Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is in the best interests of the budget perhaps—perhaps. In our view we should still withdraw this bill to fix up its many and significant shortcomings. However we understand that that is unlikely because this government is desperate for the cash. Therefore the coalition is moving amendments to delay implementation of schedules 1, 2 and 4 for a full year. These schedules relate to what the government describes as lost super, lost bank accounts and lost first home saver accounts. Delaying these three schedules would have the effect of deferring around $600 million in net revenue and around $650 million in gross revenue for the 2012-13 year into the next year, 2013-14.

If these amendments are unsuccessful then the coalition will oppose the passage of the bill. The key changes the coalition has been insisting upon, that were non-negotiable from the outset and would deliver the greatest benefits to consumers and account providers across banking and superannuation, have not been met, which is why the coalition's amendments will delay the implementation dates of schedules 1, 2 and 4 of the bill by a full year, to 31 December 2013, so that banks and super funds could implement the necessary changes to their IT systems and make the appropriate communications with their customers in a more orderly, more efficient and more cost-effective fashion. The full year's delay would allow banks to dovetail these changes into the related processes that the Banking Act requires them to do annually in the second half of the calendar year, a process that had been essentially completed for the year by the time of the 22 October 2012 MYEFO announcement.

This is similarly the case with super funds. A full year's delay would allow super funds to dovetail these changes into the related processes that the stronger super reforms, also pursued by this government and announced in the last budget, requires of them by 1 January 2014.

The constant chopping and changing and putting changes in relation to the same area on top of each other on different time tables demonstrates that this government clearly does not understand what it takes to run a business effectively and efficiently. This government just does not get what it takes to run an economy in a way that does not impose excessive and unnecessary additional costs on business. This chopping and changing, going backwards and forwards, rushing about and going slow, and left and right and up and down, are the sorts of constant changes that undermine our international competitiveness. These are the sorts of approaches, and this is the sort of attitude, that unnecessarily adds to our sovereign risk profile.

Allowing changes to be done at the same time when all of these other regulatory change processes are already underway with specific timetables would be the sensible thing to do. I am sure that even the Labor Party understands that it would be much more sensible to align the implementation timetables for all these processes already underway, or are being put underway through this legislation. There is only one reason why that is not happening and that is because Mr Swan, the Treasurer, is desperate for the cash now. He is desperate for the cash before 30 June 2013 so that he can make people believe perhaps—unless some other disasters happen between now and then—that he will deliver a surplus in 2012-13. That is the only reason he is going for this rapid six-month raid for more cash out of people's bank accounts, out of people's superannuation and out of people's first home saver accounts.

The delay of a full year in implementation dates would have ensured a more orderly and reliable process overall with less risk of mistake, churn, cost and inconvenience to consumers and account providers. This is why for the coalition such a delay was non-negotiable from the outset and remains the case even after the last-minute admissions and compromises by the government. As a result, the coalition will continue to move amendments to introduce more realistic implementation timeframes and if these amendments are not successful we will continue to oppose the bill. We foreshadowed this opposition when the bill was being rushed into the House by the government. It is now clear that the rushed timelines for implementation are driven by nothing more than a desperate government trying to pretend it can deliver a surplus.

More than half the Gillard government's promised surplus—in fact nearly three-quarters, as I mentioned earlier—would come from this bill. The lost super measure alone raises $555 million, more than half the promised $1,077 million surplus for 2012-13. This undue, indecent, shameless haste and lack of proper process in developing these measures is driven by the government 's desperate need for cash to continue to preserve the illusion of a surplus for a little longer.

But I suspect that while all this is happening and while the government is always playing catch-up with more new revenue measures to try to chase their spending tail, the government is still spending like a drunken sailors anyway. I do not know why they even bother trying to keep the illusion going. Here they are, having made unfunded spending promises in the last few weeks to the tune of $120 billion, which come on top of $172 billion of accumulated deficits. This means that we have got a government here which over the last four budgets has spent $172 billion more than they have raised in revenue. Senator Wong during various question times and other related debates always tries to run the argument that this government is a low-taxation government as a share of GDP. They are putting it all onto the tax bill for future generations. Racking up debt, including more and more money onto the credit card—guess what that is—is deferred taxation and, if you want to have a true indication of what the tax burden of Australians is under this government, you have got to add the $150 billion of government net debt to the calculation. Some day or another, as governments in Europe and the US are finding out, the chickens come home to roost. At some point you reach a wall where you cannot keep living beyond your means. This government of course says, 'Oh, well, we are in such a strong position.' But the only reason we are in a strong position is because we had a strong government here up until 2007 that left the government a very strong budget. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7321:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 11), omit the table items, substitute: