Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. This is a four-schedule Treasury omnibus bill, which the coalition will be supporting. Like much of the Treasury related legislation that this government has brought forward to date, many of the changes in this bill continue the work of the former coalition government.

I do want to make it clear to the House though that the coalition's support for passage of this bill should not be understood as an endorsement of the current government's economic plan. The fact is that just over a month after the budget, it's quite clear that the current government 's economic plan has failed.

The opposition's support for the bill before the House today should not be taken as our endorsement of the actions of a government which is failing to take responsibility for high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, to name just a few of the pressing and urgent challenges which confront our economy and which confront Australians, who are being required to deal with all of these pressures and difficulties. Sadly, this bill does not contain any practical measures to address the pressures and challenges that I have just discussed—of high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills.

Let me turn to the matters which this bill does address and speak of the contents of the schedules to this bill. The changes in this bill are largely technical in their nature and deal with credit facilities, with financial advice regulations, with clearing and settlement services and with the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Schedule 1 introduces new rules that would prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act, in relation to a credit facility.

Schedule 2 makes changes to limitations presently contained in the legislation, in relation to education requirements for new entrants into the financial advice profession and financial advisers who are registered tax agents. It removes the educational requirement for experienced financial advisers who can demonstrate that they have 10 years experience and a clean record and who have passed the financial advisers exam.

Schedule 3 amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia.

Schedule 4 makes a number of technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to support the operation of the First Home Super Saver Scheme so that it works more effectively first-home buyers.

Let me now make some more detailed comments, first in relation to schedule 2 and second in relation to schedule 4. Australia has a strong financial services sector. It's one of the bedrocks of our economy, and I think all of us in this House would agree that we want it to remain that way. Our financial services sector has performed strongly over the past decade, and it served our nation well through the financial crisis. The coalition remains committed to Australians having access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. It's for that reason that we welcome the changes made in schedule 2 of this bill.

When in government, we implemented a series of measures to improve consumer protections and to streamline and strengthen oversight of the financial advice sector. We support a continuation of that approach. This part of the bill will make it easier for financial advisers with good records to remain eligible to provide personal advice. The expansion of personal advice was one of the key recommendations of the Quality of advice review, carried out by Michelle Levy. It is something the coalition supports in principle and it's something that has wide support within the financial advice and financial services sector. Unfortunately, the government 's response to the Levy review is a half-baked attempt at a solution, which fails to address some major challenges to improving access to financial advice for Australians. While they are overdue, the government's stream 1 reforms are welcome. However, the opposition does caution that the narrow acceptance of the medium-term agenda will leave Australians with reduced access to financial advice and will leave advisers working outside the superannuation system in the cold.

The government 's response to the Levy review was a key opportunity to drive better improve productivity in the economy, but, disappointingly, the government has shied away from making any genuine improvements.

The narrow implementation of the Levy review which the government is proceeding with risks undermining innovation in investment and product design within the financial advice sector and risks creating an unequal playing field between superannuation funds and the remainder of the financial services sector. The opposition is therefore calling on the government to adopt in principle all of the recommendations of the Levy review and to work constructively with this side of the House on the implementation of those recommendations. This would be an important deregulation measure that would deliver wins for consumers as well as stimulate innovation and investment in the financial services sector.

Schedule 4 of this bill makes technical changes to the First Home Super Saver scheme. The First Home Super Saver scheme was an initiative of the former coalition government and is working effectively to help Australians boost their savings for the purchase of their first home by allowing them to build a deposit inside superannuation. For most people, participating in the scheme could allow them to boost their savings as a first home buyer by around 30 per cent compared to saving through a standard savings account. This was just one of a range of measures brought in by the former coalition government aimed at helping Australians get into their first home. The coalition is very strongly committed to helping more Australians achieve the dream of owning their own home.

I will conclude by returning to the observation I made at the start of these remarks. This bill does contain some positive measures, but it is conspicuous in its failure to address the No. 1 issue facing people right across our country: the cost-of-living crisis. Businesses and families across Australia are feeling the impact of inflation and of rising interest rates, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills. All of these are eating away at already tight household budgets. Australians are having to work more hours to make ends meet and they're having to dig into their savings to make ends meet. Our core inflation is higher than any G7 nation except for the United Kingdom. Inflation lifted from 6.3 per cent in March to an annual rate of 6.8 per cent in April. Two of our major banks are forecasting a per capita recession for Australia. Many economists are predicting that there are further rate rises to come this year.

This is a tough time for Australians. There are real and serious economic problems facing our nation, and facing families and businesses right across this country. Sadly, this bill does not address any of those real economic problems. That said, the modest measures within this bill are ones that the opposition supports.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's nothing that says bipartisanship like a torrent of dusty drivel from a bloke who wasted a decade as a cabinet minister in the Morrison government overseeing policy failure and being party to inaction. When it comes to addressing all such matters, finally we have had the Albanese government elected, and within 12 months we have brought forward substantive progress when it comes to these very important TLABs. The reality is that the Australian people can see through the petty political games, the shifting of responsibility and the crab-walking away from the pathetic legacy that those opposite have.

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, which focuses on improving the experience of consumers across four key areas. Schedule 1 addresses the avoidance of certain product intervention orders by credit providers. Safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products are a core element of a strong and, importantly, inclusive economy. When properly managed and responsibly sold, credit products can assist working Australians in establishing financial security and independence, such as through a mortgage on a home.

