Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let's not. No, I'm upholding standards, Deputy Speaker, but the member for Whitlam just gave a speech which amounted to definitely not just drinking one's own bathwater but drowning in it. It offers a continuing insight into what the objective of this opposition is, which is, of course, when the government does something constructive, which this relatively straightforward administrative legislation does, not to recognise that we're focusing on the job, as the head of the Australian people, and that we have to support the government to do its role. Instead the Labor Party's focus, as the member for Fenner would be well aware, is to tacitly support while delivering a backhanded compliment, because it's only intention really is to play petty politics in any conversation, and there's no topic that gets it more energised in this chamber. Once upon a time, it was if they felt that workers were under attack, because they were the party that represented organised labour. But today there is no topic that gets Labor members more exercise than anything else, nothing that gets them faster to their feet, nothing that gets them as energised and impassioned with their speeches than if anyone dares to criticise or raise concern about parts of organised capital under the superannuation system.

We on this side of the chamber see the success of the nation through the success of the Australian people. The success of our party is when the Australian people do well. The modern Australian Labor Party has never seen the success of the nation through the success of mums and dads, everything in between, families, communities. They see it through the success of themselves, and, when in doubt, they have to write a constant narrative to delude themselves into the pursuit of continuing on with their cause, because they think that they are the only ones who have the answers for the future of this country. Particularly with the discussion around superannuation, which, of course, comes up in the context of this bill around making sure the system works equitably and fairly in the particular context of relationships that have ended, their only contribution is: how does it fit within the narrative of the Australian Labor Party and our vision for the country. It can't actually be: how is this good for mums and dads or couples who are going through divorce? It's: What's the impact on the Labor Party? How is this advancing our narrative and our cause? And that's why in the end they always struggle when talking about legislation or with proposals they put up before elections to ever get resonance with the Australian people, because it's actually about themselves.

There's a reason you've successfully stayed on that side of the chamber for most of the history of the Commonwealth of Australia—and don't get me wrong, may it continue! It's because you think governing for Australia is actually about governing for the Labor Party and its pursuits and its objectives, and superannuation, of course, is a classic example of that. As I said, the party for organised capital is how I would refer to the modern Labor Party. Its tentacles get into all the pursuits and the various avenues and the operations and the judgement calls of the Labor Party today, and it affects every decision that it makes. I know there will be members on the other side who will take exception to that, but they won't deny it. They won't argue it's wrong. They'll just take exception to somebody pointing it out.

But let's get explicitly to the legislation we're discussing. The member for Whitlam did go through the various practical effects of the legislation and what it is seeking to entail. As I said, there are issues around the amendment of the Competition and Consumer Act regarding the franchising code—most people seem to think that these are good ideas—and there are some issues around deregulation of actuarial certificates for self-managed super funds. I love that we get to return to this topic once more! One of the reasons why the Labor Party are reluctantly supporting this bill is because it applies to self-managed super funds, but the Labor Party want it to apply to larger funds, the ones with larger overheads where you actually hand over money to other people to take responsibility, where you lose control of it and where they and their mates, particularly their fund manager mates, get to harvest it as fees and insurance premiums to boost their own profits. There's a reason why we give self-managed super funds lesser regulatory burden in some contexts, and it's because it's people controlling their own money. And you have higher regulations where they're not in control of their own money.

This should not become a particularly innovative process. When you hold your money, Member for Fenner or Deputy Speaker Claydon, in your own pocket, we don't normally demand oversight of how it's being spent, if you've earnt it as part of the process of salary and income outside your taxation obligations. But if you start handing it over to other entities to control then we want to make sure they are doing the right thing with it and that they're doing it on the basis of honesty and without deception and we want to make sure that decisions are being made in your best interests. So, while I agree with the member for Whitlam, I would love to see a bonfire of red tape right at the heart of this chamber.

The reality is that, just because some super funds are in charge of other people's money and they wilfully and wishfully spend it as they see fit, it doesn't mean they're always doing the right thing. We found this in the Standing Committee on Economics, which I am very privileged to chair on behalf of this House, during our current inquiry, which the member for Fenner can attest to, despite attempts by some Labor members to run interference in the inquiry and certain aspects of it. For instance, we had low-balance inactive accounts that were deliberately and maliciously being reactivated by industry super funds so that they could harvest the retirement savings of low-income Australians for fees and insurance premiums to boost their own profits and bonuses for fund managers.

