Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 21 March 2011
Page: 2389


Mr VAN MANEN (11:58 AM) —It is interesting listening to the last two speakers, the member for Fraser and the member for Dobell, saying they are the friends of super. I remember in the last couple of years they decided that super was not okay for older Australians if they could contribute more than $25,000 or more than $50,000. They have cut the ability to make those contributions right back. Where are the savings there? Where is the benefit to the older Australians where they have capacity to contribute to super?

This Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 is based on the notion that we want equality for everybody in the workforce. In Australia there is a notion of gender and ethnic diversity and equality. Therefore, it is time we embraced equality between the ages. Mature-age workers contribute greatly to our workplaces and society with the skills they possess that are unique to their working environment. With these skills they can teach younger colleagues. The government should be encouraging those with this experience to continue in their profession because this aids businesses in the community as well as the nation’s workforce participation. It will remove this inequity from the system.

Currently, the superannuation guarantee is payable up to the age of 70 and the government promised in the last election that they would raise it to age 75. As the member for Mackellar has pointed out, the purpose of this bill is to abolish that age limit altogether. Retaining an age limit on the superannuation guarantee only succeeds in discriminating unfairly against older workers, forcing them into retirement. (Time expired).


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Murphy)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.


Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a point on indulgence for the speaker who has been interrupted. You took the speakers out of order, and then it was decided on the clerk’s advice that we would hear the last government speaker instead of hearing the opposition speaker. It was not put to me that it would limit his speaking time, and I think it is really untoward. If there is some way that you could find an extension of time to allow the member for Forde to continue his contribution in light of your earlier error that would be a fair thing to do.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, it was not out of order in calling the member for Dobell. The time for the debate has expired.