However, there are too many predatory credit products that take advantage of people who are already financially vulnerable and which, in some cases, charge excessive and unreasonable fees and interest. These exorbitant fees often result in their customers being unable to pay their debts and this, sadly, often results in their customers seeking other similarly predatory credit products to pay them off. It is a cruel cycle. This debt cycle can spiral and leave consumers struggling to get out from underneath it. That is why the Albanese Labor government introduced long overdue reforms of the regulation of payday lending and consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. This legislation implanted our response to the review of small amount credit contract laws conducted way back in 2016. Despite being conducted seven years ago, the former Liberal government did not adequately respond to the review through legislation. Put simply, the Liberals hung consumers are too dry, as predatory lenders were able to continue to offer dodgy credit products due to a lack of sufficient regulation.

The anti-avoidance provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 are aimed at reducing the risk of consumer harm from predatory lenders, who modify their business models to avoid the application of the consumer protections in the credit act and other financial services legislation. The provisions also extended to Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, product intervention orders, made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009—that is, the one we refer to as the Credit Act. The legislation before the House today builds on the Albanese Labor government's response by further tightening anti-avoidance provisions.

Schedule 1 to this bill ensures anti-avoidance provisions also apply to ASIC product intervention orders relating to credit products that are made under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC has identified credit products that it has said cause significant detriment and harm, especially to vulnerable consumers and has issued several product intervention orders to address this harm. These product intervention orders were made by ASIC under the Corporations Act 2001 and not the credit act, to help ensure the avoidance behaviour of predatory lenders is adequately captured by the law. But the anti-avoidance provisions in the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 do not apply to these PIOs. These changes will ensure anti-avoidance provisions apply to PIOs made under Corporations Law. This will reduce the risk of harm and limit the operation of predatory lenders who are engaged in active avoidance behaviours.

Schedule 2 of the bill gives recognition to the value of experience in the financial advice industry. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to high-quality financial advice by driving strong professional standards in this industry. While education requirements for financial advisers help in driving the standard of advice, the number of practising advisers has decreased by over 40 per cent since its introduction. Unfortunately, this includes experienced financial advisors without any history of misconduct. Clearly, the current requirements do not properly balance the desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced and skilled workforce because they fail to appropriately recognise that important professional experience.

This has, unfortunately, made access to financial advice so much more difficult and, consequently, put substantial downward pressure on quality standards.

Schedule 2 to this bill ensures consumers continue to have access to high-quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry. Experienced advisers make a valuable contribution to the financial advice industry. They play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly across the industry. Importantly, consumers can still be sure of receiving high-quality advice as those experienced advisers affected by this amendment must have at least 10 years of experience, have a squeaky clean record and pass the financial advisor exam.

The third area of focus of this amendment is competition in the clearing and settlement of cash equities. Schedule 3 to the bill implements recommendations made by the Council of Financial Regulators to strengthen regulatory powers and facilitate competitive outcomes in the market for clearing and settlement of cash equities. The ASX group has a monopoly over these services, and these reforms will have significant benefits for businesses that compete with ASX in other parts of the cash equities market—for example, financial market operators. It will also benefit those who rely on ASX's monopoly on clearing and settlement services, such as clearing and settlement participants and share registries.

The facilitation of more competitive outcomes in this space can decrease costs and drive innovation by ensuring transparency around fair pricing. This is a matter very close to the hearts of both me and the member for Forde, who work very close together on the House Economics Committee and who are in the process of exploring such matters through our competition inquiry. This schedule ensures that if a competitor does emerge in the provision of cash equities clearing and settlement, ASIC will be able to ensure that competition is safe and effective. If a competitor does not emerge, rules will ensure competitive outcomes can still be achieved by allowing ASIC to make rules regarding the activities, conduct and governance of clearing and settlement facility licensees. This is intended to ensure that these services are provided on fair, reasonable, transparent and, importantly, non-discriminatory terms.

The reforms in this schedule will also enable ASIC to write rules relating to governance of clearing and settlement facilities, including rules related to board composition and user input to governance. This will have the additional benefit of allowing ASIC to make rules which apply to the governance of the ASX's CHESS replacement project, the delay of which has resulted in significant costs to the wider industry. Where clearing and settlement services are provided by an entity which enjoys a monopoly or significant market power, arbitration will be available to industry participants that rely on access to clearing and settlement services to resolve any disputes about the terms and conditions of their access—including, importantly, price. This is intended to be a final but efficient backstop where good-faith commercial negotiations break down. It has been largely modelled on the national access regime in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with some changes to improve the efficiency of the arbitration process and provide timely outcomes for all parties.

The final area of focus of this amendment is changes to the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Say that fast a number of times!

Schedule 4 makes several improvements to the operation of the scheme to ensure that it works as intended for the first-home buyers who choose to make use of it. As it's currently written, the underpinning legislation is inflexible and can occasionally result in a poor user experience, including some people who have made an error in the application process having their savings unintentionally locked in superannuation until retirement. This amendment will improve the implementation of the scheme to ensure it works as intended. The amendment will also provide greater flexibility for first-time buyers using the scheme to amend or revoke their First Home Super Saver scheme applications to correct errors and help ensure their savings are released.

Superannuation should not be released early without care. It's a simple statement. It's one that I wish the former government had paid more attention to. However, it is clear that in these cases it is unfair to the applicants to withhold the voluntary additional contributions they made for the purpose of purchasing the first home within the scheme guidelines. This amendment will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke FHSSS applications and will allow individuals to withdraw or amend applications to the scheme prior to release. The amendment also contains transitional provisions that ensure that this flexibility is extended to applications made since 1 July 2018, as well as to users who have previously applied to have funds released under the FHSSS and have since started holding a relevant interest in real property or land. This is a fair provision that allows those who have unwittingly had these savings quarantined to get access to them. I think it is worth stressing that it is in no way a continuance of the super raiding that was encouraged by the former government and has ultimately led to the erosion of the capital base of working people in our country.

