In 1992 Paul Keating’s leadership motivated me to join the Labor Party. Keating provided the labour movement with the leadership, vision and fighting spirit needed to combat the regressive Fightback package.

PM Paul Keating campaigning for re-election in 1993.

Keating won the election, and Labor celebrated a great win against neo- liberalism. What followed was a period of government where Keating’s great intellect and vision was pitted against his arrogance, exhaustion and electoral indifference.

This was a difficult and frustrating period for many Labor supporters and I remember periods of despair at our performance. After 1996 the whole labour movement shied away from defending Keating, his Government and his politics due to the collective scars caused by his defeat.

It is worth remembering the good things Keating did, and one of those was his policy of a national superannuation system that had a clear timetable for growth. Keating’s plan involved increased employer contributions, government co-contributions and employee contributions to lift the rate to fifteen percent for every Australian worker by the end of 2003.

The Government contributions were the tax cuts promised in the One Nation statement, a plan that promoted savings over consumption. Keating’s superannuation legacy would have lifted our national savings rate, decreased poverty amongst retirees, and helped to protect Australians from the volatility of the international financial system. Keating’s vision was vandalised by the Howard Government’s partisanship, its desire to boost consumption and the betrayal of the long term national interest.

It was a betrayal of the national interest to dismantle Keating’s superannuation growth plan because Australia’s great economic vulnerability has always been that we do not save as much as we consume. Sometimes that consumption has served to fuel productive investment which is good, and sometimes it has served to fuel unproductive spending and speculation, which is bad.  This national vulnerability has been demonstrated by our long term current account deficits, which have persisted throughout Australian history regardless of changes of government.

Our low savings rate and love of speculation and consumption persisted despite a minerals boom that lifted individual incomes and lifted government revenue by over $300 billion during the Howard years. Even after the biggest economic boom in Australia’s history our banks still relied on overseas borrowings for half their lending, a vulnerability that required a government guarantee to protect Australia’s overall economic interests during a time of profound international financial turmoil.

This national vulnerability is writ large in the Anglo-Saxon economies, where low savings and high consumption are underpinned by the high savings and investment rates of China, the Middle East and the emerging economies. This model led to the speculation and irresponsible lending that plunged the world into international crisis. This problem lies at the heart of the international economic imbalance and it lies at the heart of Australia’s longstanding vulnerabilities, despite the Rudd Government’s stellar stewardship of the Australian economy since it came to office.

The Rudd Government has mapped out a plan to return the budget to surplus.  What is needed now is a plan to lift private savings at the same time. Private savings must be increased to protect our economy in the short to medium term. In the long term a resource-rich country like Australia should produce international lenders not international borrowers. Australian politicians should make becoming a nation of savers our national bipartisan project over the next decade.

Our superannuation system has already delivered a trillion dollars in national savings. It has already delivered a pool of capital to fund productive investment and has underwritten asset values in commercial real estate, share and bond markets. Our superannuation system makes us less reliant on international lenders and has produced a world class fund management industry. Without superannuation our national savings rate would be negligible or non-existent. The current contribution rates enjoy widespread bipartisan support.

For those on the margins super often represents the difference between just getting by and the grinding harshness of poverty. Often a person’s super is their only savings, other than the asset of the family home. I often meet old people who have housing assets but who are cash poor. Despite rising house prices increasing paper wealth, generally this wealth is locked up. You can’t eat a house. A lack of super basically means a lack of income.

It is especially heartbreaking to see poverty amongst older Australians.  These are men and women who have spent a lifetime doing backbreaking work for low pay, who had a little bad luck or made bad decisions, and are left to live their twilight years in grinding poverty.

We know a pension system doesn’t insure us against poverty - only superannuation can. We know that so many baby boomers, particularly women, have inadequate retirement savings. We know that even the best investments don’t always live up to expectations.

When the Henry Tax Review reports that a contribution rate of nine percent will be adequate for the retirement of workers on low to average incomes, I worry that ‘adequate’ might not cut it. I worry that it doesn’t account for life’s mistakes and bad decisions, for higher divorce rates, for future economic shocks, or for longer life spans. Saving too much is the regret of the fortunate, a mistake that can be corrected by higher consumption when you have time on your hands. Saving too little condemns an individual to economic hardship without hope or respite in their last remaining years.

