Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a bogus, ideologically-driven and self-indulgent motion this is. This member for Mackellar's motion is based upon a completely misrepresentative notion that this government called the Hayne royal commission, when in fact the government voted against it 26 times. It was a royal commission this government never wanted, and that is crystal clear from the fact that this government is dragging its feet in implementing its recommendations. What we have in this motion is a complete misrepresentation of the financial services sector by calling to account a part of the financial services sector that is outperforming the average and providing great benefits for its members.

This government, as it has shown through its actions over the last two years, does not want to put into place basic recommendations that the Hayne royal commission made, which are absolutely overdue and which would respond to some absolutely heartbreaking instances of malfeasance, malpractice and abuse of vulnerable people. This government, after two years, has implemented only around a third of the recommendations of the royal commission. Yet we get this motion which calls into question organisations that were given a clean bill of health by that very royal commission. Instead, what we have is a backbench of those opposite which calls into question a core election promise that those opposite made in the lead-up to the last election—to respect the SGL increase that both parties took to the last election. Instead, what we have is every galah opposite with a policy—their own random policy—on superannuation, but no-one with a clue.

Let's look at IFM and some of the bizarre accusations made by those opposite. IFM came out of the Hayne royal commission, as did the industry sector overall, with a clean bill of health. That was not the area of the financial services sector that the Hayne royal commission said needed attention. Indeed, IFM has cooperated greatly with the House economics committee. They've answered dozens and dozens and dozens of detailed questions. They have appeared before the committee multiple times. Have any other fund managers been called? No. That reflects the fact that the House economics committee is being used for ideological fancies.

Let's look at the industry sector as a whole. Let's take a step back. Industry super funds delivered an average of two per cent long-term outperformance over retail funds. Yet those opposite spend all their attention on little ideological ploys to try to bring—

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

See this speech in context