This bill is about implementing sensible reforms to the financial services sector, financial regulation and the implementation of government schemes. It's about ensuring that Australian consumers can enjoy a well-regulated, competitive and user-friendly financial marketplace.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank for the member for Hawke for his comments. It's interesting to reflect that it's only in the last couple of years that those opposite have decided that they have some affinity with financial advisers. There have been many times over the years when I've stood in this place, those opposite having spoken very poorly of financial advisers and the professional advice that they have provided. I and the coalition support the amendments in this bill to improve the operation of the education standards, as well as the First Home Super Savers scheme, which those opposite, from memory, didn't support when they were in opposition. I find it interesting that they have now had a change of heart.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill, contains four schedules. As I noted, the coalition will be supporting this bill. Many of the changes in this bill continue the work of the former coalition government. In supporting this bill, we take the opportunity to also reflect that there are many other issues that this government is failing to address through this legislation that it has the opportunity to address if it wishes to do so.

Across the board, we're seeing higher inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, to name just a few, but none of those are being addressed by those opposite. These fundamental challenges that are being faced by Australians each and every day are not being dealt with.

Going to the substance of the bill, schedule 1 introduces new rules to prohibit schemes that are designed to avoid the application of product intervention orders made under part 7.9A of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to a credit facility. We should always be looking to upgrade and amend our laws to deal with instances where people are looking to circumvent those laws in ways that will end up as poor outcomes for consumers and the Australian people. It is entirely proper that this be done.

Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Corporations Act 2001 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia. If we can introduce competition into a sector that at the moment is controlled by one entity, we hope that we get better quality of services and, importantly, cheaper prices for those who are looking to transact on our share markets.

To speak to schedule 2 and schedule 4 in particular, it is important that here in Australia we have a strong financial services sector. It remains a bedrock of our economy. That is important, because it gives people confidence that our banks and our financial institutions are strong and secure. It has been remarkably strong over the past decade and has served us fairly well. Schedule 2 focuses on financial advisors. We have always said, as a coalition, that we want to see Australians have access to high-quality, affordable financial advice. There has been much regulation through this place over the past decade that has sought to deliver that for Australian consumers and those seeking financial advice. With the effluxion of time, we have seen, sadly, an erosion in the number of advisers in the advice space, and many of those older advisers have sought to retire rather than undertake the additional study and other requirements to come up to the new standards that were put in place.

Schedule 2 of this bill, I think, makes an important change to those education requirements that reflects the experience of those advisers who have been in the industry for more than 10 years and have a clean disciplinary record. I have said in this place previously—and for those here who may not be aware, I had a previous life in the financial advice space prior to coming into this place—there are many, many professional advisers who have been in the industry for a long time. You do not spend 30 years in this industry and build a client base over that time—some advisors have had the same clients for 30 years and are now providing advice to the children and grandchildren of some of those initial clients—without providing a professional service and professional care to their clients. For a lot of time in this place we have spoken about the product advice that advisers provide, and a lot of the regulation has been built on that basis. But that fails to recognise the true value of financial advice.

The greatest part of professional financial advice is not necessarily the product advice; it is actually the strategic advice that is provided to clients on how to set up their affairs and arrange their affairs to maximise the value of what they have and to be able to build on that. What this bill in essence recognises, in recognising the value of that experience of those advisers who have been in the industry for more than 10 years and have a clean disciplinary record, is the value of that strategic advice and the knowledge that they have built over many years. They have seen the ups and downs in the share market. They have seen the ups and downs in the property market. They have seen the ups and downs in various other markets. They have seen the changes in regulation for superannuation and a whole bunch of other things over that time. Consequently, that knowledge is now being recognised through this change to the standards, and I fully support, as does the coalition, these changes.

But the other part of unfinished work, and this was a review that was commenced under the previous coalition government, is Michelle Levy's quality of advice review. We have seen the government acknowledge that they are going to implement some of the recommendations. But we on this side call on the government to implement all of the recommendations. The coalition has accepted all of those in principle. But it is interesting that the ones that the government has sought to implement will benefit superannuation funds over other financial institutions and organisations. I find it interesting that the government chose to announce the acceptance of these particular recommendations at a private invitation-only breakfast with Industry SuperFunds Australia. Yet, at the same time, we see in recent media reports that those very same super funds who were invited to that breakfast and who are now being given these additional powers to provide advice at the expense of other financial institutions are some of the very funds that are not obeying the law at this point in time.

The law requires, if somebody wants to withdraw their funds or roll over their funds, that rollover requests must not take more than five days. But we are seeing reports that they are taking up to 30 days. I don't see the government addressing that particular issue in this bill. In fact, they are giving superannuation funds more access to advice, yet the existing funds can't comply with the law as it sits today. I find that passing strange that those issues, where people's money, Australian's money, in their superannuation fund is not released within the timetable specified by the law.

In welcoming these reforms to the education standards, we would also like to see further work done on the rest of Michelle Levy's recommendations to ensure there is an even playing field right across the financial services space. These stream 1 reforms are welcome, but the narrow acceptance of the medium-term agenda will leave Australians with less access to financial advice, and advisers working outside the superannuation system will be left in the cold. The response from the Levy quality of advice review is an opportunity to drive better outcomes for Australians across retirement, wealth creation and a whole range of other personal financial matters, and there are things in that review which I think are critical to achieving that, if we are genuine about wanting to reduce the cost of financial advice. According to a recent survey by the ASX, an important reason why people are not seeking financial advice is the cost.

