Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

Who was it, Member for Hughes? Any guesses? The member for Maribyrnong—that is who it was—who is now the opposition leader. He was the financial services minister during the time that Labor brought this unscrupulous bill before the House.

The Australian people cannot trust Labor when it comes to managing money. Smart people know that. Labor's changes to the unclaimed moneys provisions increase the regulatory burden after the volume of accounts being transferred dramatically increased overnight. So it is ironic that Labor went after people's money in a desperate cash-grab, booked as Commonwealth revenue, to improve the bottom line, only to increase red tape and expenditure due to the substantial increase in regulatory burden. And that is precisely what we are getting rid of.

It was started by the member for Kooyong, who is now the Assistant Treasurer, for good reason. He did such a good job cutting red tape and regulatory burden that he was promoted, and he is doing a fine job as the Assistant Treasurer to the member for North Sydney. Thousands of accounts were literally transferred and subsequently reclaimed back from ASIC. Account holders then waited for up to six long months for their money to be returned, leaving some people and families financially distressed and with good reason.

Labor's changes to the unclaimed moneys provision caused substantial disruption and financial distress for affected account holders, which is why in opposition the coalition opposed Labor's changes. Upon coming to government the coalition released a discussion paper to consult—and there is something that Labor never did; they never talked to stakeholders. We went out there to see how we could improve the unclaimed moneys provision. The result is this bill before the House tonight.

Specifically the coalition sought to reform the unclaimed moneys provisions, suggesting the period of inactivity for personal bank accounts should be increased, exempting a broader range of products, reducing the regulatory burden and tightening privacy concerns. These changes were also recommended as part of the financial systems inquiry.

Increasing the time period of accounting activity from three to seven years will reduce the regulatory burden and is consistent with the government's policy commitment to slash a billion dollars' worth of red tape and green tape each and every year. We are getting on with that very important job of government. The amendments proposed to reduce the regulatory burden in this legislation will generate $36 million in savings each year and reduce the fiscal balance by $158 million over the forward estimates.

Notable industry stakeholders support the government's bill, following public consultation and discussion processes and the release of the draft exposure of the bill. A very good endorsement came from the National Seniors chief executive, Michael O'Neill. He said Labor's three-year limit is 'just ridiculous'. He went on to say:

Older Australians may not touch their secondary or back-up accounts for a few years. It does not mean it is unclaimed or indeed inactive and certainly it is not necessary for Government to become involved and seize the funds.

Of course, Mr O'Neill is absolutely, 100 per cent, correct.

This bill will reverse the unorthodox changes that Labor made in a desperate grab for cash when it was in government. It will ensure the personal bank accounts and life insurance amounts of all Australians cannot be touched unless it is distinctly obvious that they have been inactive for seven years. The bank accounts of children and accounts in a foreign currency will be entirely exempt from the provisions, as they should be. The government recognises that accounts are often opened and set aside for a number of years before the account holder will access them. That was certainly the case with the Hervey Bay pensioner who was saving money for her funeral so she would not burden her children with an unnecessary cost in the order of thousands upon thousands of dollars. She did that so they would not be left to find that money at what is a very sad and difficult time for families—when they lose the matriarch of their family, or lose a loved one. She had set that money aside, and it got pinched, stolen, thieved. People make these personal decisions based on their own circumstances, as our Hervey Bay pensioner did. It is not the business of governments to interfere in the finances of individuals. It is our job to get out of the way and let people get on with doing what they do best.

The changes in this legislative amendment will also provide increased protections for individual account holders. Specifically, it will cease the publication of the unclaimed moneys gazette so that personal information of account holders is not published online, and restrict freedom of information requests in order to protect individuals' details. The government's objective has always been to reunite people with their money as swiftly as possible; Labor's was to separate people and their money as quickly as possible, and to that extent it worked. But the Liberal-Nationals understand, appreciate and acknowledge that people's money is their own and should be used by them for whatever purpose they intended it for—not to prop up the member for Lilley's budget deficit and debt.

We are true to our word when we were in opposition. We said we did not support this initiative implemented by the Labor government and supported by the Greens and, I have to say, by the Independent members for New England and Lyne at the time. Thank goodness those seats have now gone to National Party members! We made the commitment to the Australian people that we would fix it and, proudly, we are now delivering the legislative amendment to do just that. This is good legislation. This is necessary legislation. This is appropriate legislation. It needs to pass this House to fix up the mess that Labor left and to end the wrong that was done.

See this speech in context