Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to ask a couple of questions of the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy about this. But, before we get there, it is worth reflecting on where we are in the process of this debate. Yesterday, without notice, the government moved to crunch debate on three very important bills—three bills that relate to a superannuation system worth $3 trillion; three bills that go to the financial interests of every working Australian; and three bills that, in combination, have the potential to disadvantage three million Australians by as much as $240,000 at retirement, a consequence of shoddy drafting, shoddy policy work and an ideological obsession with supporting their mates in the financial services sector at the expense of the evidence. I think it is a pretty pathetic indictment of this government that a system as important as Australians' superannuation system is the subject of endless petty partisanship.

For eight years, every bill on superannuation that has been brought before this parliament has been marred by a fixation with an ideological war, at the expense of the evidence. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation is in the national interest. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation relates in any way to the interests of working people. It is just one endless petty culture war after the other. It is a fixation driven by people on the other side who cannot bear the idea that industry super funds even exist, that this system, which is the envy of people all over the world, exists and works, and that this system allows businesses and workers and their representatives to direct their own financial interests, make investments and make some contribution to the structure of business and of capital investment in this country. This system, which works so well, has delivered for so many people and has lifted so many people into a dignified retirement, is the thing they can't bear. And why not? It is because the idea that ordinary people might have a say or might have a seat at the big table is anathema to these people. These people think that that right ought to be preserved for the merchant bankers—the business people in the really nice suits. It's not for the working types, not for people who do an ordinary job, nor for the people who get up early, go to work and do hard labour. It's not for them and their representatives; it's just for people like those on the other side.

I had actually thought it might come to an end when Ms O'Dwyer left the portfolio. I had thought that perhaps things might get better. But the performance yesterday and what I expect to happen today don't suggest that anything has changed at all under this minister, because Minister Hume is stubbornly persisting with a program of legislation that everyone has told her is flawed. When you've got Innes Willox—not a notorious socialist—from a key employer group, out begging the government to put aside ideology and look at the evidence, it should be a signal to you, Minister, that you have a problem. When you've got Innes Willox saying that people like Andrew Bragg, who likes to chat a lot on this topic, might need to put aside the eight years of hostility to superannuation that he built up during his time at the Financial Services Council, it might be an indication that the government has a problem, because your credibility on super is shot.

Every time a superannuation bill comes before this chamber, the one thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that the interests of ordinary people won't be in play. There'll be a weird set of interests from the Liberal Party. There'll be a weird set of internal stakeholders who've got some nutty conspiracy theory about how industry superannuation works. There'll be Andrew Bragg with an entirely misconceived idea about how industry super's investments work. There'll be the Financial Services Council, who've got a particular set of views that you're always ready to listen to. But there'll never be an examination of the evidence. There'll never be an engagement with the findings of Commissioner Hayne, who was very clear about which parts of the superannuation system required particular and additional attention and which parts were working okay. There won't be an engagement today with the evidence from the Productivity Commission that there is a whole section of the superannuation industry that will be left unregulated by this bill and that is letting workers down. None of that is to be engaged with, if we are to take at her word the contribution the minister made last night.

The thing is we don't know what we're really dealing with today, because a deal has been done. Last night Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and Senator Griff gave their vote to the government to crunch all this through, to make sure that the terms of the debate today would be very narrow, that the time for the debate would be very narrow, that senators in many instances would be in a position where they were voting on amendments that they had only just seen and where the time allocated for discussion was very, very limited indeed. Why is this government so allergic to scrutiny, Minister? That might be something that you address in your first contribution.

The final thing I want to come to is the amendments that are before us to the bill that we are now dealing with. Senator Hanson has circulated three amendments. One of them goes to improving tax concessions for a small number of very wealthy people. Curiously enough, the age at which this measure kicks in is 67. Senator Hanson was willing to give the government the support to bring all this on last night, and it happens, if we're to believe Wikipedia, that Senator Hanson herself has only recently turned 67. What a coincidence. The question I have for you, Minister, is: will you be supporting her amendment? Is this the deal that's been done? We know a deal's been done, but we don't know its terms, because you haven't been willing to be upfront about that. So I'm inviting you now to tell us the terms of this deal and, in particular, to tell us what the government's voting position will be on each of the amendments that have been circulated on this bill in this chamber in the name of Senator Hanson.