There was some very questionable conduct that emerged out of the Hayne royal commission, particularly with banks, with the insurance industry and with retail super funds, and all of that behaviour was rightly called out. But some behaviour that was almost poetic in its corruption was where we had fees being charged for no service. Sadly, we have found in the Economics Committee that, while Commissioner Hayne found some misconduct, there were stones unturned, and we are making a very deliberate effort to make sure we find where they are and to expose them to the cleansing light of day. When we found fees for no service, it wasn't because of an administrative error or because money happened to be sitting there and there was automation; it was the deliberate, malicious and conscious harvesting of low-income Australians' superannuation savings to boost the profits and bonuses of fund managers and entities—which, funnily enough, seem to give an awful lot of money to organisations like the ACTU, which raises questions about their intent and nefarious agenda too.

Yes, we put higher obligations when other people are watching your money, because the retail funds have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and the industry funds have done so as well. To be fair, at least the retail funds have admitted their behaviour. The industry funds continue to perpetuate a lie that they have nothing to answer for and that they do no wrong, because during the royal commission the stones that covered their misdeeds were unturned. Make no mistake: we will continue in the Economics Committee, right to the end of this term, to find every single stone we can in the retail space, in the industry space and in any other financial institution and hold them to account for their conduct. But I will say that this in the context where we had the large banks before the committee recently and the member for Fenner was complaining about how they were making the argument that perhaps constantly turning up before the committee was unjustified or unnecessary. It's their choice. He's more than entitled to make that argument. Then he listed off a whole series of allegations of misconduct against them, and then the chair of the ABA—I can't believe I'm quoting Anna Bligh, but this is where we all are; this is the parallel universe we operate in—had to make the point that not a single allegation of misconduct was highlighted by the members of the committee, particularly members of the Labor Party. It was what we call in modern parlance, if we go back to our urban dictionary, the equivalent of drinking your own bathwater: an epic slap down. So we should focus on where there is misconduct and where there are misdeeds, and that's what this legislation seeks to do.

But another part of the legislation which is important is around visibility when there's a divorce or separation and superannuation comes into that context. The member for Whitlam is right: there is a disparity around the amount of superannuation that women have at retirement compared with men. We all know that that's because of a number of factors, some of which we find very challenging. We're constantly working on how we can correct some of those fundamental injustices that occur.

But, critically, when people get divorced—and we hope that doesn't occur, because of course marriage is one of the foundational bedrock institutions of our society and a fundamental good—it should be done in a way where assets are divided in an appropriate context so that people can't hide their superannuation, which undermines the capacity for an equitable division. It's also for another reason: when people get divorced it can often end up in the situation where assets are traded between the couple about 'who gets what'. More often than not, women are left with less of their share, and that is wrong. But, more critically, it's wrong because, structurally, we then favour those who get a house or who are able to afford a house. We deliberately make it harder for women—in, say, their 40s or 50s—whose biggest conscious decision they can then go on to make for their financial security in their working life and retirement is to be able to access their superannuation to be able to buy their own home with enough time to pay it off, under the collective lie that they are somehow better off having money denied to them at that critical stage of their lives.

In denying them access to that funding so that they can provide for the foundation of their security in their working life and retirement we put super above homes. I know this is a constant theme in the speeches that I give in this place and I will never back off. The biggest decision Australians can make for their economic wellbeing, and the biggest decision they can make for their personal security and the choices in their life, is to own their own home.

Members of the Labor Party who come into this chamber and cry crocodile tears when talking about these issues without a proper acknowledgement that they actively seek to deny post-divorce women the opportunity to be able to own their own home, in order to feather the nests of fund managers, ought to hold themselves in shame, because they actively engage in a form of economic social engineering designed to feather the nests of those who have much at the expense of those who have little. It is disgraceful! It sacrifices women's opportunities for economic security and opportunities in their working lives and retirements. It's just as they do for young Australians when they deliberately kneecap them in their economic opportunities at earlier stages of life. It should be home first and super second. That's a pathway for economic security for all Australians.

See this speech in context