Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not the way to run the House of Representatives. We have three bills that we have hardly been given notice on. There is one speaker on each bill because most of the members of this House, including the Labor members, have not seen the legislation. In our case, we did not see it until yesterday. We received a briefing on this legislation last night. We have not had any time at all to consult with the banking sector, with the superannuation sector, with financial planners, with consumers—no-one. The government is trying to ram it through this House. We got it referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services last night, but they have not even had time to meet to consider a reporting date on this legislation.

This chamber cannot be a rubber stamp. It was the Independents who said: 'Let the sun shine in. Let's have proper scrutiny.' And something goes through after being introduced like this! This is standard legislation. It is not of any great urgency to border security.

It is not of any great urgency in relation to the destiny of the nation. This is standard legislation dealing with billions of dollars of everyday Australians' money. It has a profound impact on them—and the parliament is meant to do it right now. I do not understand this.

Even when the government had a majority, it did not introduce and ram through legislation on this scale in this way. If there was legislation that had to go through, it was because there was a security issue associated with it—parliament would be recalled because of the security issue. This is about the unclaimed money of Australians. For example, until we had a briefing last night it was not clear that people can lose their first home saver accounts if there has not been action on those accounts for what appears to be three years. We have not got clarity from the superannuation industry about the impact of money going back into people's accounts if they go and claim it from the ATO, about what fees are charged or about what interest is charged. We do not know, because we did not hear about this until yesterday. We have not seen the details of the legislation. We do not know what the impact will be on people who travel for 12 months or for three years. We have no idea and yet we are being asked to change the law in this place. This is policy on the run. It is government on the run. Please do not make it parliament on the run. It is unacceptable.

Now we have these details, and this claiming is not the only thing it affects. Let me tell you some of the details that we are aware of in relation to this bill, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012, which we have had less than 24 hours to consider. For example—

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: last night there was a special meeting of the Selection Committee where it was agreed that the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012 be referred to the committee. I understand that the report of this meeting has been prepared and is on the table with the clerks. I have been advised this by the Table Office. I ask the Deputy Speaker—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can you clarify what point of order you are moving this under?

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence. I have concerns.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you seek leave for indulgence. No, indulgence is not given. If we allow the member for North Sydney to finish speaking, we can clarify the issues raised.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry to correct my colleague but, as I understand it, the PJC has not actually even met yet. They have agreed to have it referred, that is right, and that is the point I was making. There has been agreement on both sides of the House to have this referred to the parliamentary joint committee. However, the parliamentary joint committee has not even met yet to consider this legislation. We do not know what its reporting date is and we do not know anything about what its considerations of this legislation are. We know nothing about it. The PJC, which is set up by this parliament to consult at an official level with all the stakeholders, has not even met to consider when they are going to meet stakeholders. For crying out loud! And we, as the House of Representatives, are now being told to vote on this legislation as it stands. Fair dinkum!

I have seen some things rushed through this place before, and we were guilty of it in government too. But I have not seen routine legislation rammed through in this way. And it is being followed up with the Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2), with one speaker, and the Fair Work Amendment Bill, with one speaker. It is the same with all of this legislation.

Twenty-four hours ago, we started working through the legal processes. We have our own internal processes, as the Labor Party does, and as I am sure the Independents do, to go through consultations with key stakeholders. And yet we get this—the impact on section 69 of the Banking Act to provide new arrangements for unclaimed moneys. This will reduce the period before an amount payable by an ADI—that is a bank account—is treated as unclaimed money from seven years to three years. We do not know the circumstances of individuals—if they are transferred overseas. What about soldiers who are sent overseas, who have their own bank accounts and cannot be traced? We do not know what their circumstances are.