This survey says that a further 29 per cent of Australians plan to seek advice in the coming year, but a lot of them are not interested in seeing an adviser because of the cost. They are willing to pay somewhere around $1,200 for advice but a financial plan, today, is something like $3,300. The rest of the outstanding Quality of Advice Review recommendations go towards providing advisers the opportunity to reduce the cost of providing advice to Australians who wish to seek it. We call on the government to pursue the implementation of the remainder of the Quality of Advice Review recommendations, and we'll work with the government in that space.

Lastly, I'll touch on the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which was a scheme introduced by the former coalition government. We welcome these changes, to make it more flexible, and the grandfathering going back to 1 July 2018 to allow people who maybe weren't able to benefit from those changes to have applications reassessed.

But, yet again, we are not seeing in this bill, or any of the bills that are before the House at the moment, any efforts by the government to address the cost-of-living issues that are facing everyday Australians. We also call on the government to deal with those issues, because they are impacting on people's lives and on businesses. The government's own budget papers acknowledged that the employment rate will go up and economic growth will fall. The government's budget papers planned for a cash rate of 3.85 per cent and it's already 4.1 per cent. None of those economic issues facing everyday Australians are being dealt with in this bill, and, given that, it is more important than ever that Australians have the capacity to seek affordable financial advice, to be able make changes to their arrangements to deal with the issues that are facing them, which this government refuses to deal with.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is terrific to see so much interest in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. I have listened to some of the debate this morning and it was certainly good to see and listen to a number of contributions made in the House today. This is a bill that was quite recently introduced. To put it most succinctly, it's aimed at improving the integrity of consumer markets for credit products. It's also removing barriers for financial advisers—we've heard some of that this morning—and will support competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities.

I'll step through each of schedules 1 to 4, obviously starting with schedule 1. This is where the bill seeks to introduce:

… new rules that prohibit schemes designed to avoid the application of a product intervention order (in relation to a credit facility) made under Part 7.9A of the Corporations Act.

That sounds very technical, but the nub of this is that it will enable safe, well-regulated consumer markets for credit products.

They're really the core element of a strong and inclusive economy. We want to make sure there are always safe, well-regulated consumer markets. People in this House will recall the very long debates we've had over the shocking, dodgy efforts that took place in payday lending operations over the years.

I'm very pleased that the member for Paterson is joining me in the House today, because her electorate, like my electorate and the electorates of Hunter and Shortland, were really a little epicentre of some particularly disturbing practices that were taking place with payday lending. There was the establishment of the small machines that for all intents and purposes looked like ATMs that would suddenly pop up at the smoke shops, where people went to buy their weekly tobacco. All you needed to secure up to $2,000 out of one of these little machines was some ID to say, for example, 'Yes, I'm Sharon Claydon,' and a bank account detail. Then, bingo, $2,000 was forwarded to your account. It operated exactly like an ATM, delivering ready cash to people who were very vulnerable. Most of those people were extremely vulnerable in low-socioeconomic households.

One would argue that the way these machines looked and the way in which they were placed in particular suburbs and areas that we know are of high need was a deliberate preying practice on those vulnerable people, who were then wrapped up in a cycle of shocking debt. They were paying outrageous interest rates for a lousy $500 or maybe $1,500, spiralling into debt. I met people who had been rendered homeless, in fact, as a result of payday lending, and that is not a story unfamiliar to many of us on this side of the House.

I joined with some terrific financial counsellors in my electorate to try to expose these practices, and I do want to acknowledge the fabulous work of Mr Graham Smith, who was the head of the financial council in New South Wales but practised alongside the Samaritans, one of the Anglican community services provided to the Hunter region, working with people who found themselves in this high-interest debt spiral.

Whilst it's unfathomable that anyone could have defended this practice, because it was a very broken business model that relied completely on the exploitation of vulnerable people and families, it's perhaps worth reminding the House at this point that there were actual friends of payday lending in this parliament. In fact, if I recall correctly, there were members of the front bench of the former government who were absolutely leading the way when it came to defending such practices.

And so it was no shock, although it came at a very high cost to all the vulnerable people and families in my electorate, that the former government had received a very damning report on these practices—back in 2015 if I'm not mistaken. The then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, sat on it and sat on it and sat on it. The report had been well received by many of the advocacy groups.

I recall all of the peak consumer advocacy groups at the time, like Choice, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Financial Counselling Australia peak body, the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, the Financial Counsellors Association of New South Wales, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and the Good Shepherd microfinancing people, were absolutely united in the review process. They all made magnificent contributions to the review process. They were united in the recommendations that had come forward to government. But they were faced with a concrete wall that blocked any action from taking place.

I want to take this brief opportunity to acknowledge the current Speaker, albeit in his former role as the member for Oxley, who really led the charge for Labor in exposing these matters to the House, exposing the human cost that was involved in an unregulated system that was profoundly destructive for many, many people we represent. I want to pay tribute to the then member for Oxley and now Speaker of the House of Representatives for his distinguished service in exposing this dodgy, indecent practice.

Shamefully, the Turnbull government did not see fit to bring on those recommendations and reforms. We waited and we waited, and we kept trying to put the pressure on the government about the human cost of this inaction, only to see this ignored again under the new leadership of the current member for Cook. We saw they had no interest in bringing forward any kind of decent protections for vulnerable consumers at that time. So I am very pleased to see in schedule 1 now some further action that will see safe, well regulated frameworks. That will have great implications for those people still tempted by payday lending or required out of absolute necessity to rely on it to help them through a really tough patch. That's why this schedule is before us.

