E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
2CC STEPHEN CENATIEMPO BREAKFAST SHOW
TUESDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2020
SUBJECTS: Political panel with Zed Seselja; Superannuation; JobSeeker.
STEPHEN CENATIEMPO, HOST: Time to catch up with our, what day is it Eddie? Tuesday? Tuesday morning political panel. Zed Seselja, the ACT Liberal Senator is live in the studio with me. G'day Zed.
SENATOR ZED SESELJA: G'day, Stephen. How are you?
CENATIEMPO: Very well. And Alicia Payne, Labor Member for Canberra is on the line with us. G'day, Alicia.
ALICIA PAYNE, MEMBER FOR CANBERRA: Good morning, Stephen. Good morning, Zed.
CENATIEMPO: Now, we did extend an invitation for you to come into the studio too, but you've got lots going on in your life at the moment, Alicia.
PAYNE: I do. I've managed to sneak out of the bedroom without waking the baby. So, that's a good, good start to the day.
CENATIEMPO: Alright, well Zed and I will keep our voices down for you. Zed, the Federal Government, should it go ahead with a scheduled increase to the Superannuation Guarantee? And how could, well, I guess the first question is, will it actually affect wages growth?
SESELJA: Well, look. It has always been known that there's a trade-off between the Superannuation Guarantee and wages. We've seen that when, back when this was brought in, many, many years ago under a former Labor government. There were things like the Accord where they would have things like wage restraint, and, and it would be a, a trade-off between income now and future income and so there is always a balance between those two things. So we've had a Retirement Income Review looking at these things. No decision has been made in relation to what should happen beyond that but what we have recognised during these very tough times is that allowing people to access their Super in extraordinary times I think is valuable, and I think it's been very valuable as people have lost their jobs, and I know a lot of Australians as they've accessed some of that Super, whilst yes, that does mean they will have a little less when they get to retirement, I know a lot of Australians, a lot of people I've spoken to here in Canberra were very pleased to be able to, to get access to that to pay the bills, to have a little more security at this time. So, we've always got to balance those things. We need to always be honest that as it increases, of course there's only so much money to go around, so if there's more money in your retirement savings there might be a little bit less in your wages at the moment.
CENATIEMPO: I want to touch on the dipping into your Super in a moment, but Alicia, its fair to say that, obviously, the more money we've got in our Super the less pressure we put on the welfare system when we retire. But there is only so much, particularly in this current environment, that employers can handle.
PAYNE: I think it's very concerning for all Australians that the Liberals are obviously laying the groundwork to freeze our Super increase that we're supposed to be receiving next year. That is an attack on the retirement incomes of all Australians. And I think the arguments around the trade-off between wages now and money in retirement just simply don't hold up. The 0.5% increase that's supposed to go ahead next year, that's already legislated, that's worth around $8 per week to the worker on average weekly earnings. So that's $8 now, but in 30 years time and retirement it could be worth $80,000. We saw that with people, someone aged 30 who accessed the early super release as part of the Government's response to COVID. They might have taken up to $10,000 out now and it's estimated that at their time of retirement that means they will be $100,000 worse off. And so I think, even though we've got an extraordinary time at the moment and we are in recession, it's not the time to be compromising on these, you know, visionary future building projects like superannuation, which is exemplary around the world because it's about delivering a decent standard of retirement for all Australians and I think it's something that's important, really important now more than ever that we maintain.
CENATIEMPO: And I think that's a fair enough point, but where do employers, where do businesses, come up with that $8 a week or more, depending on the level of wages or the 9% is what we're talking about here, the 9.5% percent, I mean if we increase that to 12.5% employers have to, to come up with that money somewhere.
PAYNE: Well, it's only the increase to 10% next year and it's not a trade-off between wages that that money would be going into superannuation, employers have been planning for that and I just don't think that argument holds up.
SESELJA: Well, Alicia, unfortunately, I mean, economists would tell you that over many, many years of study that it actually is a trade often and the union movement recognised that when Super was first brought in so you can certainly make the argument about the benefits of higher superannuation on retirement savings. That's a fact. But you can't pretend that there isn't some trade off because there's always only a certain amount of money to go around, there's not an endless money pit and I would say that obviously yes, there's benefits, and that's why we've supported a superannuation system and people have that money in retirement, but also when people get money in their wages now, and you talked about, the money now, versus the money later, if that helps you to purchase a home, of course that grows in value as well, and that gives you security as well, so there's always trade-offs. No one's saying that there aren't great benefits, and the Government hasn't made decisions going forward coming out of this review, but I don't think we should pretend that there isn't a trade-off, there is no magic money tree. If you were to double superannuation tomorrow, there would be an impact. If you increase it by a certain amount, there is an impact. We have to decide as a nation as to whether that impact is worth it and that trade-off is worth it.
