Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the member for Bass says, it was shameful. Of course, they stripped money off Australians of all ages, including children. The one thing that just blew us away at the time was the Labor government actually attacking the hard-earned savings of little kids who had money in their accounts. There was no incentive for a child to save. What message did this give out in the broader community? It is no wonder that Australians were absolutely horrified and disbelieving. Disbelief was what I heard most. 'I cannot believe that my government—an Australian government—is doing this to me,' and yet it was. It is a measure that we strongly opposed when in opposition.

I am not surprised there are no Labor speakers in here supporting that position. Where are they? Who could come in here in support the previous legislation that took money from children's bank accounts. I am not surprised that they are not here. I do not know how they defended this out in the community at the time. It was an appalling measure. It was a measure that we strongly opposed when in opposition and that we promised to fix when in government. Well here we are and that is exactly what we are doing.

This unmitigated mess was actually created by the current Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of the Opposition actually created this mess. I am seriously concerned, as the member for Bass is, that if Labor comes back into government and the now Leader of the Opposition becomes the Prime Minister there could well be another attack on Australians' savings. Nothing would be sacred and nothing would be safe. Like so many, my office got complaints. It caused problems and distress for the elderly as well as young people and young families.

This bill will extend from three years to seven years the period of inactivity required before funds are actually taken from an authorised deposit-taking institution, an ADI, life insurance provider accounts and life insurance amounts and transferred to the Commonwealth. Currently ADIs are required to assess all accounts to determine if they contain unclaimed moneys by 31 December each year and transfer any that do to the Commonwealth by 31 March the following year. This was Labor's legislation. In late 2012—and I remember it was getting close to Christmas—the previous government reduced the required period of inactivity to just three years. It actually resulted in $550 million from thousands of accounts being transferred to ASIC in 2012-13. There was almost an eightfold increase in a single year.

As I said, we did not support it when in opposition and, as promised, we are fixing it. This really affected rural and regional communities. As I said, we were inundated with complaints from people who simply could not believe this. I look at my original speech on this and see that I called it an underhanded bill. It was an underhanded bill. It allowed the Labor government of the day to get its hands on Australians' money. I made the beginning of my speech on Monday, 26 November—in the run to Christmas—and said that maybe the money in those accounts were holiday savings. I actually noted that as we were heading into Christmas perhaps they were originally set up for some form of Christmas treat or for a holiday—a long-awaited overseas trip perhaps. They may not have contributed funds to or moved funds out of that account. Of course that happens. There was example after example. Accounts can sit inactive for quite some time. As I noted then, it might belong to someone on an overseas posting who may take more than three years to return. At the time it included first home owner accounts and retirement savings accounts. These accounts can say untouched for years, particularly when people are going through great hardship.

At the time the Labor government were chasing a $1.1 billion surplus. They had projected at the time that around $900 million was going to come from this proposal. Their proposed mythical surplus at that time was built around Australians' savings. It was just appalling. It was because Labor was absolutely addicted to waste and spending. To turn around and use Australians' hard-earned funds in savings accounts as a piggy bank was absolutely dreadful. At that time I said it was Robin Hood in reverse because this government had their hands in the pockets of Australians. Labor had completely lost control of their fiscal policy and they were desperate to rip every dollar that they could out of the pockets of Australians. That is exactly what they did with their bill. That was why it was so appalling and why Australians were so appalled by these actions. The fact that they had attempted to hide it in the bill itself frustrated and angered the community. It certainty led them not to trust the Labor government.

More than half the government's surplus of 2012-13—it was a promised surplus but it never eventuated—was to be achieved through the increased revenue from their bill. The sole purpose of the government removing money from Australians' accounts was to try to get a $1.1 billion surplus but that government was absolutely addicted to waste and spending.

As we know, historically there were provisions in place to transfer unclaimed moneys to the government since 1911. They existed to protect Australian's forgotten funds from being eroded by fees and charges. That was until 2012. Accounts had to have been inactive for at least seven years before those funds could be transferred to the Commonwealth. Under those rules, only $70 million in unclaimed funds were transferred to ASIC in 2011-12.

Returning the required period of inactivity before savings and life insurance policies can be transferred to ASIC to seven years will drastically reduce the number of effectively active accounts that are transferred to ASIC every year. It will cost the government $285 million over four years, but this is the funding that would have come out of Australian's pockets.

See this speech in context