But it is a big step to go from seven years to three years in relation to an unclaimed bank account. There are plenty of Australians who might leave the country for a certain period of time and their bank might not be able to find out where they are immediately, or their mail is sent to an address and gets returned to sender. For crying out loud, in my own home I am still getting mail addressed to two previous owners from at least 15 years ago. As much as I have fond regard for Australia's banks, they do send stuff to the wrong address sometimes. We have all seen that. Despite our best endeavours to get them to send it to the right address—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They send it to Parliament House!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They send it to Parliament House. They know where to get us, don't they, Martin? There are two ways they get us. They know where to contact us. But even then they get it wrong, and there is no opportunity for correction in that regard. Someone might leave money sitting in a bank to accumulate interest in a high-interest-yielding account. What is the administrative cost to the bank if, after three years, they cannot find them, and the money is taken out of a high-yield account and sent to the Australian Taxation Office? What happens to the individuals? We do not know after that. It is not clear exactly what the impact is, what the procedures are for contacting the Australian Taxation Office.

What we do know is that the Australian Taxation Office is going to pay a lot less interest on the account than the bank might pay. Now we discover that the mining companies are going to get over 10 per cent compound interest on royalties. That was a good deal, Martin—10 per cent compound interest on royalty rebates to the mining companies if they do not pay the mining tax! If we get a rebate from the tax office, I think they give us CPI or something like that, but, if the mining companies do not pay the mining tax, the government not only has a one-year liability to refund their royalties—but there is no mining tax, so they cannot refund the royalties—but the royalty liability is carried over to the next year and the mining companies get over 10 per cent compound interest, payable by the Commonwealth taxpayer. That is fantastic—Commonwealth guaranteed, of course! But, for everyday Australians, if the government seizes your bank account after three years or seizes your superannuation after 12 months, you will be lucky if you get CPI. Fair dinkum!

We did not see this coming either: schedule 2 of this bill amends the First Home Saver Accounts Act to provide for new arrangements for unclaimed moneys held by First Home Saver Accounts providers. So people putting money into their First Home Saver Accounts, trying to save for their first home, if they get hit with a few bills and do not access the account for three years—bingo! The First Home Saver Accounts are meant to be new measures. Many parents have established these accounts for their children, but they may not be able to make a contribution for a number of years. It might be getting a bit tough out there, as we know it is for some families. What happens? We would have thought, again, that the parliamentary joint committee inquiry would have looked at the impact of that on the trends of saving by parents for their children in First Home Saver Accounts—gone. That is another one that came out of the blue that we found out about last night.

Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Life Insurance Act to provide new arrangements for unclaimed life insurance moneys. There are two limbs to the definition of unclaimed moneys in the Life Insurance Act. Unclaimed moneys include sums payable on the maturity of the policy which are not claimed within seven years from the maturity of the policy. The new arrangement will reduce the period before life insurance moneys are treated as unclaimed moneys from seven years to three years. How many people are going to be affected? We do not know. What are the circumstances? We do not know. We have not been able to speak to life insurance companies to find out the trend impact.

Maybe people want to leave their money in life insurance; they do not want to collect it at the age of 55 or 65 or whenever it might mature. Maybe some people who lost a partner did not know they had life insurance.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Particularly super.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. They did not know whether it was super or life insurance. We do not know; we have not had a chance to speak to the life insurance companies about this. Yet this government sees this as so damned urgent that it needs to ram the legislation through the House of Representatives today.

I came to this with goodwill. I understand this. If there is a consolidation process, I accept that. I am prepared to be reasonable on these things. Forget for a moment that this is $700 million they are desperately trying to find for their budget this year. I do despise this place being treated like a rubber stamp on any occasion—by the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. I actually do believe in this parliament. I despise the thought that we come down here and waste our breath; I really do. I love this chamber, I love this parliament, but it just riles me to the core when I see legislation being banged through without any justification for the urgency. Previously governments would say, 'We'll look at it in the Senate.' They are not even saying that. They are just saying, 'We need this through and we need it through now.'

Lost superannuation accounts of unidentifiable members with balances of less than $2,000 that have been inactive for 12 months will now have to go to the ATO. We do not know what the process is for someone claiming it back. We do not know if there is an obligation on superannuation companies to continue to chase people to say, 'We've got your money.' We do not know what the situation is.

