Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to be able to speak on this bill and make some cursory remarks before the 90-second statements. I begin by saying that there are a number of sections in this bill that I support in principle, but I am concerned about how it will play out in practice. I have deep support for the stapling measures within the bill which will enable duplicate accounts to be removed so that young Australians, when they enter into the workforce, don't have their superannuation eaten away in the fees and insurance premiums and administration fees by, principally, industry super funds, particularly Rest and Hostplus. Having consolidation around those accounts so that the money is saved for young Australians' retirement is of critical importance, and I support that. But, I am concerned about where it might lead, and I draw reference to the recent KPMG Super Insights 2021 report:

On completion of the currently announced merger activity, based on 30 June 2020 data, 76 percent of Assets Under Management (AUM) and 77 per cent of member accounts will be managed by the top 12 funds, all with AUM>$50 billion.

What we are creating by not fixing a broken system, and superannuation is a broken system designed to favour the few at the expense of the many, is a concentration of economic capital and with it power, where people are able to bypass our liberal democracy to impose matters through the imposition on companies and particularly publicly listed companies. That means that individual investors will lose their capacity, their clout and their say within businesses. Of course, unelected boards that run these superannuation funds—unelected, unaccountable boards—will be able to have a disproportionate say on the future direction of our country and the operations of our country in a way that used to come into this place, this place where we pass laws to decide the future direction. They will be able to bypass our liberal democracy.

It's kind of ironic actually, that the Labor Party opposes this legislation or at least claims to, because, frankly, so many of their mates in the industry super fund sector actually get benefit from it. In fact, many of them argue in favour of it for that reason. Instead they want to create a false proxy war, because they want to be seen to be against it because it's proposed by a coalition government, when it will actually cement the power and the influence of many large superannuation funds. As I said, as somebody who is a Liberal, who believes in the decentralisation of power and not in the concentration of economic, social, political or cultural power in the hands of a few, I have deep concerns around that.

There are also things in this bill that the members on the other side of the chamber don't support, and I do understand why that is. They don't support tests being put on how members' money is being spent to make sure it advances the financial interest of those members. I do understand why, because they see superannuation money as their money, as fund managers' money, as money to be laundered through the unions through marketing fees and the like to make its way into the hands of the Australian Labor Party. It is a broken system that needs to be fixed. I can understand why the Labor Party will fight that effort to fix that broken system every step of the way.

We hear that confected outrage from the member for Fenner and his opposition to the Your Future, Your Super legislation because he said the Economics Committee rightly follows up on various superannuation funds and their misconduct, but he actually runs interference in those committees to support those doing wrong.

We see this particularly when we question industry super funds and outline how they're misusing members' money, reactivating low-balance inactive accounts and using those accounts to be harvested for fees and insurance premiums that they are not entitled to. They're not following through their legal obligations to pass that money on to the Australian Taxation Office, so it can be protected. I can understand why the member for Fenner dislikes us calling that conduct out because it means less money, less fees and less opportunity for the Labor Party to launder Australians' money.

See this speech in context