations, but it doesn't do a lot for women who cannot or do not want to rely on a husband or a partner for economic security. Economic independence is the thing women need if we are to escape generations of subordination to men.

Senator Cormann likes to talk about the fact that they reinstated the low-income superannuation contribution. I'll tell you what actually happened. This was a Labor initiative that made sure that low-income women didn't pay more tax on their super than other people were paying. The government abolished it. They abolished it. So when they say that this is their initiative, what they've actually done is put our tax concession back and they've given it a new name. It used to be the LISC and now they call it the LISTO. It is exactly the same measure that was introduced by Labor. It is no new measure at all. They're the three measures that they say help women, and every single one of them is either a Labor measure or has no impact on women at all. It is disgraceful, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Comments

No comments