Poverty amongst the elderly is a symptom of a larger problem of the wide disparity between rich and poor in this country. Our unequal distribution of wealth is a natural by-product of a liberal capitalist society, but it can produce social dislocation when taken to extremes. Governments of all persuasions seek to avoid this and the Howard Government used the tax transfer system to essentially take excess corporate tax revenue generated by the boom and redistribute it to middle-class families. The Howard model was predicated on high corporate profits, high company tax rates and a minerals boom that would never end; in short it was predicated on wishful thinking.  We have to adjust our ways to meet the challenges of the new economic environment.

It is far better to use superannuation to redistribute wealth because it maximises the economic benefits through productive investment, creates a culture of saving rather than one of consumption and transfers wealth from working years to when people need it the most. Superannuation redistributes wealth from capital to labour, from foreign multinational investors to Australian nationals and from the working years to the retirement years. If you want to buy back the farm, or the mine, or any other Australian asset then back Australian workers to do so through their retirement savings. If you want a fair Australia owned by Australians then back a higher superannuation contribution rate. A more even spread of wealth fuelled by the private ownership of our national endowments would make our nation both fairer and stronger.

There is no doubt that there will be business opposition and conservative political opposition to lifting contribution rates. A conservative’s duty in part is always to oppose and delay progress no matter how desirable. This opposition and the need to prevent short-term economic dislocation necessitate a long timetable to lift contributions, but it does not warrant delay in presenting a plan. The labour movement must fight for higher superannuation contributions, safe in the knowledge that while there is short term opposition this will ultimately give way to the bipartisan national consensus that supports our current superannuation system.

The Government has called for a national debate on higher superannuation contributions and that is a good thing. My view is that we should back higher contributions, higher savings, a fairer Australia owned by Australians and a dignified and independent retirement for all Australians. We should complete Keating’s unfinished policy masterpiece. 

Most commented

50 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • pete says:

      06:28am | 19/01/10

      bad polls, all of a sudden we have a government wanting to be seen to be doing something other than sitting on it’s hands, which is the wide spread perception among voters.

    • slugger says:

      07:21am | 19/01/10

      up nice and early pete,what part of landslide did you miss or are you reading a different poll.

    • Sean says:

      08:55am | 19/01/10

      Roughly 1.2 million more people (according to that poll) will direct their vote, some via preferences, to Labor instead of Liberal.  I would hardly say that’s a bad poll.

      Especially considering that the PM hasn’t been spotted in a month it’s even less of a bad poll, if the Libs couldn’t catch up given the fact that Labor has shut down over Dec-Jan and the deplorable State Government performances it would be a massive problem for democracy in general.

      Any gain is a good result for Abbott but that poll was a nil-all draw all round in my opinion.

    • iansand says:

      09:06am | 19/01/10

      Howard, as Treasurer under Fraser, wimped out on economic reform.  Keating, as Treasurer under Hawk and as PM, started the process.  Howard continued the process Keating started.

    • Pitchfork Kenny says:

      06:55am | 19/01/10

      Keating sits next to Gough as the worst Prime Ministers this country has ever had the misfortune to endure. He was slimy, arrogant and inherently evil - all traits he shares with Rudd, who is fast on track to join his ALP mates in the evil trinity of Aussie PMs. What is it about the ALP and celebrating poor governance? You’d think they’d be ashamed of these people.

    • jack gilbert says:

      08:52am | 19/01/10

      Thank god we dont rely on this and other moron comments from brainless liberals like kenny and others who have nothing better to do than write to this paper with a lot of hogwash.
      He should step back and think, not only did JOHN HOWARD lose the election, he lost his own seat how bad is that.

    • Rob says:

      08:52am | 19/01/10

      Pitchfork Kenny sits elevated amongst us mere mortals as one of the worst posters readers of The Punch have ever had to endure.

      Please, resume your Menzies and Howard worship.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:55am | 19/01/10

      Pitchfork Kenny @ 0755hrs,

      Sorry Two Prong, but you got it wrong. Keating is possibly the most forward thinking PM this country has had. I believe any objective analysis would confirm my view.

      I await your evidence proving me wrong.

    • Pitchfork Kenny says:

      11:13am | 19/01/10

      John A Neve - your posts are as predictable and boring as your name. Keating’s extire legacy and the legacy of the ALP government from 83 to 96 was built on implementing the recommendations for economic reform made by John Howard in his last term as Treasurer. Floating the dollar, privatising banks and granting them independence, deregulation, freeing the labour force from union impediments (now wound back by Rudd) and everything else he did was just a carbon copy of Howard’s plans. This is why they received bilareral support. The only thing Keating didn’t steal from Howard was granting the RBA independence, which was a shame because we had to ensure 18%+ interest rates as a result of this. So, one can only assume, that he was forward thinking because he copied to policies of the man who was to follow him. But what else would you expect from a high school dropout (only in the ALP is failure seen as a good thing).

