Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

I'm about to say something I don't usually say in this chamber, and that's that I largely agree with the member for Kennedy on this topic.

The superannuation guarantee is a great Australian Labor success story. It shows what can be achieved by the combined efforts of the union movement, workers and good, progressive governments. It has helped millions of Australians enjoy a secure and dignified retirement and has built significant infrastructure along the way. Since 1992, superannuation has grown from around $148 billion to over $3.5 trillion. This means Australia has one of the world's largest pension pools.

Australians know they can trust the Albanese government to continue to deliver a strong superannuation system that provides the best outcomes for members and society at large. A key part of this priority is to legislate the objective of superannuation: it's not just 'your money'; it is 'your retirement money'. That is a fact that those opposite chose to forget when in government. By having a clear purpose, settled by the parliament, everyone in the superannuation sector can work towards building a stronger system. No-one wants to see governments institute bad ideas that go against the foundations of super. That's why it was poor judgment of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments to see super as the answer to every problem they didn't want to solve—private stimulus used to solve a public problem: the pandemic. The then coalition government encouraged people to raid their super throughout the COVID pandemic. In their rush for an economic cash splash, the Morrison government put no safeguards around people hacking into their own retirement.

Those who took this decision will see their super balances stay too low for decades—that compound interest opportunity thrown away. They have forgone retirement savings for a trip to Bali, for a bull bar, for betting, for a boob job or for lap band surgery. There's evidence that these things are what withdrawn money was used to fund. Arguably, a prudent investor wouldn't make any of those investment choices, but humans are interesting creatures. That's where, I humbly suggest, the member for Kennedy misses the point a little bit with this motion. Good governments guide, rather than dictate, where superannuation funds invest. We need to strike a balance between financial pragmatism and economic nationalism. Personally, I've argued for years that too many funds are flying over Asia, where the fast-growing emerging middle class are, and investing in older, less growth oriented European and North American infrastructure opportunities. Asia, Africa and South America have greater risk but also better growth opportunities.

However, fund managers focus on what is best for long-term returns. As an Australian, I would like all investment to be in this country, but the return to members is the paramount consideration. It's important to recognise that there's a difference between the objective of superannuation and the benefits of the superannuation system. The objective of the system should be to deliver the best retirement incomes so that Australians can retire with dignity. That's why it's so important that we maximise the performance of superannuation investments and hold funds to account by ensuring that all decisions are taken in the best financial interests of members. Where the national interest and the best financial interests of members align, superannuation can make a significant difference to our national economy, but we want to make sure that everyone in the system knows that the objective is to deliver the best retirement incomes for Australians. For example, there are opportunities for super funds—if permitted and if the parliament sorts itself out—to invest in Australian housing. I wouldn't mind seeing more Australians benefit from Australia money. Why not invest money in new Australian housing stock instead of buying toll roads in Canada or Gatwick Airport?

But, as I mentioned before, it's up to governments to open these options to the funds, not to dictate to them. Imagine if coalition governments dictated where super funds invested. They'd inevitably come up with some harebrained pork-barrelling scheme—to mix my animal metaphors—in their marginal seats, such as dredging Tumbi Umbi Creek or the Beaudesert rail restoration project, or some sort of milk thing in north Queensland—I remember them.

We do not need risky investment schemes that result in the destruction of people's retirement savings, and that is the core purpose of super as imagined by Labor visionaries like Hawke and Keating. It's all about saving for a dignified retirement. It was a Labor government that established the superannuation guarantee, and only Labor governments have worked to strengthen it to provide for Australians in their retirement. Investing in Australia is a good thing, but you don't need the dead hand of government dictating that. We should let financial funds and financial visionaries make those decisions, because that is what superannuation is for.

See this speech in context