Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (line 1) to page 37 (line 36), omit the Schedule.

As outlined in the second reading debate, the coalition is keen to see schedule 2 of the bill dealing with the regulation of self-managed super fund auditors repealed from this measure. If we are able to achieve that outcome we would happily support the propositions that the government has brought before the House. We move that amendment inspired by the Cooper review's own conclusion that the self-managed superannuation fund sector is largely successful and well functioning. It did not identify any need for substantial change. What we have seen on the basis of that general conclusion is the government cherry-picking from a range of recommendations, choosing elements motivated I am not quite sure what, from the Cooper review with little consistency. For example, they have ignored many of the governance reforms proposed by the review. There is a strong correlation between the measures opposed and the vested interests of industry super funds.

So we wonder: why is it, when the government has to make a call on these issues, that they seek to penalise the one-third of those super industry and self-managed superannuation funds and yet avoid anything that might impact on union dominated industry funds?

Here we are seeing more than 400,000 self-managed super funds having additional regulation and cost imposed upon them; yet the government has failed to make any case whatsoever about how the current checks and balances are inadequate, dysfunctional or deficient. We have seen, instead, a cherry-picking of the recommendations, none of which actually relate to the imposition of fees; yet this is the very same mechanism that saw the government able to gouge, I think, $370 million extra out of self-managed superannuation to achieve its fiction-and-fudged budget surplus.

So we are wary about the motive, because the government has failed to outline any coherent or compelling case about how these changes might improve whatever the problem is that the government has been unable to identify. Instead we have seen Labor members talking about devastating cases, such as Trio, dealing with funds management—completely irrelevant to this topic and completely unrelated to self-managed superannuation funds, but being held out as a justification for these measures.

So, for these very thoughtful, considered and well-researched reasons, we have put forward some terrific amendments and, if the government shared our ambition about removing unnecessary regulation and compliance costs that add nothing to the peace, order and good government of this country, I am sure that the minister at the table—the minister increasingly becoming known as the minister for superannuation fiddle and fudge—would see the merit of these measures and support them.

We have not seen the case made. There is no justification. This is a cash grab with additional compliance requirements that achieve no specific policy outcome on the basis of a review that actually pointed to how largely successful the SMSF sector is, how there is currently the involvement of the tax compliance area, the ATO and the professional accounting bodies and how appropriately qualified people manage self-managed superannuation funds and a separate, appropriately qualified person carries out the audit process. There was no indication of any systemic failure, dysfunction or suboptimal arrangement in those current policy settings. Yet here we have more red tape and more cash grab—more gouge of revenue out of the self-managed superannuation sector that the government has comprehensively failed to justify.

I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context