    • John A Neve says:

      11:36am | 19/01/10

      Pitchfork Kenny,
      Your views and those of Howards PM, differ greatly, strange that is’t it?
      I am sure he knew a lot more about Howard than you do. Try doing a little research into Howard’s and Keating’s achievements.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      08:32pm | 22/01/10

      Pitchfork Kenny, typical conservative voter, no idea of the facts, misquotes often and pulls figures from their sphincters. Howard was offered the Hewson report on economic reform, it was NOT the brainchild of John Howard, Australia’s worst treasurer. Howard took the recommendations to Fraser who wasn’t interested at the time as the Liberal Party was flailing in the polls and was moving towards big government, very similiar to the Labor Government he ousted, to remain popular and be re-elected. Fraser had no interest in economic reform as it would be unpopular and it would require a leader of substance and political will to get it through the parliament and accepted by the electorate. These were characteristics that both he and Howard lacked. Your lack of research, reading and education is blatantly obvious in your statement of misinformation.

    • Geraldine says:

      07:14am | 19/01/10

      I think Labor need to finish the job of fulfilling and stop breking their election promises before anything else. Time is running out. Their more interested in re-introducing Rudss ETS. Should be interesting to see how popular Mr Rudd will be trying to achieve that.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      07:26am | 19/01/10

      Least your honest and say it straight. Labor stands for a re-distribution of wealth! If they can’t do it with an ETS then they will find another way.
      I still can’t get over this piece of spin,
      “The Rudd Government has mapped out a plan to return the budget to surplus”
      When should I stop laughing… That’s cracker. The Rudd Government has blown billions of tax payers dollars, period, full stop! They are looking at ways of taxing us even more to make some recovery. Looks like Krudd and Wrong’s ETS won’t be the vehicle for this claw back. Alcohol is up there on the list as an easy take though isn’t it Nick? This government will find a way to tax fun…
      Gotta love them polls! Getting worried yet Nick?

    • John A Neve says:

      11:08am | 19/01/10

      Wayne Hutchins,

      You raise a very interesting point. While i do not disagree with your claim the labor “stands for a redistribution of wealth”. Is that so wrong, do you believe the worlds wealth is equitably distributed now?

      Even in this country, do we have a fair distribution of our countries wealth?

    • soultrader says:

      11:43am | 19/01/10

      @John A Neve
      Wealth redistribution is one thing. Just taking it from the wealthy does not solve the problem. The not so well-off are sometimes victims of their own choice. And to keep giving to them breeds generations of parasites. Just what we need to increase “our productivity” as stated by Mr Rudd, I do not think so. But those with the ability to pay should contribute to the social good. And those in receipt of this new found welfare need to EARN IT…..

    • John A Neve says:

      11:53am | 19/01/10

      Soultrader,
      I don’t disagree, but that is not what Wayne was talking about. Mark you, if people got money only by working for it!!!! There would be a lot of starving people in ths country.

    • Karen says:

      07:47am | 19/01/10

      Finishing any job Keating started would be great news for Abbott and the Libs considering Keating was one of the worst Prime Ministers Australia has ever had. Good news all around for Abbott.

    • Kent says:

      08:01am | 19/01/10

      Time to do the hard yards now Labor, you’ve spent 2 years trilling your spin and rhetoric, cash hand outs and congratulating yourselves. Only problem is your already into an election year and you have to start getting your money back off us you threw around. Should be interesting. I tried to find something to say regarding the above topic, but ? Keating? Has Turnbulls media advisor gone to work for Labor?

    • Gerry says:

      08:02am | 19/01/10

      There was a time when I thought Keating was the worst PM Australia had suffered in modern times ... then along came JWH

    • Pete from Sydney says:

      08:05am | 19/01/10

      Keatring was a legend and a great reformer…something that Little Johnny was never able to do…his so called great reform of a GST was stolen from others…let’s face it guys, politics lost a great character and a man of conviction in Keating…and his party didn’t call him a lying rodent

    • Randal says:

      08:38am | 19/01/10

      Ha…Ha…Ha… This is a comic piece surely!