That's also why the Australian government introduced reforms to the regulation of payday lending and to consumer leases through the Financial Sector Reform Act 2022. That was important work for the new government to undertake, and I'm delighted that that has seen passage. These were changes, as I've tried to map out for the House today, that were long overdue. They gave effect to our government's response to the recommendations of that 2016 review. People had to wait six years for some action. It is almost unforgivable.

That, of course, included laws that would prohibit avoidance behaviour. The Financial Sector Reform Act 2022 introduced those anti-avoidance provisions with respect to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's, ASIC's, product intervention orders, which were made under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. This bill extends those provisions to protect intervention orders that are made under the Corporations Act 2001.

ASIC has made several product intervention orders under the Corporations Act 2001 targeting predatory lending products that, as I've mapped out, cause very significant consumer harm.

Predatory lending products have no good side. The product intervention orders, quite simply, will allow ASIC to temporarily intervene in a range of ways up to, and when necessary, banning financial products and credit products when there is significant risk of consumer detriment. That is good public policy. That is the way governments should respond. We should always be very alert to any form of risk of consumer detriment. By bringing the anti-avoidance provision into the Corporations Act, we are bringing those into line with those in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. This amendment will ensure that predatory lenders cannot respond to a product intervention order by engaging in avoidance activity that is not covered by the order in a similar kind of detriment to the consumer. We are closing a loophole that we know dodgy operators and lenders will totally exploit if left unattended to.

In the short time left to me, I'll briefly go to the remaining schedules in this bill. Schedule 2 is an important part of the bill before the House. It's delivering on the government's election commitment to remove the education requirements for those who are already experienced financial advisers—so people who have got 10 years experience or more and, more importantly, a clean record. If they have 10 years experience, a clean record and they have passed the financial advisers' exam, we are going to remove those educational requirements for those people. We are also making sure we're attending to some of the barriers upon entry that are facing some of those wishing to take up financial advice as a career choice in the future.

Schedule 3 is implementing the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, the Corporations Act and the Competition and Consumer Act to facilitate competition in the provision of clearing and settlement services for cash equities traded in Australia, and to ensure that, should competition emerge for these services, it is safe and effective. Again, this is a very sensible move.

Schedule 4 is also making some technical changes to the Taxation Administration Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act that will make sure that the First Home Super Saver Scheme works better for first home buyers, something that cannot be claimed at the moment. Now, at this time, first home buyers need our support more than ever. (Time expired)

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. It's great to have two TLABs to fill up our day today! I rise to make a contribution on this bill but in particular on the First Home Super Saver Scheme, the FHSSS, because this was one of the great enduring legacies of the previous government. It is an excellent policy to do all we can to help people save for a deposit for their first home.

Homeownership is in the DNA of all Australians. We know when we say 'the Australian dream' that we're talking about the dream of owning our own home. In fact, it's completely intertwined with the legacy of the Liberal Party; we've always been about homeownership and helping as many Australians as possible to own their own home. We see homeownership as absolutely critical to economic independence for people and families. When people buy a home, almost everyone buys a home with a mortgage. You then strive to pay off that mortgage and, from the point of owning the home, particularly when you own it without the encumbrance of a mortgage to a bank, you have got that economic independence, which completely changes the decision-making of the family budget and puts people in such a position of economic security.

Regrettably, at the moment, the trends are not going in the direction we would want them to when it comes to homeownership, particularly for first home buyers. Too many younger people are starting to see the dream of homeownership as being unattainable to them. There are a range of very significant policy challenges in this area, and, frankly, a lot of them are not in the control of the Commonwealth government. We know that state and local governments have the policy levers around land supply and planning and zoning and building approvals and all the red tape. And a lot of the taxes that they levy—land tax and stamp duty et cetera—are not in the control of the Commonwealth government.

One of the most significant ones that is in the control of the Commonwealth government is migration. Clearly, demand for dwellings is going to be driven very much by population growth, and the biggest contributor to population growth in our country has been, ever since the post Second World War era, the migration intake. We in the coalition are all for sensible and managed migration, but the housing situation in this country right now is not designed against the immigration intake that the government has projected in their budget, so homeownership is a challenge and a dream that is beyond the reach of a growing number of young Australians. We need to turn that around. We don't want to live in a country where our young people have given up the aspiration of owning a home, because, as I say, the economic independence that you get from owning a home completely transforms your economic security and your power to make decisions about your future and your family's future.

The First Home Super Saver Scheme, which has been in place for about five years, is a great way to give young first home owners or aspirants to first home ownership a way of saving with some tax preference within a structure that keeps the cost of that saving down for them as well. Obviously we all have superannuation anyway. The ability to contribute to that super fund beyond the compulsory employer contributions within the capped frameworks puts young people who are eligible for the scheme in a position to subsequently draw that saved amount out when they are ready to purchase their first home. Saving the deposit has been, until recently, the biggest hurdle for younger people in particular. We know that capital values of property compared to average incomes have blown out dramatically.

Regrettably, there's a second challenge now, which is the ever-growing interest rates and the burden of interest-rate repayments. In this debate recently, when we've talked about interest rates and referred to previous periods of time when interest rates have been much higher, that was absolutely in a period when the capital value of properties that people were aspiring to purchase as their first home had a much different relativity to their income. A few decades ago, when people talked about buying their first home, their first home was perhaps double or triple the value of their annual salary, whereas now most people are talking about something that is probably towards 10 times their salary. That dramatically changes the equation. In particular, it dramatically changes the equation to save for the deposit. As we all know and respect and understand, it's very important that a reasonable portion of the value of a home is equity, not borrowings.

It tends to be a figure of about 20 per cent. That is a figure that puts the banks in a position where they don't have to impose things like mortgage insurance and it gives them a high degree of confidence against the other measures that they have to take into consideration, such as serviceability of not just the current interest rate but the buffer, which we all know was increased a couple of years ago under the APRA framework.

