Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Before the introduction of compulsory superannuation under Labor in the 1990s, most Australian working women didn't have access to super. Today, superannuation is one of the largest pools of retirement savings in the world. It underpins the retirement of millions of Australian workers, but, on average, women still retire with less super than men. Why is compulsory superannuation so important, and what has superannuation delivered for Australians since it was introduced in the nineties? How has the Albanese Labor government continued to build on this important legacy while also delivering better super outcomes for Australian women?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question and for her career spent supporting working people in this country and strengthening compulsory superannuation, particularly for women.

The compulsory superannuation system is something this country should be very proud of: 18 million Australians have a superannuation account. Super makes up around a quarter of Australians' household wealth, and Australia's superannuation pool is the fourth largest in the world, at about $4½ trillion.

The Albanese government has made a number of reforms to strengthen super since coming to government. We legislated the objective of super, which is to preserve savings and deliver income for a dignified retirement. We increased the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent after those opposite had delayed it. We introduced payday super so that workers receive their super when they are paid. For the average 25-year-old, that is worth around $6,000 more at retirement in today's dollars. When it comes to women, we know that, on average, women, as they approach retirement age, have 26 per cent less super than men of the same age. This is for a variety of reasons, including work interruptions for caring, as well as because women, on average, have earnt less than men. What are we doing about it? We're paying super on paid parental leave so that women get superannuation when they might be out of the paid workforce and playing that caring role. We're closing the gender pay gap, and we've also supported significant increase in wages for industries dominated by women so that they're getting the wages they deserve. That flows on to their superannuation balances over time.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor built the superannuation system to give Australians an income for a dignified retirement. What would Australian women stand to lose if it were wound back, and who would be hurt most?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

Women would be hurt most. They have lower balances, more interrupted contributions and longer retirements. We've also seen this movie before. During COVID, when there was early access to superannuation, there were a lot of concerns raised about withdrawals, particularly around coercive control of women removing super in higher numbers in terms of their overall balances. Because they had lower balances, they withdrew a higher proportion from those balances. As we seek to strengthen and address super for women through closing the gender pay gap, through wages and through paying super on PPL, we have all of those opposite on that side of the chamber campaigning against compulsory super. We had 'Braggie's big day out', followed closely this week by 'Senator Bragg stays inside' after his little outing again on Sunday. That taught everybody a lesson. But we will defend compulsory super on this side of the chamber— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, Senators Bragg and Chisholm! When I call order, I expect the interjections to cease.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has reformed the low-income super tax offset and, as of last July, has paid superannuation on Commonwealth paid parental leave. Why did the Albanese Labor government make those changes, and what will they deliver for women's retirement incomes?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Darmanin for that supplementary. More than 200,000 parents have benefited from super being paid on paid parental leave, with about $285 million paid into their accounts. On the low-income super tax offset, more than 1.3 million Australians, including 750,000 women and around 550,000 people under 30, will benefit from that. Again, those opposite voted against that.

We know what those opposite think about compulsory super, and here are just a few gems: 'That's communism,' 'There'll be superannuation for cats and dogs soon'—Senator Bragg's big day out—'It's one of the biggest public policy failures since Federation;' Senator Hanson said, 'I think the whole system is broken and superannuation should be lightened up a bit;' and the shadow treasurer says it's a form of 'economic insanity' and a form of 'economic social engineering'. We will always support higher wages, compulsory super and looking after working people in this country.