John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my support to the government’s Future Fund Bill 2005. This bill is a very positive initiative to minimise future impacts brought about by past unfunded superannuation obligations on the Commonwealth. For years, legitimate criticism has been levelled at various governments about the size of this unfunded liability. Over past years, we have seen most state governments, in one way or another, move to fund their superannuation liabilities. The Commonwealth has indeed been a leader, particularly under this coalition government, because it has shifted from what is known as a defined benefits system to a defined contributions system. Nevertheless, we are left with the legacy of legal liabilities in respect of superannuation from the build-up in past years.

There are a range of reasons why dealing with this unfunded liability now is important, not least of which is the equity issue inherent in any intergenerational transfer of wealth or liabilities. Why should future generations unnecessarily pay for the largesse of former generations? Currently, we all know that, because of the good government of this country, Australia is enjoying a remarkable period of strong economic health and growth. So during this time the Howard government has very astutely retired something like $97 billion of government debt, largely from the sale of assets, and has conscientiously kept the Commonwealth budget in surplus. I regret that this is not a practice that is currently being followed by all state governments, despite the large amount of GST revenue building up their revenue base.

The Future Fund Bill will continue that tradition of leaving our future generations in the strongest possible position, and I therefore endorse it. We have no guarantee that future generations will necessarily enjoy the same benefits that we do now, particularly if we are headed by a different government to the one currently leading this nation. Indeed, with our ageing population, it is almost certain that there will be problems in the future. Therefore, it is prudent to ensure that the debts accrued by today’s generation, and past generations, are paid for by today’s generation.

Submissions to the committee inquiry outlined a number of concerns about the Future Fund Bill, not the least of which being that the Future Fund will be used as a hollow log. This concern is a flipside of the equity issue that I raised earlier, as we do not intend the Future Fund to be used as some form of piggybank to be raided on a rainy day and used for all manner of purposes. While this is a valid concern, it is a concern that the bill attempts to address. The bill implements a number of safeguards on the manner in which moneys can be released from the fund and ensures that the fund will not be used for non-superannuation purposes.

There is a big difference between the Howard government and the ALP. What do we find with the ALP? The ALP produced a second reading amendment which shows them in their true colours. While the government has legislatively attempted to ensure that the moneys set aside and built up by the accumulated revenue within the Future Fund are not used for purposes other than superannuation, the ALP have no such intention. They take an entirely different view, and we see this quite openly and opaquely in Senator Sherry’s second reading amendment. The second reading amendment says:

(2) the income stream from the Fund—

according to Senator Sherry and the ALP—

should be used for productive national economic purposes rather than being set aside solely to offset the cost of public sector superannuation as the Government intends.

Here in the open is a manifestation of the Labor Party’s trickery.