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, 3 June 2013
Page: 4968


Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (17:39): I rise to ask the minister—

Mr Fletcher interjecting

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield will give me a chance to speak. He is rising on a point of order, but I will tell the member for Bradfield that this is not question time. This is consideration in detail.

Mr Fletcher: Yes, and the point of order goes to the very purpose of this exercise. The purpose of this exercise is for the government through its executive members to report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield has no point of order and will resume his seat.

Mr CHEESEMAN: I rise tonight—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Higgins on a point of order.

Ms O'Dwyer: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is a farce to have consideration in detail when questions cannot be—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Higgins will resume her seat. I call the member for Corangamite.

Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I rise to ask the minister why it is important to lift superannuation savings of ordinary Australians from nine to 12 per cent. I represent an electorate where many people invest in superannuation through their industry superannuation arrangements and I know within my community that people very much—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will resume his seat. The member for Bradfield on a point of order.

Mr Fletcher: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: will the minister commit that he will answer the questions I asked—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bradfield does not have a point of order. He will resume his seat. The member for Corangamite has the call.

Mr CHEESEMAN: Thank you. I know from my electorate when I get out and streetstall, doorknock and talk to my constituency that Australians very much support having their own superannuation that is in place to provide a quality of life when they get to retirement. I also know that the government, which of course I am a member of, has very substantial plans with respect to superannuation, particularly lifting super savings from nine to 12 per cent. When I get out and talk to my constituency, they inform me that they like the approach that the government has adopted, particularly because most Australians like to have really strong superannuation laws in place, laws that they can feel comfortable about and confident in that if they invest in superannuation that the government will support them through very strong legislation.

I also note the government has put in place the MySuper arrangements to ensure that superannuation costs are kept to an absolute minimum, because Australians want to see the money that they invest in superannuation actually going to their retirements, not going towards excessive fees and charges to superannuation schemes, funds in the private sector and the like.

My question is: what are the alternative approaches that may have been raised or suggested in the course of the budget debate, whether it be our budgets or by the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply. Australians want to have very strong superannuation arrangements, and I ask the minister if he could shed further light on some of the plans and processes coming out of the budget around having really strong superannuation so that Australian workers can have dignity when they get to retirement. I think that is a reasonable question and I am deeply disappointed by the tone that the coalition has taken to this debate— (Time expired)