Ms OWENS (2:57 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. What challenges confront Australian women in building adequate retirement savings and what impact will the government’s tax and superannuation reforms have on the retirement incomes of Australian women?

Mr BOWEN (Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services) —I thank the member for Parramatta for her question, and I acknowledge her support for her 55,500 constituents that stand to benefit from this government’s superannuation reforms. There is no question that there are challenges confronting Australian women in building adequate retirement incomes. Research released last year showed that the average payout for a woman on retirement was only $73,000 compared to $155,000 for men. As a result of this difference, men hold about 60 per cent of superannuation balances while women hold over 30 per cent.

A report issued yesterday by the Melbourne Institute showed that women aged 55 to 59 are expected to live for 21 years in retirement despite having only adequate retirement incomes for two years. That is exactly the reason for the government’s reforms to superannuation—to bring in more fairness to the superannuation system in Australia. Our changes will result in increased retirement savings for 4.1 million women across the country, including 2.1 million women on lower incomes and 100,000 Australian women over 50 who will be able to access the improved concessions for top-up payments to superannuation.

As I said before, the member for Parramatta can report to her constituents that she is supporting 55,000 of those constituents in getting better superannuation payments. But some members elsewhere in Sydney will have a more difficult task. Take, for example, the seat of Hughes. There, the Liberal candidate will need to report to the people of Hughes why he opposes 53,000 of them getting better superannuation benefits. He will need to justify to 27,000 women in Hughes why he stands against them getting better superannuation payments and why he opposes 7,500 women over 50 getting better superannuation benefits through increased superannuation concessions. That is what the Liberal Party will need to justify to the people of Hughes, and that is what the Liberal candidate for Hughes will need to explain to the people—why he stands against them getting better superannuation benefits. I think the impact of the government’s superannuation reforms were perhaps best summed up by Fiona Reynolds, Chief Executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, when she said: ‘It’s all about building a fair and just society that takes care of those who need it most, and those who say now is the wrong time—they were wrong 25 years ago when we introduced super and they are wrong now.’

I am asked about the impact of our tax reforms on people’s retirement incomes, and this is something those opposite have been very voluble about. They have been very vocal about the impact on retirement incomes. They have claimed that the resource super profits tax is a tax on the retirement incomes of Australians. I am sure every honourable member welcomed the report last week from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia which showed that the claims of the opposition are complete dross—complete dross; it hit them for six. As the Australian Financial Review said:

So the opposition’s arguments that these reforms and this tax would damage retirement savings have been dismissed as scaremongering by those who would know best—those responsible for superannuation funds in Australia, the trustees and those who run the funds. The opposition say: ‘What would they know? They only run the superannuation industry.’ They know better. Well, the superannuation industry has got news for them: they are wrong. They are talking nonsense—more bad news for the opposition and their scare campaign on the resource super profits tax.

But there is at least one member opposite who has received some good news. I am sure he is already aware of this, because he would be in his office, looking at his computer, checking it out at the moment—and I know many members on this side are concerned for the welfare of the member for Dickson! I can inform the House that during question time BHP has again been trading for more than it cost on the day the member for Dickson bought his shares. Again, he makes a much better investor than he would a minister, I think it is fair to say—

The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.

Mr BOWEN —I think it is fair to say the member for Dickson’s share campaign—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order!

Mr BOWEN —has been a whole lot more successful than the opposition’s scare campaign.

Mr Robert —BHP has lost 51c today, you goose!

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden!

Mr Bowen interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Minister! The member for Fadden will withdraw.

Mr Robert —I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER —It appears—I could not hear it—that the minister, when I at least knew he was talking, said something that has caused offence. He should withdraw.

Mr BOWEN —I withdraw.

The SPEAKER —I thank the minister.