Getting that 20 per cent deposit puts people in a very strong position to secure finance. A 20 per cent deposit comes after all the other costs you've got to take into account as well, such as stamp duty, conveyancing charges et cetera. Of course, when you purchase a home, you always expect to have some initial costs: moving-in costs and other purchases that might be necessary to make the home appropriate for you in your immediate future there. Getting that 20 per cent deposit on a home that might cost seven or eight times your annual salary—your pre-tax salary, I might add—is an enormous challenge, so the First Home Super Saver scheme was designed by the previous coalition government to give young people a much better chance of saving a large portion of that deposit. It has been increased to $50,000. That is the maximum you can withdraw out of your super under this scheme. That $50,000 is a very significant portion of a deposit. Of course, that can make a big difference when it comes to how people plan to try to save that deposit and access the Australian dream of purchasing their own home.

Within this bill there are some technical changes to the way in which the scheme operates and to the Commissioner of Taxation's powers around this scheme. The scheme is one where eligible applicants do in fact apply to their fund to say, 'I've been contributing this amount of money. That's all within the rules of the scheme. I'm now off to purchase my first home and, therefore, I'm applying to you to withdraw those funds.' There has obviously been some developed understanding of how that needs to operate in a fairer away, how that can be cleaner and how the Commissioner of Taxation can have some clearer powers around that, and we want to do everything we can to support change that means that the whole point and purpose of this scheme, which is to help people buy their first home and save that deposit, is protected for those individuals.

We are, indeed, seeing a concerning drift more broadly in superannuation around a whole range of policy areas and also around the way in which some super funds have been behaving with regard to people accessing their own money. Superannuation doesn't belong to the super funds; it belongs to the people who are putting that money away for their retirement. The people whose money it is are what super is about, not board fees for the union officials who serve on the funds or first-class fares to Davos conventions every year for those same directors and all the other ways in which money is being paid, particularly by the industry super funds, to all sorts of shady organisations to do we're not quite sure what. We've made some important changes and we're now seeing, finally, some important investigations into the conduct of some of these money-go-round activities. We suggest it needs to be confirmed whether or not those activities are in the best interests of the members of the super funds and them getting the maximum return on those funds invested for their own retirement. That's what super is about.

We're now seeing, of course, this creep of tax changes around super. There is the new doubling of tax on the earnings of super funds over $3 million not indexed. We heard in the last TLAB debate that the member for Canberra has admitted that Treasury has modelled that 10 per cent of young people today will trigger that $3 million balance. Ten per cent of people are now going to be paying double the concessional tax rate. So, instead of 15 per cent, they will be paying 30 per cent on the earnings of their funds. That's if the Treasury modelling is accurate around inflation. The fact is that this isn't indexed.

The reason it's growing is obviously the deteriorating value of money based on inflation, and whether or not Treasury have got this prediction right—because they haven't in the past. Inflation has been running much hotter over the last 12 months than any of the predictions and the forecasts. At best, 10 per cent of young people today will be having the tax on their super funds double.

When we introduced this First Home Buyer Super Scheme, it was not met with a great warmness from the then opposition and now government, so I suppose we are just grateful that in this bill they are not scrapping the scheme. The ultimate economic security you can achieve is purchasing a home as early as you can manage in your life, to pay off that home loan through your career and, when you reach retirement, to own your home outright and to have a significant amount of superannuation that allows you to support your retirement. We thank and are grateful to the people that self-fund their retirement—they take an enormous burden off government by funding their own retirement. We are grateful to them and we thank them. They should not be treated as an opportunity to ratchet up taxes on the savings they have provisioned for their retirement—quite the reverse.

This First Home Buyer Super Scheme allows people to progress down that path and put extra into super beyond the employer mandated contribution. That extra builds up within the fund and can be withdrawn to assist you to save your deposit for your first home, buy your first home earlier and, hopefully, pay it off earlier. When you sell that home you have got to put the proceeds back in, and then you reach retirement, hopefully, and you don't have to use the lump sum of your super to pay off the rest of your mortgage that you could not pay off because it took you much longer to buy your first home because we weren't helping you to save for your deposit. That's what we want in the coalition. We want people to buy a home, own that home, pay the mortgage off as rapidly as possible and achieve the economic independence that home ownership gives to them, while also contributing to superannuation under the framework that's in place. People can have a very happy, healthy and enjoyable retirement owning their own home and having enough superannuation to give them a very happy and comfortable retirement, which they deserve.

We thank superannuant, self-funded retirees. We in the coalition are here to support you, back you and stand up against any attempt to raid your savings and take that from you because that's your money. The money in super belongs to the people whose savings that is—not the super funds—and the First Home Buyer Super Scheme is a great example of using superannuation to also help people achieve the Australian dream of home ownership.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill. There are a number of things in it but I want to focus on just a couple of them. The first one I will address is the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which was introduced in 2017. What we have found is that it needs to be improved because the way it's operating now can be really clunky and can have some really unintended consequences for people who are using this as a way of saving for a deposit within their superannuation, putting in additional funds specifically with the idea of it being able to be used for their first home. Of course, people can put funds into this through either salary sacrifice or personal voluntary super contributions, but what we have found since we've come to government is that the legislation underpinning the First Home Super Saver Scheme is inflexible and can occasionally result in a very poor user experience. Some people have made an error in their application, finding that their savings are locked in superannuation until retirement, which is not what they had intended, but because of the inflexibility of the scheme. We don't want that to happen. We want to fix that problem that exists.