CENATIEMPO: And Alicia, just on that, let's talk about that, Tim Wilson has come out and said we should be able to use our superannuation money as a deposit to buy a home. Surely that appreciating asset over time is a better use of money?
PAYNE: Well, we're also going to see, if that went ahead it would also increase the price of houses and further lockout, you know, young people out of the housing market which is a major problem.
CENATIEMPO: Well, I think there's other ways to address that though. Let's move on from that, JobSeeker and or JobKeeper will end in March and JobSeeker will reduce rate. The RBA has come out and said that 700,000 jobs have been saved by JobKeeper, Zed. Is that really a fact? In March, are we going to see those 700,000 jobs go?
SESELJA: Well, it is a fact. And the RBA obviously is independent and it's made those judgements. But, what I would say, so, the idea with JobKeeper is that in the real crisis time is that people would have a payment and they would stay connected to their employer. And then as we see the economy open up it's much easier for those people to go straight back into those jobs, and we are seeing that. We are seeing a lot evidence in the figures in the last month, I think we saw, you know, hundreds of thousands of jobs coming back. So, the actual headline unemployment rate actually just ticked up as the, as the participation rate went right up but about 180,000 jobs came back into the economy so it's doing what it's designed to do. It needs to continue to do that, we've been talking about this effective unemployment rate and that's been coming down rapidly and so where we want to get to is that people keep connected, the hours come back as we are seeing in a number of fields. We're seeing that in Canberra as our unemployment rate is just a tick under 4% but it's obviously around 7% nationally. So I think it's been a success but there is a long way to go to make sure that in a couple of months time, that in 6 months time we're growing the economy and those jobs are there.
CENATIEMPO: Alicia, fair to say it's gotta end at some point, where do you thinks a fair time?
PAYNE: Well, certainly not now. As Zed said, it's doing what it was designed to be doing. We've got 7% unemployment in Australia at the moment and 160,000 people estimated to lose their jobs before Christmas. March is not the time, it's too early. We've seen in South Australia just this week, you know that they've had to go into an extreme lockdown. We're not out of the woods yet, and the economy will take a long time to recover. So why you would be cutting this program at a time when it's needed most makes no sense to me. And the other thing that's really important is that we shouldn't be cutting, reducing Jobseeker at this time either, at a time when we want to be stimulating the economy, injecting more money and seeing people having money to spend, to maintain not only a decent standard of living but support the economy.
CENATIEMPO: I think, Zed, in response to that, I think most people would agree that the old Newstart rate probably did need to be increased but the $1,200 or $1,100 or whatever was, was fairly generous, it had to be reduced at some stage.
SESELJA: It had to, and I don't think Labor are arguing it shouldn't be. I mean, it's interesting, they sort of criticise but they're not prepared to say exactly when they would phase it down and by how much. I mean surely you wouldn't keep it where it is. It was emergency levels, extraordinary expenditure for the taxpayer, and we were, we as a government made the decision that it was important that we did that, but no one in their right mind believes you can keep, that those kinds of rates of welfare where they are. One, because of the cost to the taxpayer, but two, because then the long-term disincentive to work. We do wanna, and jobs are coming back, and as those jobs come back, we want people looking for work and re-engaging with the workforce.
CENATIEMPO: Alicia, as you're on the telephone line I'll give you the last word.
PAYNE: Well, the Liberals voted just in the last sitting period against Labor asking for a permanent increase in JobSeeker, in Newstart to be implemented. It absolutely does need to be increased from those pre-COVID rates, and it should never go back to that. And you know, and the Government are, yes, it doesn't need to stay at those doubled rates indefinitely but, you know, the fact that the Government made that increase shows that they know it was too low and that when they were going to see masses of people coming onto this payment, they had to acknowledge that people couldn't live on $40 a day. So, the Government could be doing the work right now to work out what that rate should be and setting it, and there's no excuse for them not to be doing that.
CENATIEMPO: Alicia Payne, thanks for your time this morning.
PAYNE: Thank you, Stephen.
CENATIEMPO: And Zed Seselja, thanks for your time.
SESELJA: Thanks very much, mate.
ENDS
MEDIA CONTACT: TASMAN VAUGHAN 0435 933 313
