Division
Matt Thistlethwaite The Liberals are undertaking a double-barrelled attack on superannuation in Australia. Firstly, they're encouraging Australians to raid their superannuation savings, to raid their retirement savings, and take that money out, and we've seen evidence of people doing that in circumstances where they haven't had reductions in their income. Unfortunately, the evidence has indicated that in some respects the money's being wasted. We know people are spending it on gambling. We know people are spending it on alcohol. The comeback from those opposite is: 'It's their money.' It is their money, but it was established to ensure that they had dignity in retirement, not to waste on gambling during their working years. And that's the problem with what this government's implemented when it comes to the early release scheme. The second barrel of the attack on superannuation is that it appears government backbenchers are being encouraged by members of the executive to say that the government shouldn't meet the commitment they delivered to the Australian people prior to last election—an iron-clad promise they made to increase the minimum contribution to superannuation from 9½ per cent to 12 per cent. This represents a breach of trust with the Australian people. They committed to that superannuation increase and now they're beginning the process of moving away from it and dumping it. Those opposite will say: 'It should go into wages. During a pandemic, during this period, it should go into people's wages so that they can save for their own home and the like.' As we've seen in the past, the problem with that philosophy is that, when you stall or you cut out increases in compulsory superannuation, the money doesn't go into people's wages at all. It goes into the pockets of businesses and into profits for big companies. That's where the money goes—it doesn't go to increasing the incomes of Australian workers. That's why the government are wrong about what we anticipate
House of Representatives, 2020-08-25. affirmative: ayes 45, noes 32.
Question
Matt Thistlethwaite The Liberals are undertaking a double-barrelled attack on superannuation in Australia. Firstly, they're encouraging Australians to raid their superannuation savings, to raid their retirement savings, and take that money out, and we've seen evidence of people doing that in circumstances where they haven't had reductions in their income. Unfortunately, the evidence has indicated that in some respects the money's being wasted. We know people are spending it on gambling. We know people are spending it on alcohol. The comeback from those opposite is: 'It's their money.' It is their money, but it was established to ensure that they had dignity in retirement, not to waste on gambling during their working years. And that's the problem with what this government's implemented when it comes to the early release scheme. The second barrel of the attack on superannuation is that it appears government backbenchers are being encouraged by members of the executive to say that the government shouldn't meet the commitment they delivered to the Australian people prior to last election—an iron-clad promise they made to increase the minimum contribution to superannuation from 9½ per cent to 12 per cent. This represents a breach of trust with the Australian people. They committed to that superannuation increase and now they're beginning the process of moving away from it and dumping it. Those opposite will say: 'It should go into wages. During a pandemic, during this period, it should go into people's wages so that they can save for their own home and the like.' As we've seen in the past, the problem with that philosophy is that, when you stall or you cut out increases in compulsory superannuation, the money doesn't go into people's wages at all. It goes into the pockets of businesses and into profits for big companies. That's where the money goes—it doesn't go to increasing the incomes of Australian workers. That's why the government are wrong about what we anticipate
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.