Page 1553 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
through the issues with an aim to find a way to implement them. We will support Ms Le Couteur’s amendment today.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.43): The opposition will also be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, as it provides a platform for my 15th amendment. Ms Le Couteur mentioned something that I would like to point out. She gave the example of a mother who might take some time out of the workforce, then return—who knows, five 10, 15 years later perhaps. She therefore has fewer years in the workforce to accumulate superannuation.
That, to me, is an argument to not have a low threshold of $800 as average weekly earnings but to have a much higher threshold. If that mother is returning to the workforce and has only 20 years in the workforce, with perhaps 15 years to contribute to super, being over $800 as an AWE, a portion of that whole career may not be a huge amount of money.
The person who goes into the workforce at the age of 40, perhaps having had kids and earning $75,000, is deemed a high income earner by Ms Le Couteur’s amendment. Therefore, they are not going to get the super contributions that I think they need. The detail in Ms Le Couteur’s amendment of $800 as an indexed weekly income I think is too low and is not going to satisfactorily address the very scenario that Ms Le Couteur mentioned in support of her amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.46): I move amendment No 15 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1635]. As foreshadowed in debate on the last amendment, this amendment ensures that superannuation is included in gross income payable. Excluding superannuation from the gross income unfairly disadvantages injured people, particularly those who have been injured through no fault of their own. It is essential that superannuation is paid to ensure that individuals are adequately supported when they reach retirement age.
Under the common-law system this can be factored into any payments made. But when you go for this one-size-fits-all approach, you get all these unintended consequences. Working mothers and many other groups will be disproportionately disadvantaged as a result of what Labor and the Greens are conspiring to do today.
I do not know why the Greens think that people on a lower income are more deserving of superannuation than somebody who is on $50,000 a year. Somebody on $50,000 a year is probably going to be cut off by the Greens’ proposal. It is very important that other income earners, especially middle income earners and in particular middle income earners who spend less time in the workforce, such as mothers returning to work, should be included as deserving of superannuation payments. I urge the government and the Greens—or the government, including the Greens—to support the amendment.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.48): There is a whole philosophical discussion here as to what the income should be in terms of this scheme. I could quite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video