Schedule 4 of the Treasury laws amendment bill that we're speaking to here provides greater flexibility for first home buyers using the scheme to amend or revoke their applications to correct errors and ensure their savings are released. These changes will increase the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend and revoke applications and will allow individuals to undo any errors that they have unintentionally made. This is the sort of thing that we do when we come to government—we look at how things are working and we take the time to address the issues that are making things less user-friendly than they need to be. So I'm very pleased to support schedule 4 of the bill.

Of the other three schedules, I want to focus on schedule 2, which relates to financial advice. Across this parliament, we're all at different stages of our financial journeys. Many of us have kids at a different stage and older parents at a different stage again. I don't think any of us would doubt how important financial advice is at all the different stages of life. As demographics change, we're certainly going to see needs in different areas, but there is a real challenge. Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Corporations Act so that we can deliver on our election commitment to better recognise the experience of existing financial advisers, who have been at risk of being forced to leave the advice space. At a time when we know people need to reach out, it is important that experienced, reputable people are able to continue to provide financial advice. The bill will also address some of the limitations in the current framework for new entrants.

I think it's worthwhile thinking about the problem we face and how we got to where we are, which goes back to prior to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. People probably don't have it at the top of their mind that, ahead of the Hayne royal commission, the Rudd government outlawed commissions and introduced legislation requiring advisers to place client interests above their own. Of course, after winning government, the coalition tried to undo those changes, although they eventually listened to our calls for a banking royal commission, and out of that we heard some quite extraordinary things.

One of the things we heard in April 2018 was from the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. They revealed that 90 per cent of financial advisers who provided advice to self-managed super funds failed to comply with the 'best interests of the client' test. ASIC did some investigation and research, and that was the conclusion they came to. That is an extraordinarily high number, and it was one of the things that the royal commission focused on as it shifted to looking at the financial advice industry. It heard quite a long list of things that were not working the way we would expect them to be working—things like inappropriate advice; misconduct, including falsifying documents; and multiple cases of consumers paying ongoing fees yet failing to receive regular advice reviews. There had been quite a big blowout in the number of financial advisers—from around 18,000 in late 2009 to around 25,000 at that point in 2018, an increase of 41 per cent—and yet just 8,700 of those financial advisers had completed a degree at a bachelor level or above.

These were the sorts of things that we heard during the royal commission, and that led to a bunch of recommendations being made. One of those recommendations related to the need for people providing advice to have a strong academic basis and high professional standards. I note one of the comments made by Peter Kell, the deputy chair of ASIC at the time. He questioned whether you could even call the financial advice sector a profession, because he didn't feel that sufficient people had reached a sufficient standard.

And that's what lead to the recommendation about the need for high levels of education for people before they could call themselves financial advisers. Of course, there are many financial advisers who are working, who, because of the experience that they have, are providing highly ethical, very well-informed financial advice. The last thing we want to see is those people not able to deliver a service that their clients are very, very happy with.

Since 2019, we have had about 10,000 financial advisers leave the industry. That includes experienced advisers with no history of misconduct. What that has done is reduce the access to quality financial advice. We recognise that experienced advisers make a valuable contribution to the financial advice space. I have spoken to many in my electorate, in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, who are senior, qualified people, based on the experience that they've had, but they don't necessarily have a piece of paper from an institution to demonstrate that. What they do have is a strong client base who really regard their expertise in the high regard. We believe that those sorts of financial advisers play an integral role supervising new entrants during their professional year and sharing their knowledge and experience more broadly. So we have taken the position, as we took to the election, that there is a whole group of people who should be allowed to keep practising. The current requirements do not properly balance that desire to professionalise the industry with the benefits of retaining an experienced, skilled workforce.

I am very pleased that, with this schedule 4 in this piece of legislation, those advisers will be able to continue to work. The amendments allow experienced advisers, with at least 10 years of experience and a clean record, who have passed the exam, to remain in the industry without needing to complete additional education. The amendments will also facilitate entry into the industry for new entrants.

The bill ensures that consumers continue to have access to quality advice by removing a significant disincentive for experienced advisers to stay in the industry. They do ensure that there's a pool of advisers to mentor, supervise, and upskill those newer entrants. What's really important to us is the assurance that consumers have that they will receive quality advice. The assurance is that those experienced advisers, who are affected by the amendments, must have a clean record and must pass the financial adviser exam. Together, the amendments that are contained in schedule 2 ensure that consumers have access to good-quality financial advice from experienced advisers.

We're really conscious that timely passage of the legislation will give experienced advisers certainty as to their future in the industry. I do recognise that they have been waiting to see how our commitment, which we took to the election, would be implemented. I thank them for hanging in there. We know some have left. We know some have chosen not to wait and have brought forward retirements. But, to those who have stayed, we do value, very much, the advice that you give. More than ever, we know that people really, really need to be able to access that advice.

If the legislation does not pass, or if there is some delay in the passage—and we really hope there's not—these advisers will need to complete up to eight tertiary level units before 1 January 2026 in order to keep providing financial advice. That's why it was important for this legislation to be brought before the parliament this sitting period—so that we can deliver on that commitment.

I want to finish by encouraging people to seek advice. I'm very fortunate to have lots of young people around me who are moving through into their 30s and thinking about homes and what they might be able to do. They often admit to me that they don't necessarily have a skills base for making those decisions. I think we need to be able to reassure young people that there are quality advisers they can speak with.

