Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I'll keep my comments relatively brief, because I fear the impatience of my colleagues behind me more than anything that those opposite might do. We're being asked today to vote for a bill that's fatally flawed. It's vastly improved compared to the bill that was originally proposed to the government's party room. The bill that went through their cabinet, their Expenditure Review Committee, went through both of their caucuses unchallenged—it's a vast improvement on that. The reason for that is the tireless efforts of Labor members of parliament, crossbench MPs, members on all sides from the industry and, I have to say, a number of members from the coalition's own backbench who at first believed what their minister told them but then saw so much of it was definitely not true.

Let's get to the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is the objective of this bill to improve the performance of funds and the return to members. Every single member of this place supports that objective. If only the legislation did what its title suggests it wants to do. We want to do this. Labor wants to support a bill that will do this. The reality is that the government is intent on turning a blind eye to the funds which have the highest fees and the lowest performance. There is no other explanation for the fact that the government has excluded those funds, which cover over three million employees. The Productivity Commission has said that without government action those three million employees will languish in those funds forever, earning subpar returns and getting high fees. The cost over a lifetime is in excess of $240,000 in lost retirement income. We cannot vote for that. We want to vote for a bill which addresses that, and you refuse to agree to our sensible amendments.

The second proposition, as put by the Leader of the Opposition, is that this bill staples employees to funds which the government itself has said are so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join them: 'This fund is so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join it, but you're going to be stapled to it and stuck to it for life.' High fees and low performance, but you want to say that's good enough for these employees! We don't. Agree to our sensible amendments and we can get this fixed.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, they have a proposition which will ensure that workers in high-risk industries will either be without insurance or be paying thousands and thousands of dollars per annum more for the life insurance they currently have through the group insurance in their superannuation policy. Any member of the public and any member of the crossbench listening to my submission today—I see the member for Hughes nodding—will understand that these are commonsense propositions that should enjoy the reasonable support of all members of this House.

It beggars belief that the government, instead of picking up amendments that were proffered by the crossbench in this place and in the Senate, has gone and done a grubby deal with Queensland's Senator Hanson. That's not good enough. We want a bill that we can vote for. It's not this bill. I turn to the members of the crossbench who gave impassioned speeches in the House when the bill was last before it. All the issues that you raised in your speeches last time have not yet been addressed. If you still hold those concerns the only hope you have of having them resolved is to tell the government that this bill is not good enough. Vote with Labor and send a message to the government and to the Senate that we want to vote for a bill that says what it's going to do. We want to vote for a bill that says what the label says it's going to do, and this bill does not.

See this speech in context