      Keating, a great visionary surely you cannot be referring to the man who crippled this nation as treasurer, responsible for hyper inflation, crippling interest rates and double digit unemployment, the man who gave us the recession we had to have, and then lauded himself for putting millions of Australian’s out of work and the cause of misery for millions of Australian families.

      The only place that the candle Keating believed that we should light for him to celebrate his genius is right where the sun does not shine.

      He was a disaster as treasurer, and his own ego ensured that he was a failed one term PM, thank God, one could only imagine the damage he would have caused given more time.

      To criticise the Howard Government, who provided Australia with over a decade of prosperity, a government who laid the foundation for this nation to survive the collapse of the Tiger economies and the Global Financial Crisis shows how you are either a great comic writer or is that your view of political history is viewed simply through red coloured glasses.

    • Peter Warrington says:

      10:12am | 19/01/10

      elected Dec 91 and defeated March 96, with a 3-year term system. does not compute….

    • Randal says:

      10:21am | 19/01/10

      Let me assist with your computing Peter, stole the leadership from Hawke 91, elected in the “GST” election ‘93, thrown out on his backside in a landslide by the Australian people ‘96… As I said a one term wonder!

    • Sherlock says:

      08:43am | 19/01/10

      Keating was a man who got things done.  Rudd is a man who likes to look busy.

      There is a difference.

      I voted Labor a number of times under Hawke & Keating. If this government was the only one on the ballot paper I’d vote informal.

    • Neaks says:

      08:46am | 19/01/10

      ‘The Rudd Government has mapped out a plan to return the budget to surplus.’  I think Mr Champion that you have forgotten to mention that it was ‘The Rudd Government’ who put the budget into deficit in the first place!!!!!

    • Ben says:

      08:52am | 19/01/10

      Increase superannuation rates?  In the last budget, Labor halved the maximum amount that can be contributed to super as tax-deductible contributions (from $50,000 to $25,000 for those under 50 and from $100,000 to $50,000 for those over 50).  Amounts over these thresholds are then taxed at 46.5%.  How is this an incentive to put more into super?

      Additionally, and I am no economist, but I would have thought that if everyone stopped spending and started saving the economy would fall over as market supply outweighed demand.  Wouldn’t this mean higher unemployment, therefore less income tax collected and more being paid out in government benefits.  How is this going to return the budget to surplus?  Happy to be proven wrong on this one.

    • Tinman says:

      03:55pm | 19/01/10

      They have also reduced the amount a person can put in after tax and also reduced the government co-contribution.

      For a party that started the compulsory superannuation they have failed it since they re-took office.

      Keating made superannuation and Costello improved it and Swan has brought it back.  It is one of those things that is more often than not above partisan politics except for this current government.

      Do not be surprised if we see the taxation of super increase to repay the debt (pathway to recovery haha).

    • Julia says:

      08:53am | 19/01/10

      So… this guy ‘Champion’. You reckon he’d win races all the time?

    • Stuart says:

      09:04am | 19/01/10

      If Keating’s plan involved increased employer contributions, government co-contributions and employee contributions to lift the rate to fifteen percent for every Australian worker by the end of 2003, why did he only start by slugging Employers 9%. Where was the Government’s 3% and Employees 3? Where was Keating’s courage? Nowhere!!

      To suggest that “The Government contributions were the tax cuts promised in the One Nation statement” is typical Labor myth making. Keating had no intention of keeping that promise, as Rudd has no intention of keeping the promises he made. Anything to get elected!

      So Nick, is Bowen going to announce that the Government will provide the extra 3% when you have already recklessly racked up over $150Bn in Federal debt in two years with no plan to every pay it back? Will Rudd announce that employees will now be required to provide 3%?

      Go and watch “The Castle” because they will tell you, ‘you’re dreaming’

    • Lana says:

      09:07am | 19/01/10

      Sean - the fact that Rudd has been AWOL for a month could only have helped his polls I would imagine. I’m fairly sure if had been in our faces for the last month they would be even worse. Voters are increasingly tired of seeing and listening to his rheteric and spin. We shall see if his polls go back up now he’s back on our TV’s and on the air,

    • Sean says:

      09:37am | 19/01/10

      I’m not an expert at all but that goes against every media management policy around.  You could be right though - it will be a very interesting year.

      Personally I reckon if Rudd can distance himself from state governments, he’ll do it reasonably easily.  Not landslide easily, but enough.

      Howard struggled leading up to his first re-election, Beazley actually got more votes than him in 99.

      I’m no Kevin worshipper by any strectch of imagination but the guy can manage the agenda better than anyone since Bracks (with the possible exception of Carpenter in WA).

