George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, and that it may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

The purpose of the motion, for the moving of which leave is sought, is self-explanatory. This is, as we all know, the last sitting week of the year. The government has a great deal of business to get through that has been notified—it's on the Notice Paperand the government seeks to vary the order of business so as to most efficiently dispose of that business and to move on to other legislation. If we look at today's red, we can see there are very urgent and important bills to be considered, including, for example, the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017, which is a bill upon which a lot of people in regional communities have a lot riding. There are other bills on the Notice Paper too that the government consider need to be deliberated upon and we seek urgent passage of this week.

We really had this debate last week. The point I made in the debate then is the same point I make now—that it is for the government to determine the government's legislative agenda. We acknowledge the fact that of course on occasions the Senate will have other views, and that general proposition does admit of exceptions. Nevertheless, given the busyness on the Notice Paper in this final sitting week, it is the desire of the government to reorder the priorities as set out in the Senate order of 30 November in this respect, which is why the government seeks support of the Senate for this motion.

I understand that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is that the opposition will not support this. I think that is regrettable, because it disrespects the convention that the government should have the principal say in the ordering of business. Nevertheless, we do respectfully ask those who sit on the crossbench to respect the orthodox conventional position that the government should, especially in the busy final week of the year, have the principal right to indicate the order of business for the Senate's consideration. I don't want to detain the Senate any longer, so I will leave it at that. We ask the crossbench for their favourable consideration of the government's wishes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a complete farce. What the government are now doing, just so we are clear, is taking out of the order of business motion that thing they had a fight on last week to put in the order of business. Just so we are clear: this is taking out of the motion the bills on superannuation that in fact the opposition moved to take out last time but the government voted against and got the support of the crossbench. Do you know why they've changed it? It's because they've suddenly worked out that they may not have the numbers. It is not that the government are changing the program because they care about the Regional Investment Corporation; it's because they have suddenly worked out that they haven't got the numbers, so they don't want to bring it on for debate. Let's be clear what this is: chopping and changing the Senate program between Thursday and Monday—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right. You should vote with us.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least he's honest. Senator Cormann says, 'Guilty as charged.' He's right. But on Thursday he demanded that Senators Griff and Patrick support him against Labor to take these out. We didn't want them debated. We don't support these bills. We're clear about that. Now the government are worried they haven't got the numbers so they're saying: 'We actually don't want to talk about these anymore. Can we please change the program because we don't want to talk about these anymore?' Can I be really clear: we won't be supporting this. I move as an amendment to the motion:

Omit "and determined without amendment or debate".

Can I be clear what I'm doing. The Labor Party want to vote on at least one of these bills. We think it is bad law. We think the legislation in relation to strengthening trustee arrangements, which I'm sure the crossbench have been lobbied about substantially—and I won't go through that again—should be read a second time, and we will be voting against it. We invite the crossbench to vote with us. If you don't want that bill to proceed, you should vote with us on my amendment, which will enable us to then move that that bill be now read a second time. That's what we want to do. We don't think the government should be able to keep holding a bill over here so they can keep pressuring all of you to make sure they get the votes before we return next year, or before the end of the week. That's what this is all about—they want to take the bill out of the program and keep working on you until the end of the week. If they get the numbers, they'll quickly bring it back on and get you to vote. If they defer it to next year, you'll keep being lobbied over the Christmas and summer break because these are important matters.

We on this side, unlike the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who again besmirched industry superannuation funds by suggesting in one of his answers today that they were something nefarious, don't think it's actually such a bad idea for working people to have access to capital. I know that's a radical idea: to actually allow working people and their representatives access to capital, access to superannuation savings and access to a decent retirement. What an incredibly socialist idea—isn't that extraordinary! On the other side we've got the government, who basically can't bear the fact that working people and their representatives have engagement in superannuation and some control of those investment funds. That's what they can't bear.

We are consistent. We will be opposing this legislation. We particularly want a vote on the strengthening trustee arrangements. If the Senate passes my amendment, that will ensure we bring that to a vote. On the other matters, we understand that, if the crossbench wish to defer them, that's a matter for them. But we don't believe we should have a situation where the government can chop and change its program on the basis it might have the numbers at a particular point.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Well, this is a new level of—I was going to say 'incompetence', but that's a bit harsh—using the chamber as your plaything. On Thursday: 'Oh no, we have to have superannuation debated; we have to have it done; vote against Wong's amendment,' et cetera. On Monday: 'Oh dear, we might not have the numbers; let's filibuster; Senator McGrath, get out and read the same talking points as Senator McKenzie and everybody else'—a complete joke of a debate in the chamber. That's what happened. Now the government want to discharge the bills from the program. I say to One Nation; I say to the crossbench: if your position on this legislation is that it should be opposed, vote on it now. Don't allow this government to keep it hanging over your head. Vote on it now so you don't have to have the spectre of being lobbied about this for the rest of this week and over the summer break, because that's what will happen.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On one point, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate does have the government cold. She's absolutely right that we want to vary the program and she's absolutely right that, at this point in time, the government does not have the numbers on these particular pieces of legislation. She's got us cold. We confess; we admit it—it's true. But 'twas ever thus: whether it be this government or its predecessors, governments schedule for debate pieces of legislation for times when the government thinks that there is a reasonable prospect of passage. That is what governments do. In fact, in this place, it's always been recognised that the government of the day should have the opportunity to determine the legislation that is debated in government business time. That is all we are seeking to do through the motion that Senator Brandis is seeking leave to move.

I need to respond to a couple of points that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate raised. Firstly, it is not the government's intention to bring this legislation back later this week. That is not the intention of the government. Indeed, if there is not a consensus around this legislation in the new year, the government will not be listing it again. That is the way this place operates. If there is a consensus, if it's clear that there is a majority of the chamber who supports a particular legislative proposition, then we put it forward for debate and for a vote. So let me be very clear: the government will not be seeking to list this legislation later this week. The reason is self-evident: we want there to be the opportunity for further discussions with groupings in this place. I am advised by the relevant minister, Ms O'Dwyer, that there are some groupings in this place who are open to further discussion. So we are providing the opportunity for that to occur.

Mr President, given it's getting towards the end of the year, you tend to start reflecting a bit and I'm getting a little bit nostalgic. I recall when Senator Ludwig was the Manager of Government Business. He would say to me, 'Mitch, look, we're the government of the day. Don't intervene in our right to list legislation, because whatever goes around, comes around. You do the right thing by us as an opposition and, when we go into opposition, we'll do the right thing by you.' I took Senator Ludwig at his word, and he's an honourable man, and I've got no doubt that, if he was still in this place, he would be urging that the government of the day should have the opportunity to determine the legislation which is debated. But it does seem that the cooperation that the then opposition rendered isn't being reciprocated. In fact, I well recall, at that time in opposition, some of my colleagues—and Senator Macdonald may well have been one of them—said to me, 'Mitch, they say that now but, when they're in opposition, they're not going to honour that. They're not going to practise what they preach.' And Senator Macdonald may have had a point.

So, I would encourage colleagues to support Senator Brandis in his endeavour to suspend standing orders so that he can move a motion to do that which should be a fairly straightforward matter for any government to do and which, you would hope, would be supported by the chamber—that is, to enable the government to list and determine the legislation that is debated in government business time and the order in which it's dealt with. We think that's just good and sensible practice, and it will provide the opportunity for further discussion about this legislation. As I said earlier, the government won't be relisting this legislation for any time later this week. We'll have discussions and then we'll see what the new year holds.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose Senator Brandis's motion and support the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Wong. This is a government that is an absolute rabble. Nothing demonstrates more the rabble of a government that we have sitting here than what we have just witnessed. We have just witnessed a government that can't manage its own business, a government that can't get any significant legislation through this place without lengthy, lengthy arm twisting of the crossbench.

This is another attempt to destroy the effectiveness of industry superannuation in this country. It's about handing over power, influence and profit to their mates in the banking industry and, in my view, it's part of the deal that they did to get a banking royal commission that the banks would allow them to put up. The banks said, 'We'll allow you to put a royal commission up,' and that's exactly what they did.

