Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 and the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022. Once again, a large proportion of these measures were supported, or in fact initiated, while the coalition were in government. For example, the income tax amendment reduces the tax rate on certain income earned by eligible foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme helps to meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as providing official development assistance to Pacific nations and Timor-Leste. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme allows eligible businesses to recruit workers to help fill workforce shortages in any sector where no suitable Australians are available. This is a really important scheme that enables Australian businesses, particularly agricultural businesses, to utilise Pacific labour in instances where so many young Australians show a reluctance to want to work. I think of a number of strawberry farms in my electorate. The Twist brothers farm had so much trouble finding workers to pick strawberries that the Twist brothers eventually gave up and stopped farming strawberries and turned it into a turf farm. There are many stories around my electorate and across the country about crops being ploughed in simply because we haven't been able to get the labour that we need. That, whilst regrettable, was somewhat understandable during the COVID pandemic. But now that things are returning to normal it is very, very difficult for many agricultural growers to find appropriate labour to be able to have their crops picked.

This is a very sensible scheme. Eligible businesses can recruit workers for short-term seasonal jobs for up to nine months, or in longer-term roles for between one and four years, to help fill unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled workforce shortages. The change will reduce the rate of tax from a marginal 32½ per cent to a flat rate of 15 per cent.

While I agree in principle with a number of the measures contained in this bill, I do have a number of reservations, particularly in relation to schedule 5. Schedule 5 of this bill implements a Labor election promise to exempt faith-based superannuation products from the Your Future, Your Super performance test. We should always be striving for the best when it comes to Australians' hard-earned money, and we need to remember that superannuation is compulsory. The concept of superannuation is a good thing. The concept of super requires workers to have a percentage of their wage—I think it's 10½ per cent at the moment—quarantined for when they retire. It's designed to take the pressure off the public purse and the pension scheme, and to reward people for their own self-reliance. That's a good thing. But because we are making it compulsory, because government says you must do this, then there's a certain obligation on government to ensure that to the maximum extent possible the superannuation scheme is transparent.

The Australian superannuation scheme, as the member for Sturt earlier said, is the fourth-largest such scheme in the world. For a country of 25 million people, that is no small feat. Some $3.4 trillion are invested in superannuation. That is a very significant nest egg, and it places a very significant responsibility upon government to ensure that there are appropriate amounts of transparency. When we're talking about the hard-earned money of everyday Australians, in my view and in view of many of my colleagues in the opposition—if not all of them—we simply do not have the right to be imposing ideological restrictions on what they can and can't do with their money. Let's be very clear on this. Superannuation is the worker's money. It's not the government's money. It's not Labor's money. It's not the opposition's money. It's the workers' money. Those mums and dads run their own small businesses, they are employed, they work hard, they're our doctors, they're our nurses and they're the people who work in our grocery stores. This is their money, and they have the right to expect that their government will assess super products based on performance and integrity, not on ideology or faith.

I am a person of faith. I'm a practising Catholic. I think it's very important. My faith is very important to me. But I do not believe that a faith based superannuation fund should be treated any differently to any other fund. I do not believe that the threshold for transparency or, in fact, performance should be lower for a faith based superannuation fund than for any other superannuation fund. It is absolutely imperative that, as legislators, we measure, we legislate and we adjudicate super products in light of three main things: whose money it is, what the performance of the fund is, and the transparency and integrity of the fund. These principles are the foundation of our historic Your Future, Your Super reforms. They are the most significant reforms in the 30 years since compulsory super was adopted.

In case members of the government have forgotten, let me remind those opposite why we implemented the Your Future, Your Super reforms. We took these steps to protect the financial interests of all Australians by removing unnecessary waste, increasing accountability and transparency, and providing more flexibility for families and individuals, as well as their businesses. It was about doing something tangible to increase transparency and accountability. We strengthened the obligations on trustees to act in their members' interests—not those of their political or corporate patrons. It was about enhancing the information readily available to members. This would allow them the chance to engage and contribute to the way their funds were invested. But, as is Labor's wont, Labor have opted to side with the big end of town once again. Hitched to the unions and industry super funds, they've now dismantled some of those essential transparency and accountability reforms for super. It is vital that we reintroduce that transparency and accountability and enshrine it in law.

The Your Future, Your Super reforms hold funds to account for underperformance, lower fees and protect members from poor outcomes. We required superannuation products to meet an annual objective performance test. For those that fail, funds are required to inform members, and persistently underperforming products will be prevented from taking on new members. This is about protecting the interests of everyday Australians. You wouldn't think that that was objectionable. You wouldn't think that anybody would quibble with those changes. It's about ensuring that those who have worked hard, and maybe even broken a generational welfare dependency, for example, can rely on the quality and surety of their superannuation fund. Our reforms under Your Future, Your Super have seen 13 underperforming funds fold or take necessary action. That's a good thing. Those underperforming funds that not only underperform but also usually charge very excessive fees and charges need to be held to account. They should be held to account. This performance needs to hold for all funds and all Australians, regardless of the individual's age, their sex or their faith. Equally, it needs to hold true to whether the fund is a for-profit fund, whether it's a not-for-profit fund, whether it's an industry fund or whether, in fact, it's a faith based fund.

It is this exemption from transparency measures with regard to faith based super products which concerns me. Transparency, accountability and integrity are not optional. Members opposite talk the big talk about integrity. We're seeing that today in terms of the introduction of integrity. They talk the big talk about integrity when it comes to all manner of things, but they seem to go quiet when it refers to superannuation, particularly in relation to industry super funds. They go deathly quiet when conversation about unions like the CFMMEU—and the $10 million they've received in political donations—comes up.

Transparency, accountability, and integrity are not optional. It doesn't matter what your religion, your political persuasion, your background or your agenda is. Integrity is not an extra; it is an essential element. It's about time Labor walked the talk in relation to integrity. Allowing faith based funds to deliver inferior returns is not in the best interests of Australians. Why should Australians of faith retire with a lower balance than Australians of no faith? Why should Australians who work in faith based employment—such as someone who might be employed by the Australian Catholic University, or someone who might be a teacher in a Muslim school, or a nurse who might work for an Anglican hospital—ultimately end up with less super than someone who works for the state? It's just not right. It's not fair. Why shouldn't those faith based superannuation funds be granted the same assurance?

I'm not beating up on organisations of faith. As I said earlier, I'm a committed Catholic. But fair is fair. Alongside many others on this side, I am concerned that there is a slippery slope here. If the Labor government carves out special treatment for faith based funds, what is next? No fund should have special treatment effectively allowing them to underperform. All funds should be treated as equal in the same way that all Australians should be treated as equal.

I do support a great deal of this bill. It's going to introduce sensible reforms, particularly in relation to labour mobility. It's great to see the Leader of the House in the chamber—this is the Federation Chamber, you might be lost! But we do want to work with the government to get this right. It is the very least that we can do for those 16 million hardworking Australians who rely upon their super. I encourage members of the government to look at our amendments. They are sensible amendments. They are good for Australians, they are good for super, and they are right and fair.

See this speech in context