GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Ms BELYEA (Dunkley) (13:12): Over the past few weeks we've continued to hear from One Nation the proposition that raiding the retirement savings of working Australians is somehow a solution to the cost-of-living pressures people are facing today. It isn't, because the people who will pay the price are not the people sitting comfortably with multiple assets and financial advisers; they are the people I represent in Dunkley—nurses working double shifts, tradies whose body won't last forever, teachers helping shape the next generation, young families trying to keep up with rising bills, the renter wondering if they will ever own a home, and the single mum stretching every dollar just to get through the week.
One Nation wants Australians to believe this is about choice, but, let's be honest: if someone is struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table or keep the lights on, that is not a real choice. We should never build public policy around asking people to sacrifice today just to survive tomorrow. Superannuation is not a government handout.
It's not a political piggy bank. It is not money waiting to be raided whenever politicians run out of ideas. It is the hard-earned money of Australian workers, money set aside over decades so people can retire with dignity, independence and security.
For many Australians, particularly renters, superannuation may be the only substantial asset they ever have—that makes it even more important to protect, not weaken. Under One Nation's proposal, workers could divert part of their compulsory superannuation contributions into their weekly pay packet. For many Australians, that amounts to around $44 a week.
Let's put that into perspective: $44 a week might fill part of a fuel tank or a few bags of groceries or help cover a bill this week. But what is the cost? Experts have warned that workers could retire at least $25,000 worse off because of the loss of compound returns.
The real cost doesn't arrive next Friday; the real cost arrives decades later when someone reaches retirement age and discovers the nest egg they spent their whole working life building isn't there. Here's what Australians deserve to know: it will leave Australians with less money in retirement and less security when they need it most, and then the very politicians encouraging Australians to raid their super today will be asking why people do not have enough savings tomorrow.
I know what financial insecurity feels like, because I have lived it. I have spoken before in this chamber about my experience of domestic and family violence. For much of my 20s and 30s, life was marked by instability, trauma and uncertainty.
Like many women, I worked hard to rebuild my life. My work was my safe place. During that time, one of the few things that gave me peace of mind was knowing that every pay packet was helping me build something for my future.
My superannuation represented security, independence and hope. No-one could take away the fact that every week I was building a more secure future for myself. I know there are countless women across Australia, including in Dunkley, who feel exactly the same—women who have escaped violence, rebuilt their lives and know how important financial security is.
That is why I cannot support any proposal by One Nation or the opposition that weakens the safety net for women, because we also know that financial abuse is one of the most common forms of domestic and family violence. Money becomes a weapon. Control becomes a weapon.
Unfortunately, superannuation becomes a target too. We saw the dangers during the Morrison government's COVID-era early release scheme. Evidence provided to parliamentary inquiries following COVID showed women were pressured and coerced into accessing their superannuation by abusive partners.
Money intended for their future ended up being used for gambling and to purchase drugs. So, when One Nation tells Australians that this is about freedom, my question is simple: whose freedom and at what cost? For many victims-survivors, easier access to super does not create freedom; it creates vulnerability and insecurity, and it perpetrates violence.
As a government MP representing Dunkley, I say women deserve better, low-income workers deserve better and young Australians deserve better. That is why this government has taken a very different approach. We are supporting people experiencing domestic and family violence, introducing superannuation on paid parental leave and delivering payday super so workers receive what they have earned sooner, lifting wages.
We are working really hard to tackle the causes of financial pressure. We are not telling Australians to withdraw their retirement savings and hope for the best, because real leadership is about solving problems, not shifting them, and shifting them is exactly what One Nation's proposal does. It takes today's problem and hands it over to the next generation of retirees.
It is not responsible leadership or governance. It is irresponsible. For a young woman in Langwarrin, a tradie in Carrum, a nurse in Frankston or a family renting in Seaford, superannuation represents something much bigger than a balance on a statement; it represents security, independence and dignity in retirement.
Most importantly, it represents hope for the future. That is what is at risk here. This debate is not really about choice.
It is about whether we protect Australians' future or ask them to mortgage it. It is about whether we stand up for long-term financial security or chase short-term political headlines. I know where I stand.
I stand with the people of Dunkley, with workers and with women. I stand with young Australians who are trying to get ahead. And I stand against any policy that leaves Australians poorer in retirement simply to create the illusion of relief today.
Every Australian deserves dignity in retirement. Every Australian deserves financial security. And every Australian deserves leaders who are prepared to protect both.