      Abbott was a brave choice by the Libs, he has a much bigger chance of winning than Turnbull did but he also has a much bigger chance of getting smashed.

      We’ll have to just wait and see.

    • COF says:

      09:13am | 19/01/10

      Hey Ben,

      That view is congruent with demand based economics. However most supply siders would say that the excess supply goes offshore, leading to lower inflation, positive trade deficits, and increased personal equity amongst Australians (especially with an aging population). To a supply sider, it is pretty good policy in other words, and I tend to agree with this view.

    • Ben says:

      09:44am | 19/01/10

      @ COF

      Like I said, happy to be corrected.  But how would the price of our exports compete internationally?  Australian made products seem to struggle to compete in the Australian market, due to higher production costs, so why would it be any different overseas.  This is further compounded by the current high Australian dollar (assuming price is the only factor of course - I understand that the quality of our goods are generally much better than overseas competitors).

      Further, if the bulk (assuming) of goods are going to shipped overseas, wouldn’t those companies look to reduce costs by making their products overseas, where labour will be cheaper (Pacific Brands) and shipping costs can be minimalised?

    • COF says:

      10:28am | 20/01/10

      On a supply curve, if you increase the supply(quantity) of an item its price drops - deflation. If the price of certain goods (financial capital in this case) drops in a collective market, upward pressure on prices in associated markets (such as Labour) ease.  The knock on effect is that all our goods are more competitive in the international market. Granted, it is only theory, but it is a pretty well established one. Any move that is anti inflation is a good move.

      When you look at economics, it is best not to concentrate on the decisions of a few and assume that is the trend. Economic trends are the cumulative results of billions of financial decisions made by millions of people in hundreds of different countries. The models developed to predict these trends , while not perfect, are the results of a large amount of research into these cumulative trends.

      I totally agree with you by the way with regards to super policy - both subsequent governments since Keating have done very little to support compulsory superannuation and its about time that someone did.

    • AJ says:

      09:46am | 19/01/10

      Why do the Libs on The Punch insist on saying that 54-46 is a ‘bad’ poll for Labor?  It’s an electoral wipeout for the Libs, to the tune of 10-20 lost seats…

      And as a Green, I’ll just sit here smugly, waiting for the raft of new Senators (and possibly a couple of House of Reps seats) we’ll get.

    • Randal says:

      10:30am | 19/01/10

      AJ, the good news is that the only additional seats that you will get will belong to the ALP, so you will still be short of the control you seek in the Upper House.

      As for the Reps, well fortunately the porportional rep system that allows minorities parties access to way too much power and influence does not apply in the lower house, so the likelyhood of a party that struggles to pick up 7% of the national vote actually getting a seat in the Reps is an event that we will never witness unless yiu can rouse a few million more tree huggers!

    • Chase Stevens says:

      01:34pm | 19/01/10

      Randal it’s more than likely that the ‘Gen Y’ers who have just turned 18 will be voting Green pref. to Labor in for both Upper and Lower house elections, in both Federal and State elections and will continue to do so for a long time so I wouldn’t laugh off the Greens, given they are the fastest growing political force in Australian politics whilst both the Liberals and Labor may be approaching stagnation.

    • Randal says:

      03:02pm | 19/01/10

      Don’t worry chase with an ageing population like Australia living longer and longer I think it will be a little while before we have to worry about any dramatic spurt in the support for The Greens.

      I am also warmed by the fact that as people get older and actually start to work for a living and raise families that they begin to see the loony parties, such as The Greens, for what they are, a party simply intent upon ripping cash out of the pockets of ordinairy Australian’s for pointless environmental campaigns.

    • LCD says:

      03:48pm | 19/01/10

      Randall, if your theory is true, it explains why the Coalition were annihilated at the last Federal election after 12 years of driving the country backward…

    • Randal says:

      03:58pm | 19/01/10

      That’s weird LCD, I thought the ALP won the last election and not The Greens, must have been my misunderstanding.

      Then again you think that paying off the entire 96B national debt left by the Hawke/Keating era and running multibillion dollar surpluses, low rates of inflation, unemployment and interest rates for over a decade was setting back the Nation, so then again I think I will stay with my far better judgment on matters, but thanks for your opinion, however pointless it may have been.

    • Luke says:

      10:39am | 19/01/10

      A Keating QUOTE: ” The Rudd Government can’t get out of bed without consulting a focus group” Not even Keating is a fan of your Government.