Finally, schedule 5 to the bill amends the act to close the Companies and Unclaimed Moneys Special Account and establish new processes for the receipt and payment of unclaimed property. As I have stated before, this bill amends the Banking Act, the First Home Saver Accounts Act, the Life Insurance Act, the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act, the ASIC Act and the Corporations Act, and we have less than 24 hours to deal with it. In fact, none of our colleagues have had the opportunity to consult with constituent members or to consult with stakeholders. We do not know what the implications are. This went to a committee that has not met and does not know when it is going to meet.

The coalition is going to oppose this process. It is going to oppose this bill. This is not the way to run the parliament. It is unacceptable, writ large, to treat us with this sort of contempt. Even if there is merit in this bill, we are going to oppose it simply because we do not know what the consequences of this legislation are, simply because the government has screwed up the budget and made a mess of the economy.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on yet another Labor reform to preserve the value of our superannuation accounts.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear those on the other side riling, because they have never supported workers getting fair and decent superannuation. It was the Labor Party that introduced occupational superannuation into this country to ensure that when average workers retire from a lifetime of work they have a fair and decent retirement income. Those on the other side of the House have always opposed it. They have always opposed our reforms to the superannuation system, because it riles them that average workers might have the same sorts of benefits and the same sorts of privileges that those opposite and those that they represent have taken for granted.

This legislation is another step in reforming and ensuring that ordinary workers have a fair, decent and safe superannuation system.

They ask what the urgency is. I will tell you what the urgency is: it is $3.4 billion in workers' superannuation money which is in lost accounts and is being eroded. It is being eroded week in and week out. I will tell you what is happening to that money. It is paying for administration fees for superannuation fund administrators. It is being eroded week in and week out. It is not going to benefit those for whom it was intended. It is paying for the big end of town so they can continue to clip the ticket in the administration of superannuation and it is not going to those for whom the superannuation was intended. I will tell you what the urgency is. The urgency is that this side of the House is not willing to allow that money to be continually eroded without having proper protections in place. That is what this package of bills is all about. There is over $3.4 billion in lost superannuation accounts and we can do a lot better than we are doing today to ensure that that money is preserved for the benefit of the true owners of that superannuation.

We estimate that, under the current rules, a 20-year-old with $1,000 in superannuation can unknowingly have that balance eroded to just $418 over a five-year period. That is $1,000 down to $418 over a five-year period because of administrative fees and charges through no fault of the employee, the owner of that account, and no fault of the employer. Because that is a lost account that is continually being eroded because of those fees, a 20-year-old with $1,000 in superannuation can have that go down to half its value over a five-year period. Fees and insurance charges typically exceed the average investment earnings even for accounts with $2,000. So a 30-year-old with a $2,000 account can unknowingly have their superannuation savings eroded to a little over $1,200 in a five-year period.

Those on the other side ask what the urgency is. That is the urgency. The urgency is in ensuring that that money is not eroded unknowingly and unwittingly to the benefit of somebody else.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been there for five years under you, and now it's urgent?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was there a lot longer under you, Joe. The member for North Sydney had an opportunity to do something about this when he was in government, if he was so concerned about it. They did absolutely nothing about it. In fact, their great contribution was to try to unwind the system which is providing these sorts of benefits to employees. That was their great contribution to superannuation in this country. The benefits should be applied to the employees, the workers who have worked hard to get that money put away. It is about preserving the value of the superannuation system as a whole.

A lot of fear and smear has been put around about what we are trying to do here. Let me tell you exactly what we are doing.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fear and smear? We hadn't even seen it until today.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member for North Sydney! You had your go.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will be increasing the account balance below which lost accounts are required to be transferred to the ATO from $200 to $2,000, effective from 31 December 2012. We are increasing the level at which the money becomes compulsorily transferred to the ATO for management. We are reducing the period of inactivity before an account which is unidentifiable is required to be transferred to the ATO from five years to 12 months. The reason we are changing it from five years to 12 months is the example I have just given—that 20-year-old who, over a five-year period, has their $1,000 eroded to just $418. This legislation will stop that happening.