What they did was widen that royal commission into the superannuation industry with specific reference to the industry super funds. What they've argued is that the industry super funds are supposedly doing the wrong thing. Let me take you through what the industry super funds have done. In one year, they outperformed the banks by 3½ per cent; in three years, they outperformed the banks by 2.58 per cent; in five years, they outperformed the banks by 2.49 per cent; in seven years, they outperformed the banks by 2.5 per cent; and, over 10 years, 2.38 per cent. That is money into workers' pockets. And what this mob wants to do is hand that type of governance over to the banks to allow them to rip workers off. That's exactly what this is about. The crossbench should not have a bar of this. The crossbench should support our amendment and get this dealt with how it should be.

The superannuation industry, the trade union movement and the Labor Party—if they are part of a reasonable royal commission, let's have a look at it. I reckon the superannuation funds have got more to brag about than the banks have ever had in this area. It was the union movement that set superannuation up for blue-collar workers. Blue-collar workers didn't have superannuation that could be vested. You couldn't take superannuation from one employer to another until the ACTU and the Labor Party put the legislation in to make this happen. I personally, when I left the Electricity Commission of New South Wales in 1979, had $17,000 in superannuation that the electricity commission took off me and my family. And, yet, they want to go back to a position where they hand it over to the banks.

This is an outrageous proposition from this government. The crossbench should deal with this matter now so that they can have a break at Christmas without the government continually coming after them on behalf of their bosses, which are the banks. Their bosses are the banks—the banks that tell them whether they can have a royal commission or not, the banks that rip ordinary workers off and the banks that can't deliver on superannuation outcomes. The government want the industry superannuation funds to be like the banks. Well, I don't. I don't want the industry super funds to be like the banks. I don't want them to have the same governance as the banks that allows the banks to rip working people off. This is an important issue for the crossbench. Don't give into this rabble of a government. Don't give into this government that is a dead man walking. This is a government that is not going to be here in the future. Deal with this properly. (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem with the Australian Labor Party is that they're so inconsistent. Here, on Thursday, they ran an argument passionately and energetically on how these bills should not be part of the government's agenda this week. Over the weekend, I've reflected on the arguments put eloquently by Senator Wong. On reflection, Senator Wong persuaded me of the merits of her argument. When they came into the chamber, imagine my surprise that the Labor Party position had changed.

I wonder why Labor were fighting tooth and nail last week to stop the government from putting this legislation into our agenda. I suspect that that was because Labor was worried that there was majority support in this chamber for this legislation. I'm wondering why Labor are now fighting tooth and nail in trying to stop the government from removing the bill from the program for this week. Would that be because Labor think there is now no consensus in the chamber in support of this legislation? Here we have Senator Wong trying to suggest all sorts of motivations and trying to suggest that, somehow, the government is alone in making judgements on whether or not there is majority support for a particular proposition in this chamber—a chamber in which neither the government nor the opposition have majority support. But, of course, that is what it is.

Last week, the government thought that there was majority support for these very important reforms to our superannuation governance arrangements. On these matters related to superannuation, where Labor acts as an agent of the commercial interests of the union movement, it's very hard to have a rational conversation on good public policy with the Labor Party. So, of course, we must engage with the crossbench in relation to these matters, and so we have. As it turns out, there are some matters that remain unresolved and that will be the subject of further conversations. It is only good management and good practice that, in order to facilitate the formation of the good consensus across the chamber that is behind good public policy, we now take this course of action in adjourning debate on these bills. As Senator Fifield has made very clear to the chamber, the government will not be bringing these bills back this week. In fact, we will only bring these bills back if and when there is consensus on and support of these bills in a form that is acceptable to a majority of senators in the Senate. Yes, we will continue to work on good public policy, because we believe it's important for the retirement savings of Australians to be properly protected and for the retirement savings of Australians to be able to maximise net investment returns. We believe that there is some serious need for improved governance standards, in particular when it comes to industry super.

Incidentally, there are quite a number of industry funds that already deploy the one-third, one-third, one-third model, where one-third of the directors are independent directors—and you know what? They're better for it. But there are some major funds that have particularly passionate agents of the Labor Party who are promoting their commercial interests in this chamber and who are resisting it tooth and nail, not because it is in the best interests of working people but because it's in the best interests of union-dominated industry funds and—of course—their paymasters, the union movement.

