When super was introduced, employers reduced cash wages/pay rises to compensate so that there was no overall increase in the cost of employing people. So the argument that you as an employer pay for super whilst true ignores the fact it comes at the expense of reduced wages for employees. So effectively, I got it at the expense of lower wages, not from my employer. In fact my contractual pay is a total including super - if super goes up to 12% then my cash pay goes down to offset it.
John Howard introduced a new tax on super - the super surcharge and I recall this cost me many thousand of dollars until it was finally abolished. So it is obvious where Julia got the idea from.