There are safety nets in there. The only basis on which the money is transferred to the ATO is if we know neither the name nor the tax file number of the account holder. That is the basis on which the money is transferred to the ATO.

If at some time down the track—and this is what our fervent hope is—the owner of that superannuation account is found and they come forward and say, 'That money is mine,' not only have they not paid fees on it, as they otherwise would have over that period—and the fees would have halved their account balance—but they will get interest at CPI. That is a good thing.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

The member for North Sydney, Mr Huff-and-Puff over there, said he would vote against this legislation whether it was good or not. That bells the cat. The member for North Sydney just nailed it, because that is what they are on about over there: whether this is good or not, whether it is in the interests of the account holder or not, whether it is going to provide a benefit to the employee or not, they will vote against it, because they do not care. They come in here and all they are about is making some cheap political point, trying to grab a headline. Mr Huff-and-Puff himself is trying to make a big headline out of the fact that he has not read his material, that he is not up on his stuff. We know what they are going to do. They are going to vote against this legislation whether it is good or not. We on this side of the House think it is a good thing that we put in place a system which preserves the value of somebody's superannuation account and provides them with some interest on it if they come forward and claim that money. For those reasons, I commend the legislation to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have concerns about the process involved with the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. I am more than likely to be comfortable with some of the messages about why unclaimed moneys are being moved towards the Australian Taxation Office, but I have listened closely to the debate—I was in the chair when the member for North Sydney was speaking—and there do look to be some issues that I would like some time to consider, to see whether they are right or wrong. That is the very point of the process when legislation is brought into the chamber—that it is put on the table for a period of time for consideration and reflection by all members, who do genuinely want to make decisions based on the merits or otherwise of the legislation before the House.

So I strongly urge the government to adjourn this legislation to allow that proper reflection and consideration to take place. If they do not, I think it is an undue demand on members of parliament who just have not had the time to look at the detail and therefore will be making rash decisions on something of significance. I do not want to be put in that position. If I am put in that position, the default course is not to support something without being fully aware of the detail and being able to have confidence in exactly what I am voting on. I appreciate the words of the member for North Sydney. I am a member of the selection committee and I was in the Speaker's chair when he was speaking. I concur that the process is being rushed for reasons that do not have good merit. Therefore, unless this debate is adjourned, I cannot at this stage support the passage of this legislation through this chamber.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, I think that the shadow Treasurer raises some very legitimate concerns about the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Bill 2012. On the whole, this is a bill the intention of which the Australian Greens support, especially as it is a money bill and it is the government's intention to use it as part of the MYEFO package. We have differences of opinion with the government about whether this necessarily ought to be the priority way of raising revenue. The superannuation fund issue was aired in the blaze of publicity surrounding MYEFO, but there are probably other parts of this bill that did not attract the same level of publicity. I believe, and the Greens believe, that there should be opportunities for scrutiny with respect to those other parts.

Although there have been a lot of claims about ways it could disadvantage people, it may well be that under scrutiny those claims evaporate, but there should be an opportunity to have a look at it.

I understand that further to the request from the member for Lyne the debate will be adjourned, which I think is a sensible course of action. We reserve our position awaiting further advice from the government in respect of how they intend to process it and also in terms of how we would ultimately vote. We do not have any intention to hold up a budget measure and if there are other ways of dealing with these questions that have arisen perhaps by way of a Senate inquiry that is something that ought to happen. But as a matter of principle, especially in light of some of those measures that did not attract the publicity at the time of MYEFO that the superannuation measure did, there is an argument to be made that there should be an opportunity for scrutiny. We will reserve our position as to what that should be and how we will ultimately vote if this is put, but we do think there is some legitimacy to the concerns that have been raised.

Debate adjourned.