Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

While the government will ensure passage of the bill, we find ourselves in an extraordinary circumstance that I've not seen in 15 years—I doubt if the honourable ministers opposite have seen it in 15 years. It's to do with schedule 5 of the Tax Law Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, where amendments were moved by the opposition to strike out faith based super. We did that having met with APRA to work out if there were faith based communities that could not invest in various products because of their faith. That would limit it to approximately two per cent of the listed Australian share market as one example of an investment strategy, and a faith based fund would still have access to 98 per cent of the market. On that principle alone, the opposition took a principled position that Australians of faith should not have a lesser form of retirement because of their faith. The minister of the day, who I see is not here defending this extraordinary situation, said:

I might not share the religious beliefs of Australians who choose to invest their superannuation in a particular fund, but I 100 per cent support their ability to choose that fund—

by the way, so do we—

and I don't think it should be the role of the Australian government to shut that fund down because that fund happens to operate in accordance with religious and faith based investing principles. I might not agree with them, but I will defend to my last breath, as the saying goes, their right to hold those beliefs and to invest in accordance with those beliefs.

Well, the minister's fight to the last breath lasted all of five minutes, because rather than the government voting on the opposition's amendment in the Senate, the minister put in his own amendment—exactly the same as the opposition's—to strike out the schedule on faith based super. They just put it first so the Senate would have to vote on the government's amendment to strike it out, and then there was no need for the opposition's amendment.

When the Sergeant Schultz of the Senate, also known as the Minister for Financial Services, was asked, 'Isn't this exactly the same as the opposition's amendment?' he answered, after some blustering and some yes and some no, 'Yes, it is.' It is extraordinary that when an amendment came up from the opposition it was fiercely voted down in this House, and the minister said 'I might not agree with them, but I will defend to my last breath'—well, that defence went tumbling down when the government brought in exactly the same amendment as the opposition. They snuck it in first—as is the right of the government—so that the government wouldn't have to say they lost a vote on the floor of the Senate. The government's pride wouldn't allow them to say that they'd lost the first vote in the Senate, so they replicated to the word, to the jot and to the tittle, to quote the Good Book—it's Hebrew, Minister—

See this speech in context