Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was an enlightening speech by the member for Fraser. It was enlightening in that it showed one clear thing: he started talking about the need for people to start to demonstrate a plan, and I thought we were going to hear from the member for Fraser what the opposition's plan is for superannuation. But he could not last 4½ minutes talking about superannuation; he had to get onto transparency of taxation when he hit about the four minute and 15 second mark. That shows that there is no plan over on that side. They do not care about the future of Australia's superannuation industry—but we on this side do because we understand how important superannuation is going to be, and is, for Australians.

The Australian superannuation pool is projected to reach $9 trillion by 2040, so why are we bringing this measure into the parliament today? It is because we want the best people governing the retirement savings of Australians. I am going to say that again: we want the best people governing the retirement savings of Australians; that is why we have put this measure into the parliament. Once again, what are we talking about? We are talking about a projection that superannuation savings will reach $9 trillion by 2040. Why would those on the other side not want the best people governing those retirement savings? This is common sense. This is making sure that we will get the best returns for the ordinary workers that people on the other side like talking about, because we will have the best people on those boards. Yet you on the other side oppose such a common-sense initiative. You have to ask yourselves why. We do not need to tell you. You need to ask yourselves why—ask that question—and then you might learn something. You might learn about who you are beholden to and why you are beholden to them. What we want to see is the best people running Australians' retirement savings, and this is what this debate is all about.

How did we get to this?

Two independent reviews have recommended these changes: the Cooper review and the Financial System Inquiry. They recommended these changes. So why are those opposite opposing them? Once again, ask yourselves why. There are practical reasons for these measures. We have already seen that, where there have been mergers of equal representation super funds, they have failed because there could not be agreement on who would take the positions on the boards. So there are practical reasons why these changes are being brought forward.

And let's make it very clear: the bill does not prevent union representation on these funds. It does not prevent them. All it says is that we want the best people on these boards. Let's look at the sensible way it has been introduced. How has it been introduced? With a three-year transition. Funds have three years to move down this path. Who is supporting it? The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Financial Services Council, APRA, the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Who is already heading down this path? There are already industry funds heading down this path. As the previous speaker on our side superbly mentioned, First State Super, Hostplus, Prime Super, UniSuper, VicSuper and Catholic Super are already heading down this path. So why, when we have $9 trillion forecast to be in the superannuation pool, would you oppose it? We on this side could tell you why you are doing it, but you are not going to learn from that. You have to learn it from yourselves. Ask that question: why are you opposing this?

See this speech in context