    • Russell says:

      10:55am | 19/01/10

      So who’s going to fund this increase to superannuation?

    • ChrisG says:

      01:04pm | 19/01/10

      I just love ideological story telling: Keating can be both responsible for floating the dollar, financial deregulation, privatisation and tax wind-back, and the victor over ‘neo-liberalism’!

      Still, that is a minor quibble compared with the intemporate response by Pitchfork Kenny - the PM was “inherently evil”? Do you really believe that? It’s one thing to disagree with the bloke, another to describe him as inherently evil. Tone it down ...

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:29pm | 19/01/10

      “despite the Rudd Government’s stellar stewardship of the Australian economy since it came to office.”

      They haven’t done much yet – spent a bucket load of cash and we await the outcome of another “Review” ie Tax.

      “What is needed now is a plan to lift private savings at the same time”

      Another ETS tax = less money = less for savings….. that’s for some because some of it will be redistributed. There is also a small debt that will need to be paid back, by whom I wonder.


      I had to read it a few times, but I couldn’t get my head around “I worry that it doesn’t account for life’s mistakes and bad decisions, for higher divorce rates, for future economic shocks” – can’t account for everything though you missed the most important – your health. Having said that, a divorce might be a good thing.

      As for the Hawke V Keating V Howard V Muhammad Ali stoush- there is no doubt about the structural changes these PM’s implemented and the enormous benefits we now enjoy. It was the work of these men that saved us from the GFC and not the cash splash. Tony Abbott publicly stated that yesterday afternoon i.e. he acknowledged the excellent structural reform programs implemented by Hawke, Keating and Howard although he did give an extra wrap for Howard. In any case, an idea is just that an idea, it is when it is implemented that it starts to bear fruit.

    • S.L says:

      08:31pm | 19/01/10

      Keatings main failing was his lack of public relations. Even he was surprised when he won the “unwinable election”. He doesn’t tollerate fools and wouldn’t kiss the relevent backsides (Lawsy/ Jonesy/ Hinchy/ Ray Martin/ Neil Mitchel etc) when an election was coming up. I don’t recall him ever having a gimick and the only thing I saw a TV show get him to do that wasn’t business was when A Current Affair arranged a reunion with the band he used to manage. All I will say on his performance as PM is I voted for him. Whether he was right or wrong I liked him!

    • Balanced says:

      10:46am | 21/01/10

      The Howard Government blowing $314 Billion of windfall income from the mining boom and then leaving a structural deficit behind by announcing big tax cuts just before the election was one of the most cynical acts in Australia’s political history. I voted Liberal in 1996 but after a couple of terms of that Government I realised that Mr Keating was an unsung hero. The Labor Party made a mistake in disowning him. I note Mr Costello claiming credit for the condition of the Australian Banks and our economic recovery from the GFC. I suspect much closer to the truth is that the Australian Banks are greedy and over-protected, and didn’t need to trade in derivative products to make huge profits that disguise their under-reported incompetence. Had Mr Costello not sat on his hands while Mr Howard raided the country’s treasure chest for pork-barrelling, the current Government would not have needed to go into deficit. For me, the most stunning example of the cynicism was the $10 million given to Mr Turnbull’s friend and electoral supporter to make rain. It will be a long time before I would trust a Liberal-led government with my taxes and superannuation.

    • Phil says:

      07:59pm | 21/01/10

      Nick

      As am employer I pay the 9% currently happily. Many have said the governments 3% was given as a tax cutr. What Bullshit. WIth over 50 employees I am yet to have more than 2 who were over 60 ask for additional personal contributions which was supposed to be the extra 3% on top of the governments.

      Did your government not change the co contribution for lower paid employees?

      Is this just another way for Rudd to balance the budget. With an extra 6% imagine the 15% contibution tax windfall. Or am I being synical. Doubtful.

      Or is this just another wealth redistribution tactic of labor?

    • Emmie says:

      01:35am | 01/02/10

      Excuse me! What do you mean YOU, as an employer pay the 9% superannuation - even if happily.  As I remember it, the workers of that time forewent 3 years of wage increases at 3% per annum to pay for that 9% superannuation!  Otherwise you would still have to pay it as part of our wages - and the wages of the people who have entered the workforce since that time.

    • Phil says:

      08:00pm | 21/01/10

      With a different uniform and a small mo, he could even look like a WW2 villian.

    • Social Bookmarking Service says:

      09:45am | 17/06/12

      oTO7he I cannot thank you enough for the blog post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter