Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise, firstly, to wholeheartedly endorse the previous comments of my good friends, the member for Burt and the member for Fenner. I also rise to agree to support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017, as is made clear by Labor's position. But I would also like to unpack a couple of key themes that we see that are symptomatic in relation to not only this bill but also the conduct of this current government insofar as seeking to fix up mistakes that could have easily been avoided and which, quite frankly, do not do service to fundamentally important parts of policy that shape the way we as everyday Australians go about our lives these days.

I cannot help but note that I was only in this chamber last night speaking on amendments to the Native Title Act. We see key themes as to what went on in relation to the Native Title Act as we do in this bill—on simply groundbreaking pieces of legislation that fundamentally shifted the dial in the way in which government has the potential to shape and mould community expectations and community standards. I start with the Native Title Act, a landmark piece of legislation introduced by a Keating Labor government in 1993 which saw for the first time the appropriate level of recognition to Indigenous Australians in relation to officially setting aside the concept of terra nullius, as the court did in the Mabo decision, and creating a framework in which we recognise in this place rights and entitlements of Indigenous Australians over land with which they have an ongoing connection.

What we saw in relation to the amendments to the Native Title Act was a cack-handed, ham-fisted, rushed attempt to try to cure an issue that anyone could have seen coming well before the crystallisation of the judgement of the full Federal Court in the McGlade decision. It came in here too quickly. It came in here under the guise of appropriate consultation when that was clearly not the case. Then when it went up to the other place it took four attempts to shape that legislation into something that was actually going to be not only workable but acceptable to Indigenous Australians in terms of giving them stability insofar as upholding pre-existing ILUAs.

What do we see from this government in relation to the Native Title Act? We see the theme of a fundamental reform introduced by a Labor government back in the day. We see from this government a lack of consultation and a rushed attempt to try to fix up something which could have been remedied if the proper level of thought and consultation had gone into it in the first place. Then there is a clumsy attempt to play catch-up football in relation to simply getting it right, particularly in the context where we see a proposition which fundamentally has bipartisan support.

Here I am, not 24 hours later, standing to make the same observations in relation to this bill. What do we see here? Back in 1992 a Keating Labor government introduced groundbreaking reforms which for the first time created a framework of compulsory superannuation contributions. We saw a Labor government, or good government done well, responding to the needs of the community to try to future-proof the standard of living to make sure that mums and dads all around this country had a reasonable base level of financial security upon retirement. It was a fundamental and groundbreaking reform. What we see here is, again, a patch-up job of which the fundamental substance is noncontentious. This does sound familiar. But I am rising to reflect the fact that what we have here is an endemic problem with this government in terms of its ability to deliver something right the first time that has been properly thought through and that does not require us to run around chasing our tails in order to remedy a situation which was clearly capable of resolution if done properly the first time.

In relation to those key themes, I would like to touch upon a topic that is the subject of this amendment that might not otherwise be so apparent when you look at the fact that what we are dealing with here is fundamentally a financial services bill—the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 2) Bill 2017—seeking to make changes in the area of sustainable superannuation. It is an area that is fundamentally important, and I commend the government for doing so. I say that in relation to the way in which this bill treats lump-sum payments that are awarded to victims of catastrophic injuries. This is a really good thing that we see here in that the government has taken steps with which we agree to make sure that those people, men and women, who have catastrophic injuries have their compensation orders that are awarded to them as a result of those injuries not counted towards the transfer balance cap regardless of when the contribution is made. What we see here is to make sure that the lump sum or the structured settlement payment awarded to a victim of catastrophic injury is not subject to further instability in relation to the treatment of that award insofar as a superannuation component is dealt with.

I take this opportunity to echo the statements of the member for Riverina in the second reading speech on this bill in relation to changes to the treatment of structured settlements and personal injury orders under the transfer balance cap to make sure with these amendments that people who receive compensation orders of this nature as a result of suffering a serious or catastrophic injury are exempted from the transfer balance cap as intended. This will ensure that those who need access to large amounts of funds to meet their daily healthcare and living needs will not face a faster depletion of their lump sum.

And I will just pause there to lay out to this House from firsthand experience how important that amendment is and why, in this case, the department and the government are doing good work. I know they are doing good work because in a life before this life I spent much of my time representing victims of catastrophic injury. To look on a firsthand basis at how irrevocable the life changes are for these people, imagine going from a life of ability, a life of mobility, a life of independence to a place where all of those things are either impaired or taken away altogether. There are very few things in this life as dramatic as the impact of a catastrophic injury, not only on that person but also on their family.

Just imagine a situation in which one day you are at the breakfast table with your family, going about your daily business, with thoughts on your mind about how the day will unfold, how you are interacting with your community, what is going to be for dinner, who is looking after the kids, what is happening on the weekend, who is taking the kids to the local sporting events and who is on for birthday parties, and all of a sudden—in the blink of an eye—that is taken away, by a motor vehicle accident or a public liability accident, or an accident that is entirely unforeseen. Imagine that perfectly able, functioning individual literally lying flat on their back without any ability to move their limbs, without any ability to do anything for themselves anymore, as a result of medical negligence or medical misadventure, a motor vehicle accident or a workplace injury. The result is horrendous.

There is very little in this world that has the ability to shift the dial on one's hopes and dreams like a catastrophic injury does. And if that were not bad enough—if living with the impact of having all of that independence taken away were not enough—the question then becomes a rather clinical and grim analysis of what that is actually worth. For someone who is cut down in the prime of their earning life with a catastrophic injury that leaves them completely immobile, that can be worth millions and millions of dollars in terms of an appropriate level of compensation that goes some way—but never far enough—towards putting that person back in the position they would otherwise be in but for that catastrophic injury. For someone in the prime of their earning life who would otherwise be required to run a busy household as well, it is quite foreseeable that that amount of money could be in the range of $10 million to $15 million.

The issue in relation to that, and the reason we join the government in agreeing with the substance of this bill—particularly as far as its catastrophic injuries provisions are concerned—is that that amount of money has to last these victims for the rest of their lives. And it is not only for their own lives; it also needs to last long enough to in some way compensate for the lack of earnings coming in to the entire family—leaving aside the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Life has changed enough for these people; life is unstable enough for these victims. They do not need the uncertainty of knowing that this nest egg—which, if they are injured in their 30s or 40s, quite foreseeably has to last them for another 30 years—could be eroded or the subject of instability if this amount of money was not ring fenced from the transfer balance cap.

So, for the sake of certainty and for the sake of stability for those who have had their lives irrevocably altered, these changes are so important. These changes—which may in one sense seem somewhat benign or somewhat technical in nature—will make a difference. These changes will add at least some degree of comfort and certainty for those who are catastrophically injured, when so much of their life is anything but comfortable or certain, and that is important. That is why, for many reasons, this bill should be agreed to.

But in my remaining time speaking on this bill, let me complete the circle, if I may, with a concern. The concern relates to the pattern of conduct that we have seen, and that I have raised at the start of my remarks, in relation to both native title and superannuation. I hope and pray we do not see in this place from this government any further rushed, ill-conceived or ill thought out amendments or changes to groundbreaking, reforming, community-building legislation that makes a difference to people's lives. The subject matter of this bill segues into that type of reform in relation to the certainty created for those who have significant disabilities or catastrophic injuries, who are otherwise protected by the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Again, this place saw a degree of bipartisanship in relation to the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but, like the compulsory superannuation and native title reforms of the Keating Labor government, the National Disability Insurance Scheme was fundamentally a creature of Labor government. That is important to all of those who suffer significant physical or mental impairments and who need and deserve support in relation to simply managing those impairments, which almost exclusively have occurred through no fault of those victims.

I would hate to see this government make any alterations, or do anything, without an appropriate level of deliberation and forethought as to how it may affect stability and certainty for those who suffer significant and permanent physical and mental impairment. Labor has always been the party of big reform, big change and big ideas. We have seen it with native title, we have seen it with superannuation and we have seen it with the NDIS. As long as improvements are practical and sensible then we will back them, but we will not support rushed legislation which will not benefit this community.

See this speech in context