Budget week has its set pieces, traditions and rhythms. It’s a special week which lets both sides of politics lay out their wares for national scrutiny. I’ve now been through nine of them, in government and opposition, frontbench and back. The Budget speech is just the beginning, and is followed by a series of interviews, speeches and events starring all the key players. The Parliamentary week finishes with the Budget reply from the leader of the opposition. The annual Budget reply is really the only annual event in which the leader of the opposition can be guaranteed national attention.

This year Tony Abbott laid out more policy detail than he has in the past. This is very welcome and appropriate in an election year. One specific detail that he announced is particularly disappointing: delaying the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent by two years. Paul Keating first suggested that we should have a superannuation guarantee of 12 per cent in 1991. John Howard stalled the rate at nine per cent. Hence the Keating plan took years longer than initially intended to be implemented, and now Abbott wants to delay it even further. This is concerning on a number of levels. There is the direct impact: a reduction of $5 billion a year in superannuation savings and tens of thousands of dollars in retirement incomes for people on average earnings. But even more troubling is that this delay represents a deep and fundamental misunderstanding on Tony Abbott’s part of the importance and benefits of superannuation.

Of all the Hawke/Keating economic reforms, the introduction of universal superannuation is among the most important. Superannuation has meant that people from all walks of life, including those on moderate incomes, have had the chance to retire without being reliant on the age pension. It has been important in building our national savings, and having the liquidity of our superannuation system to draw on was an important part in our successful navigation of the GFC. The skills built up in managing our superannuation savings have been important in building up the skills of our world-class financial services industry. Superannuation, which encourages, indeed forces, self-reliance, is something conservatives should embrace. But there is a deep suspicion of superannuation among conservatives, perhaps due to the 50 per cent union representation on industry fund boards. This ignores the fact that the other 50 per cent comes from employers, and that industry funds have to compete with retail and self-managed funds in any event.

Abbott is among the Coalition’s foremost superannuation sceptics. He once told Parliament that superannuation was, in his view, one of the biggest con-jobs ever perpetuated on the Australian people, and his book Battlelines contained the bizarre suggestion of abolishing superannuation tax concessions and guaranteeing all Australians the age pension. On the other hand, Joe Hockey understands the achievement of superannuation. In an under-reported element of his London ‘Age of Entitlement’ speech last year, he encouraged other countries to adopt a defined contribution retirement income scheme. He was effectively calling on them to adopt Australia’s superannuation model. Hockey initially won the argument within the Coalition as to whether the Liberals should back the superannuation increase. He promised the superannuation industry earlier this year that the Coalition would stick with Labor’s timetable for the superannuation increase. Clearly, the Abbott view prevailed over the Hockey approach. As the population ages and superannuation becomes even more necessary, it is important that Hockey’s views prevails over Abbott’s when it comes to superannuation.

Occasionally you come across a literary gem from a bygone age which has previously passed you by. Recently I read To Fall Like Lucifer, the memoirs of Ian Harvey, first published in the early 1970s. Recently republished by Britain’s foremost political publisher, Biteback, To Fall Like Lucifer is a compellingly honest autobiography from this one-time Conservative Minister. Harvey had to resign from Parliament and end a promising political career when he was found by police in a less-than-ideal position with a Guardsman in St James’s Park in 1958. It took him more than a decade to feel comfortable writing about his experiences. But he made a valuable contribution to British political history through a brave recounting of his education, career and downfall which would have been extraordinarily controversial even in the 1970s. Biteback has done us a service by republishing it. To Fall Like Lucifer is a slim volume and an easy read. The book covers the 1930s to the 1970s and anyone interested in the history of British politics in the 20th century would do well to pick up a copy.

As this column is being written, there are families still looking for their children in the aftermath of the Oklahoma tornado. It is difficult to find the words to express our empathy. You drop your children off at school or childcare in the morning in the belief that you will pick them up safely in the afternoon. There have been too many tragic instances of people in the US not being able to do this in recent times. This time it was a natural phenomenon which took too many young lives. On other occasions it has been the American obsession with the right to bear arms that has led to the senseless loss of life. Either way, our thoughts are always with them.