Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

This is a bill that was half-baked when it was announced, it was half-baked when it went through their party room and it was half-baked when it entered this parliament today. Let me just go through some of the issues. A bill that was supposed to have the effect of reducing the fees that members paid on their superannuation account, because of their incompetence, actually did the opposite! They had to be browbeaten into including administration fees to the benchmarks. A bill that was supposed to strengthen superannuation and their investments did the opposite, because it actually created a disincentive for Australian workers' money to be invested in Australian infrastructure and Australian agricultural investments. They had to be browbeaten into changing this. We thought after two embarrassing backflips they would've got the message and listened to the sensible suggestions that were being made by Labor. This bill, in the form that it was brought into the House, was so bad that even members on their backbench weren't going to vote for it.

This is the royal commission. We weren't surprised that a government that voted against this royal commission document 27 times wasn't going to implement all of its recommendations, but this is Das Kapital. We were absolutely flabbergasted that a government that calls themselves conservatives and liberals would introduce a bill with a power that is more inspired by Karl Marx than Ken Hayne. But that's exactly what they've done, and that's why we are here today—because they have introduced a bill into the House more inspired by Karl Marx and more befitting of Soviet-era Russia than modern Australia. Never again will the Treasurer be able to lecture Labor on economic responsibility. We will remind Australians that the Treasurer and the government that can't balance their own budget wants to take over the savings of ordinary Australians. We will remind them every day until the next election.

I want to congratulate those members of the government backbench who, having originally voted for it when it went through their party room, woke up to the enormous threat that it presents to Australians and their savings. They have raised their concerns with me, with members of the Labor opposition, with members of the crossbench and eventually with members of the government. I want to congratulate those members of the backbench of the coalition parties for doing the right thing. Many of them have raised their concerns in this place, and I want to congratulate them for doing the right thing.

As bad as the directions power is, it is not the only problem with this bill. Labor wants to foreshadow that we have a range of amendments. If this amendment fails, we have an amendment which covers the field. We have a range of other amendments that we propose to move in the House today. I'll go through the issues that they cover off.

Firstly, this government has said the purpose of this bill is to ensure that members have funds that are performing for them, and, to give effect to that, they want to introduce a performance measure so that we can weed out the underperforming funds. Members of this House, Labor wholly supports that objective. We want to see that happen. But why on earth would a government that says that what it wants to do is weed out underperforming funds introduce a bill in the House which actually staples members to underperforming funds? There aren't a small number of them. According to the Treasury, three million Australians are going to be stapled to underperforming funds because of the legislation that you are foreshadowing that you will vote for. So, we encourage you to contemplate that fact. Are you going to be on the side of the three million Australians who, if you let this bill through, are going to be stapled to an underperforming fund, or are you going to support this sensible amendment?

I call on the crossbench to contemplate that fact. You were so confident in the advice that you were given by the government and by the Treasurer that they had this bill right. You were so confident the government had this right. I say the same thing to members on the coalition backbench as well. A couple of weeks ago the government said they had this bill right— (Time expired)

See this speech in context