James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too thank the previous speaker for giving us that valuable information on the history of foreign investment in this country. I rise to speak broadly in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, but the coalition has foreshadowed an amendment to this in the lead speaker's speech in the House. That relates to schedule 5 of this bill, which is creating an exemption or a lower standard for faith based superannuation funds so that they do not need to meet the same performance test that is currently in place across the entire superannuation sector. We in the coalition take exception to this policy point.

Let's just think about the principle first. We established these performance tests and the requirement for all funds that receive compulsory superannuation contributions, regulated through APRA, that they get measured and that people understand how the fund that their retirement savings are being invested in is performing. We simply expect—I think it's quite reasonable—that there be some performance standards for funds and that every single person with a superannuation account isn't expected to do an unnecessary amount of analysis of the fund that they are contributing into to properly understand whether it is meeting those kinds of performance benchmarks. I don't pretend to have a deep understanding, but my loose understanding is that these performance metrics would be across listed equities and listed debt. I'm sure it's slightly more complicated with unlisted asset classes. But ultimately you look at the benchmark for those various asset classes and expect the superannuation funds to meet those performance standards, which is the case for every superannuation fund in our system at the moment.

Schedule 5 of this bill proposes that a certain category of superannuation funds, suggested to be faith based funds, can get an exemption from the requirement of meeting that performance standard. I can't for the life of me understand why people of faith, who contribute their superannuation into a faith based superannuation fund, shouldn't deserve the same standard of protection as anyone else who contributes to superannuation. As someone of faith, I think it's a particularly important principle that we don't introduce something that I see to be quite discriminatory. As an aside, I look forward to supporting a bill to protect people from discrimination on religious grounds hopefully very, very soon in this parliament.

The principle shouldn't be different if you contribute your superannuation into a fund with faith-based objectives. I have no objection to faith based superannuation funds whatsoever. There are lots of other different forms of superannuation funds out there that people choose to contribute into, and I think there should be just as much flexibility around that. But it shouldn't be the case that any superannuation fund doesn't have to meet standards that are put in place to make sure that people have significant security over their retirement savings. If this exemption is necessary, it clearly suggests that some of these funds don't see themselves meeting those tests into the future, and, if these funds are not meeting those tests, it means that the people whose superannuation is held by those funds are not going to have as significant retirement savings when they need it than people in any other scheme in the superannuation system. Why would we think that is something we should allow? Why would we think that anyone's retirement savings shouldn't meet the exact same standard as everyone else's? That is what schedule 5 in this bill is seeking to do. We have significant concerns about that.

It's quite clear that if this goes through it could be the beginning of a whole range of other potential exemptions that are put forward into the future, and then the whole principle of having performance standards for superannuation funds will become completely pointless. We should all cherish the requirement we've created to have that framework in place. We all know and have all had experiences of constituents and people that we know and love who have sometimes had bad experiences with superannuation funds. It's a huge sector.

In March, APRA valued superannuation savings at $3.4 trillion, which is an enormous amount of money. We want to make sure that we have a robust framework in place to ensure that people don't have to stress whatsoever about their retirement savings and don't have undue burden upon them individually. Some people are in a wide variety of circumstances and have the capacity to look closely at what's happening with their superannuation fund. They should expect that their government and the framework in place are largely doing that job for them, which is the case with these performance standards. The coalition and I have great concern about us starting to create exemptions for anyone when it comes to meeting those important standards that are in place to protect the retirement savings of the members of those funds.

We're very pleased to see schedule 4, which brings in a 15 per cent flat income tax rate on people participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. We're all aware of the very significant challenges around labour and seasonal labour, in particular. We also recognise how important it is to our friends in Pacific nations to have this source of remittances going back into those economies from workers that can travel to Australia within the schemes and earn income, particularly in the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector is probably under the most pressure of any sector when it comes to labour shortages, particularly seasonal labour shortages right now, and it has been for the last few years, first through COVID and border closures et cetera and now, of course, with such an extremely tight labour market, and the simple lack of supply of labour. There are the terrible stories you hear about businesses that, because they haven't got access to labour, have forgone production and, in some cases, people's regular, reliable livelihood, particularly where you're talking about produce et cetera and the inability to pick it, pack it and ship it.

If it weren't for this change, people would be paying 32½ per cent tax on the income that they would earn under the current system. That is clearly a disincentive, no doubt, in certain circumstances for more people to participate in the scheme. I think we're going to really need this scheme more than ever going forward, and so we welcome this measure, which would reduce that tax rate from 32½ per cent from their first dollar earned down to 15 per cent, 15c in the dollar, throughout what they earn through that scheme. That does bring that tax rate into line with other similar schemes that are in place.

Other elements of the bill are not overly controversial at all. I note schedule 2—I think it is—extends some of the measures we put in place under COVID regarding requirements for companies to hold meetings and to deal with documents in certain ways. There were lots of challenges, because of COVID restrictions, for corporations to meet some of their requirements, and some of those requirements were put in a more electronic, non-physical form. This sees some of those elements extended through.

I can't possibly elaborate any more eloquently than the previous speaker on the history of foreign investment and some of the exciting changes that have been put in place there, with penalties around not complying with foreign investment rules to do with residential land. So, on the particularly exciting Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, I urge the chamber to consider very strongly the amendment that we are moving regarding schedule 5 and I commend the other elements of the bill to the House.

See this speech in context