Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Increased consumer choice underpins the coalition government's plan for a stronger economy in ensuring all Australians get a fair go, especially in retirement.

This bill delivers on a commitment made in the 2018-19 budget to increase the maximum number of allowable members in self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA funds from four to six.

SMSFs are often used, as many Australians will know, by families as a vehicle for managing their own super savings and investment strategies. For families with more than four members, currently the only real options are to create two SMSFs (which, obviously, incurs extra costs) or place their super in a large fund. This ultimately limits their choice and, of course, flexibility.

By allowing groups of five or six people to participate in an SMSF or small APRA fund, the bill supports greater consumer choice. It provides increased flexibility for Australians to manage their retirement savings, and particularly does so for those Australians with larger families.

I therefore commend the bill to the chamber.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding with the minister is that the bill has been introduced, the second reading speech has been given and the Manager of Opposition Business has moved that the debate be adjourned. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was working on the basis that the debate had to be adjourned because we'd just had the second reading speech introducing the bill. That's why I moved it. If there's a different procedure or something that's been—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The only other procedure would be if the minister had sought leave to go through all stages, but that hasn't happened, I understand.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to make this really clear to the advisers who are talking. I've made it very clear to the advisers that they do not conduct conversations across the chamber. They have a buzzer. They have the attendants. They can speak to their member or minister there. We're trying to concentrate on what we're doing, okay? It's important that they follow that, if they wish to remain in here.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister should have moved something different prior to my moving that the debate be adjourned, I'm happy to withdraw that motion if there's something else he wants to move.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what you're each trying to manage—I've just hopped into the chair—has the adjournment debate been negated?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll just go back—I gather that's in agreement. We'll go back one step to the point where you finished the second reading speech. The question then is that this bill be now read a second time. Is leave granted to continue the debate, Manager of Opposition Business?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time. The member for Whitlam is seeking the call.

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

I foreshadow to members of the House that Labor will not be supporting this bill. Current arrangements for self-managed superannuation funds limit the number of members to four. I understand it is the government's proposition to extend that to six members on the basis that it would provide more flexibility.

We deliberately did not form a position on this. We had some concerns about this matter, when it was first raised with the opposition, but referred it to a Senate inquiry to flush out the reviews of consumer representatives, self-managed superannuation fund representatives and their advisers. On the basis of the evidence that we saw before that Senate committee, we're particularly mindful of the evidence given by Super Consumers Australia, who pointed out that the extension from four to six opened up a great risk for harm to members of the superannuation fund.

Let me explain what I mean by that. If you have a number of children within the same self-managed superannuation fund as their elderly parents, members of that fund are going to have very different interests. In fact, it's very difficult to judge the best interests of each and every member of that fund individually. For example, if you have elderly parents whose house or business is contained within the superannuation fund, the interest of young children who are also members of that superannuation fund is in the maintenance of the assets. The interest of the elderly parents is going to be in the liquidation and realisation of those assets. As Super Consumers Australia pointed out, this measure runs the very great risk of leading to consumer harm to some members of those funds.

While it sounds good at the 30,000-feet level, when you drill down and look at the potential for this to create harm and abuse, you see the risks are too great. For that reason, Labor will not be supporting the bill.

Debate interrupted.