Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great delight to speak on the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020 and to follow someone who has recently been referred to as a 'baby faced Liberal', Senator Bragg. Of course, our ex-Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, made a somewhat gratuitous comment, which was totally in keeping with his history and character, referring to 'baby faced Liberals'. I think he said something along the lines—and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong in this regard—that 'It was, perhaps, the highest form of political modesty to be a first-term backbench senator.' Well, I'm happy to be in the company of these baby faced Liberals, although I must say that I don't think Senator Rennick qualifies in that regard! Perhaps on one hand we have baby faced Liberals here—a former political modesty—but on the other hand we have a cranky ex-PM who perhaps has unrivalled arrogance. I'll leave it there.

Senator Gallagher referred to the government attacking the superannuation system. It is somewhat odd for Senator Gallagher to make that remark, having gone through, in quite fair and reasonable fashion, what a benefit this bill will be to the members of the relevant funds. On the one hand she said that this bill is for the benefit of the members in relation to those funds, and then she accused the government of attacking the superannuation system. It's totally inconsistent. This bill promotes choice, flexibility and efficiency—choice, flexibility and efficiency—and that is what we should be seeking to do in relation to our superannuation scheme.

Senator Ayres interjecting—

I will just say to Senator Gallagher, and to Senator Ayres, that from our perspective the reforms which were introduced to allow members to withdraw $10,000 prior to 30 June and then a further $10,000 after 30 June were a matter of personal choice—personal choice in the circumstances of a pandemic. What it underlined to those members who did exercise that choice—and it wasn't the government exercising the choice—was that it was the government giving those members that choice to decide whether or not to withdraw that $10,000. It was the members who were given the choice, and that emphasised that it is the members' money. The money in those superannuation accounts is the members' money.

Before we had superannuation, prior generations used to put away a nest egg or they used to put away some money for hard times in a bank account. And when the hard times arrived they would draw down on that money. Why should people be deprived of that choice today in the middle of a pandemic? This government has given them choice and I'm proud to be part of a government that has delivered that choice.

There is a real beauty about a Freudian slip. Senator Ayres gave us the best Freudian slip I've heard for a long time. He referred to the 'revenue' from superannuation—'revenue' was the word he used. Whose revenue is it? The union's revenue? I think that's the revenue he's referring to. He finds it difficult to take off his AMWU hat. I understand that. He was a very effective leader in trade union organisations and I respect him for that. But this is the whole point. Superannuation should not be about the revenue of the trade union movement. It should be about the members and their retirement. It's not a revenue source for third parties—and I don't care who they are. It should be for the benefit of the members, and the members should have a choice, in the time of a pandemic, whether or not they want to draw on some of those funds and make a decision—their own decision—with respect to how they want to apply those funds. They might want to pay off a home mortgage, taking some of the financial pressure off them today. I respect each and every person who has made that choice. That choice is certainly something we should be promoting in this place.

Senator Ayres also asked Senator Rennick: 'Well, what do you oppose?' I thought it was quite clear, listening to Senator Rennick, as to what he opposed. He opposed industry super funds making political donations, or any super fund making a political donation. He opposes that because it is against the sole-purpose test. I oppose that as well. He opposes superannuation funds having exorbitant entertainment budgets. Why? Because it's against the sole-purpose test. It's not consistent with the sole-purpose test. I oppose that as well. And I do this not on an ideological basis. I'm actually a member of an industry fund. I'm a member of AustralianSuper. I congratulate Ian Silk and his team on the returns he has given me over a number of years. I left an AMP super fund because I wasn't happy with the returns in that respect and joined AustralianSuper, on the recommendation of my father, in fact—one of many recommendations he has made to me that I have followed, dutifully, as his son. I've been very happy with the performance of my industry super fund. I am unhappy when they defer in any way from that sole-purpose test.

This bill is about choice. It's about flexibility. It's about protecting the integrity of Australians' retirement savings and I commend it to the Senate.