Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that, as a result of the government's deal to freeze the superannuation guarantee, a worker who is 40 on an average salary of $70,000 could lose almost $20,000 in retirement savings by the time they retire?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lundy for the question. What I can confirm is that workers will be better off because they will have more money in their pocket. I can confirm that workers will be better off as a result of the decision made by the Senate yesterday because we will have a stronger economy with more investment, more jobs and more capacity for more people to earn a living and of course accumulate more in superannuation savings. I can confirm that a stronger economy also means better superannuation returns, which means that the retirement savings of people across Australia will deliver a better outcome in retirement. I can also confirm that the Labor Party is jumping up and down and complaining, but they were completely irrelevant yesterday. And guess what? When the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he would roll it back, whether he would and accelerate the proportion of superannuation back to 12 per cent—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The minister was only asked one question, which was about the effect, as a result of the deal yesterday, on a worker who is now 40, on an average salary, who would lose almost $20,000 in retirement savings. If the minister does not agree with the loss in retirement savings he is entitled to call it something else, but his answer is entirely at odds with the question that was asked.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister was asked whether he was aware of an issue concerning income and about the financial aspects of a particular hypothetical question. The minister has been directly relevant by indicating the financial implications in his answer.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject the assertion in the question by Senator Lundy. Workers across Australia are better off as a result of the decision the Senate made yesterday. Workers across Australia will have more job opportunities and they will have more money available either to spend to relieve cost of living pressures or to pay off their mortgage more quickly or to save it as superannuation and attract the tax benefits that come with that. They will have the choice. The Labor Party cannot get used to the fact that yesterday the Senate, with the support of the Palmer United Party, with the support of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party and with the support of Family First and the Liberal Democrats, decided to support stronger growth and more jobs, to put workers first—it made a decision in the national interest. The Labor Party and the Greens were completely irrelevant, and today when Mr Shorten was asked whether he would roll it back, he said, 'We're not going to tell you.' (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what he said at all. I was there. It's not what he said at all.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Far from people being better off, can the minister confirm that with the government's deal to freeze the superannuation guarantee an average income earner aged 25 today will receive around $100,000 less in retirement savings by the time they retire?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot confirm that. The Labor Party seem to think that increases in compulsory super come out of thin air. Do you know what? Increases in compulsory super do not come out of thin air—they come out of people's pockets. They come out of people's wages. That is what Mr Shorten used to say when he was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. The decision that the Senate made yesterday leaves people with more of their own money now so that they can spend it or save it as they see fit. That is what we decided to do yesterday, and of course that was part of an overall deal in the national interest which saw the abolition of the mining tax, which saw the abolition in time of a whole range of unfunded promises, which will help us bring a stronger economy and create more jobs, which will help us prepare the budget and which will leave workers across Australia better off. Mr Shorten was not prepared to say today that he would roll back these changes.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, won't national contributions to superannuation be $128 billion lower by 2025 as a result of the government's deal to freeze the superannuation guarantee?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy is the voice of the Financial Services Council. I talked to the Financial Services Council too. They had some good views, but guess what—they are not representatives of workers; they are representatives of financial services institutions. What I am telling you now is that the Senate yesterday put the interests of workers first. You can come in here any day you like and talk up the interests of financial services institutions—that is fine—but we are in here standing up for the best interests of Australia and the best interests of Australian workers. Senator Carr objected to my characterisation of what the Leader of the Opposition said, so why will those opposite not promise that in government they will roll back the decision we made yesterday, why will they not promise that they will accelerate the increase to 12 per cent again, and then show us how they are going to pay for it. (Time expired)