Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the bill before the House, the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023. It's sometimes easy in this place to gloss over the actual wording of what we're seeking to pass and the consequences of that wording. We'll often see—and it's no criticism of either side—a tit for tat about how what a particular party does in government is great and what a particular opposition is proposing is terrible. We'll see a lot of that in amongst serious contributions, and that has occurred on this debate.

I would like to take you to the actual words here in the bill. In section 5 it actually has the nub of what we've been asked to consider, which is the objective of superannuation. It says here in subsection 5(1):

The objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way.

For those listening or watching at home, Australia has long prided itself in a bipartisan way on our three-pillar retirement system. What is the three-pillar retirement system? It is as follows. Pillar 1 is a sustainable and equitable pension system for those that need it, an important safety net that we all pride ourselves on supporting in this nation. Pillar 2 is a superannuation system, and that is what we are discussing here: how will the superannuation system be consistent with a purpose that we can agree on and that is sustainable and equitable, according to section 5?

But this part in section 5(1) leaves something out. It acknowledges those first two pillars; it says the objective is to preserve superannuation alongside government support. But it doesn't acknowledge the third pillar, a dignified retirement, which should have bipartisan support—that is, the equity that people can save through their lives and draw upon. There's no more important or substantial equity that people can save for and draw upon in a secure retirement than their own home.

The Australian dream means many different things to many different people, but for most people, when they think of a life in retirement that is secure and that gives them comfort, their own home is high on that list. That's not just an emotional bond. Your own home gives you financial security later in life. It's equity you can draw upon. The idea is that you can go to sleep without another person who has an interest in your property telling you what you can do or whether you can stay there. For those who are just on their pension and do own their own home, the combination of those two are essential for a secure retirement.

But, if you look at section 5(1) as drafted, it's a two-pillar retirement system. Why is that? Why is it leaving that third part out? That's really what this bill is designed to do: it's designed to strike a dagger in the heart of any idea that people can choose what to do with their own superannuation. The coalition isn't telling anyone what they have to do. We are merely saying, 'Why can't people choose where their money goes?' because that's what superannuation is: it's their money. It's not the government's money; it's their money. They worked hard for it; they earnt it.

Many have, with great flair and invective, criticised the previous government for the moment where people could draw down on super when they needed it most. I was one of those people. I'll tell you why: I was in one of those professions that was shut down. So, instead of relying on government support, I drew on my own savings to keep a roof over our head and to provide for my children. Many people in small business and many people in professions where they didn't work for the government or work for a large corporation carried themselves—that's what got them through. To stand over there and criticise that decision is the height of arrogance. It's the height of arrogance because what it's saying is that you know better—the government knows better than what people will do with their own money and their own choices that they make.

I want to come back to the actual wording here again and go to the second part. There's a three-pillar system, and this talks about two—not three. But then it says 'alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way'. Those words sound benign and those words sound like something that reasonable people can agree on. Those words are either of consequence, meaning that they have power, or they are meaningless—they are redundant. Now, if we are using this purpose and this particular section just to give a motherhood statement that has no power, then we shouldn't be doing that. That's not what bills are for. But, if it has real power, then what is that power—what is that consequence? We should go to that. So, if you go to section 5(2), it says:

This section does not affect:

(a) the operation of any law of the Commonwealth (other than this Act or regulations made under this Act); or

(b) the operation of the governing rules (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) …

The explanatory memorandum is important to read alongside the actual bill. It says in section 1.71 on procedural matters: 'The statement of compatibility'—which I just read out—'will not be binding on any court or tribunal.' That first sentence makes it appear that this is more motherhood than power. But then it says the following: 'This is not intended to exclude the operation of section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act, which deals with intrinsic materials'—such as this explanatory memorandum—'in the interpretation of an Act or legislative instrument.'

The Acts Interpretation Act, for those who are listening at home, is an act that covers and flows through all of our legislation and assists courts and tribunals in interpreting many things. One of them is resolving ambiguity. As clever and competent and professional as this place is and the wonderful staff who help draft bills, which become acts, there is ambiguity. That's why we have courts to help us resolve ambiguity. So in coming to these words 'in an equitable and sustainable way', because those words mean many different things to many different people, there is necessarily ambiguity that will have to be resolved and potentially future court cases on decisions made by the executive or matters appealed through other courts and through the tribunals that we have.

What's the point of that? Why does that matter? It matters because it goes to the real power that is contained within this bill. It's not just a statement of something that reasonable people can agree with on a superficial level. It has a consequence for the future parliament, future ministers acting in good faith on election promises or on commitments to resolve and improve superannuation. The bill says that the relevant minister will have to have a statement of compatibility. When you look at the explanatory memorandum and you see that 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act allows a court to consider the purpose to resolve ambiguity, that is of consequence. The two words that are of consequence are 'equitable and sustainable way'.

I'd like to turn to the word 'equitable'. Equitable means many different things to many different people and many political parties. I am proud of my political party's heritage on focusing on equality of opportunity. I don't want to speak for those opposite, but I'm sure they are proud of their party's commitment to equality of outcome. They're two different historical traditions of what equity means. That's not resolved here at all. If you go to the explanatory memorandum, on page 8, from 1.39, it says in 1.40, 'While equity is a subjective concept', and it talks about it meaning different things to different people. In 1.41 it notes differences in demographic factors and structural inequities. Then there is this sentence: 'This includes intergenerational inequity and outcomes for different groups, including women, First Nations Australians, vulnerable members and low-income earners.'

Of course, when you look at one version of equity, if you look at groups rather than individuals, those inequities exist. But what this bill does and what that section does with section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act, is that it risks ambiguity being resolved in a political way, but not by people in this place, not by ministers, but by those in the courts who will be asked to resolve hard, complex cases about what this particular provision means.

What does that have in common with the original criticism that I put that this is a two-pillar retirement system, not a three-pillar retirement system? It is about trust in the people and then trust in the people that they send here to make decisions on their behalf. That's all it is. Do we trust our fellow Australians to make decisions on their own financial affairs, or don't we? If we don't trust them, let's at least be honest about it. Let's be honest about the lack of trust in Australians making decisions for their own affairs.

Both sides are proud of our superannuation system. Some tribal politics have been used in speeches here to claim that only one side of politics supports super, but the key difference between us is about trusting Australians to decide how their money is spent. That is something that we should always turn our mind to and that we should always defend. That third pillar of a secure retirement and equity in your own home is a key part of the Australian dream. Right now that Australian dream is in deep trouble, and all of us need to work much harder to improve that.

One factor—and the housing crisis is a complex issue—is having a proportionate number of migrants relative to the country. I am a proud migrant. Two-thirds of my electorate is first- and second-generation migrants. It is migrants that are emailing me, calling my office, and speaking to me on the doorsteps and on the phones, saying that it has to be proportionate. Again, for those who would like to make political hay with that, if the number is now right, at 500,000 or 600,000, why didn't you say it was wrong when it was at 250,000 or 125,000? Of course, supply and demand matter when it comes to housing, and at the moment there is a disproportionate number of migrants coming to this country.

The proportion that matters is our capacity to build houses and infrastructure like schools and hospitals and our capacity to preserve green space. All of these things are what make our society one that is worth living in. We need to make sure that that proportion is right. Right now it's out of whack. That isn't just key for making sure that this is a society that people want to live in. It's also the social licence for our migration system, which we all support. That social licence comes with it being proportionate, and right now the government needs to recognise that it is not proportionate. We need to make sure that it matches the capacity for housing, infrastructure—schools, hospitals—and green space.

See this speech in context