I don't really want to hold up the chamber any more. I just want to say that the reason the government's position has changed on the non-inclusion of these bills in the program this week is precisely the same reason that the Labor Party position has changed. Let's not kid ourselves: the Labor Party has precisely the same reasons for why they have changed their position—I see that Senator Cameron is engaging in some last-minute crossbench lobbying. In order to not facilitate that for too much longer, I now conclude my remarks.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The great concern that we have with this government is the ongoing chaos, disunity and dysfunction that characterises it. I said it the other day: it's the hallmark of the government. What we're seeing here today is an extraordinary turn of events. I appeal to the crossbench to actually pay attention to this government. It's like watching The Karate Kid in action, you know that old trope, 'Wax on, wax off; wax on, wax off'? What we have with the government here is 'ledge on, ledge off; ledge on, ledge off'. It can't make up its mind, because it's not a government of principle. It's just a government eating itself alive; a government in chaos.

We have the chance today to do something powerfully correct for Australian working people. We have 20 years of a superannuation industry that has only been established because Labor made sure it happened. Those opposite here say now they want to stand up for good superannuation practices; now they want to stand up for an industry they said could never, ever be established. It's rank hypocrisy. They don't care about the workers. They don't care about the fact that, over 20 years now—it's not a short-term experiment; this is a longitudinal study—we can see the evidence of a partnership of investment of workers' superannuation funds—50 per cent employers, 50 per cent union representatives standing up for their own working community. They've worked together and—better than the banks—they have delivered a two to three per cent margin of improvement over 20 years. We know that what's going on works. So why do these guys want to break that model? It is for no reason other than an ideological attack on the superannuation sector that is managed as industry super.

We've got Senator Williams over here, and we've got the Nats, who have been described today—what was the description of Mr Barilaro? 'The dribblings of some obscure politician.' This government is supposed to be in a coalition with the Nationals, and it's describing the current Premier—he's not the Deputy Premier right now; Gladys has gone on a trip, so Barilaro is actually the Premier of New South Wales—as a 'dribbling, obscure politician'. The only reason we're at the point that we are at with this government is because they are pushing now for the banks. They're pushing for the banks at every turn. They have only come to a royal commission because the banks have told them to do it. Their attack on superannuation that's managed very, very effectively by our industry super is because they want to get the business from industry super over into the banks—to copy the model of the banks, which is not delivering.

There are people in this chamber who don't pay that much attention to their super. That's one of the sad things we know: Australians don't really pay a lot of attention. But most Australians who are in an industry super fund have benefited from 20 long years of getting a better return on their money than those Australians who invested through the retail sector, which is controlled by the banks. What we're seeing here today is a government that wanted this on the legislation last week and decided that they would change their mind. They've pulled the pin on it. They thought that they had it all sewn up and that they could deliver this win for the banks. What they found out is that, instead of a win for the banks, it's a loss for the government. Legislation on last week; legislation off this week. It's a game to them. They're playing a game. They're playing a game and trying to advantage their friends at the top end of town.

Well, the Labor Party is standing here for ordinary Australian workers. We're standing here saying that you should be able to continue to have your money invested in an industry super scheme where 50 per cent of the people who make the decisions are people who have worked just like you and 50 per cent of the decision-making should be done by the employers who employ the people in that industry—a fair fifty-fifty partnership. There's nothing fair about this government. There's nothing equitable about what they do. They've got a chance to hold this up over the whole of summer and continue to dog those on the crossbench to try to do some sort of dirty deal in the background that they might get some advantage from. What we need right now is for our crossbench not to support this motion, not to support the intent of it, to stand up for working Australians and to make sure we keep industry super safe. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Wong to delete words from the suspension motion of Senator Brandis be agreed to.

Senator Collins did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.

Senator Singh did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

Senator Brown did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.

Senator Collins did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.

Senator Singh did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

Senator Brown did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017 be varied to omit the following bills:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to vary the order of the Senate of 30 November 2017, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be agreed to.

Senator Collins did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Nash.

Senator Singh did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

Senator Brown did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Parry.