I should also point out that there's also the improvements to the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which might also provide an avenue—and I really urge them to get advice so they know what is the most appropriate thing for them to do. It's the same with the older people in my community. Just because you've stopped working doesn't mean that you need to stop thinking about what the financial situation you're in is. I know that I get great feedback from people who head to Centrelink and speak to the Centrelink financial guidance people there to be able to look at their situation. Whichever way you do it, my real call to action to people is to seek that advice. It's not the sort of thing that any of us really love doing, but it can really make a difference, and we hope and we know that these changes we're making will actually improve the systems that we have in place and allow really experienced advisers to keep on giving that advice.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 is important. It's a bill that makes significant changes, including in the world of advice, I've been listening to the debate this morning. I listened to the contributions of the member for Bradfield and the member for Forde who gave some cautious support to elements of the bill, but they said the problem with this bill is that it doesn't address the great challenges of our time. They said it didn't address rising inflation. It doesn't address rising interest rates. It doesn't address the issues in superannuation. Well, it's fair to say that the member for Bradfield does not understand the purpose of this bill and probably doesn't understand treasury bills at all. This bill is not designed to end inflation. It is not designed to reform the Reserve Bank. It is not designed to deliver world peace. It is designed to make important changes that have been outlined by the previous speakers. Not only does the other side of this House not seem to understand this bill; they don't seem to have much understanding of the economy overall.

Here we are, 12 months into their period in opposition, and it's an opportune moment to have a look back on the record of the Liberals in opposition. What have been the highs and lows of their economic policy performance as an opposition over the last 12 months? Let's have a look at their record, and, for the benefit of those listening, I've helpfully put it into a list of the 10 greatest hits of the Liberals economic policy while in opposition.

The first of these greatest hits, of course, is their attempts to blame the inflation problem on Labor. Let's be very clear about this: inflation began on the Liberals' watch. They started it, and we are fixing it. Inflation is a serious problem. It hurts the people who can't make their budgets stretch any further the most. It hurts first home buyers. It hurts people who are struggling with high rents. It hurts people who have already experienced low wages growth over last 10 years. But what has caused prices to rise, what has lifted the CPI over the last 12 months and more has been a range of factors that began well before this government took office. In fact, the CPI rising cycle began in 2020, well before this government was elected. At that point, the level of the CPI was 114.4, and it rose 12 points from that point to 126.1 at the time of the last federal election. Then it rose a further six points to 232.6 today. As of this point in the current inflationary cycle, 12 points of the increase happened when the Liberals were in government, and six happened while Labor has been in government. You can see the math, Deputy Speaker Georganas. The CPI began rising under the Liberals. It was caused by factors that were generated under the Liberals, and most of the increase that we've seen to date occurred under the Liberals. That's the first of the greatest hits of the Liberals' economic policy in opposition—their attempt to blame Labor for rising inflation.

No. 2, of course, is their attempt to blame rising interest rates on Labor. They claim that the government's fiscal policy has been contributing to higher inflation and high interest rates. The answer here is clearly no. Labor's budget was remarkably prudent. Labor banked 99 per cent of its revenue increases as savings in its first budget, significantly more than the previous coalition budget of 40 per cent and more than the average of the Howard government at 30 per cent.

And I'm being generous here; I'm not going to refer to the savings record of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments because it was atrocious. Even the Howard government had an average saving of the significant revenue bumps that it got through the mining boom of 30 per cent, well below the level of savings that Labor has delivered.

In addition, this government's budget has put real spending essentially flat over the forward estimates, and, in affirming Australia's AAA credit rating, all agencies have made mention of Australia's prudent fiscal policy. Indeed, the IMF said that our budget approach 'will help support monetary policy in holding back excess demand'. On top of that, there's evidence in the data that the rate of inflation is moderating. So it takes great chutzpah to claim that this government is causing inflation and causing interest rates to rise through fiscal policy when our approach has been prudent, our spending has been restrained, and their approach left us with $1 trillion in debt.

That's No. 2. No. 3 of the Liberals' greatest hits on economic policy in their first 12 months of opposition was a little one but one of my favourites, and that, of course, was not knowing the price of vegemite. Everybody knows that in the last session the shadow Treasurer messed up, that he did not know the price of vegemite. Everyone saw him confuse the annual rate with the monthly rate, which is a big gaff. But it's more than a gaff; it speaks to an opposition which is seriously out of touch with the concerns of the Australian people, which actually doesn't know the real impact at the front line of inflation, which doesn't understand the impact that it has on families.

The fourth one, of course, is their response to Labor's economic performance, particularly Labor's budget surplus. This one has seen them do a bit of squirming, and I can see why. After 10 years of failing to deliver a fiscal surplus, it must be so painful to watch Labor deliver a fiscal surplus in its first year—to be the custodians of Menzies's bark, over there, the party of fiscal discipline, the party that likes to think as they go to bed at night that they can deliver surpluses. Well, unfortunately, not only were they not able to deliver a surplus; they had to watch the Labor government deliver a surplus in its first 12 months.

The fifth element of the coalition's greatest hits in economic policy in their first 12 months of opposition was their opposing of the changes to the PRRT. Not only did they not help us achieve a surplus, not only have they been complaining about fiscal settings; they've also been, somewhat contradictorily, opposing the savings measures of the government, and my favourite of all the measures that they have opposed—although it is a contested field—is the changes to the PRRT. Such is their commitment to fiscal discipline and budget repair they oppose this revenue measure which was not only supported by the government but supported by the industry. It takes a certain complexion of fiscal discipline to be wanting to hand money to industry groups that don't want you to give them that money. That's not a hallmark of fiscal prudence; that is a sign of profligacy. Indeed, the Industry Group's chief executive Samantha McCulloch said, of the changes to the PRRT:

The changes aim to get the balance right between the undeniable need for a strong gas sector to support reliable electricity and domestic manufacturing for decades to come and the need for a more sustainable national budget.

Samantha McCulloch was happy to support these changes and felt that they got the balance right for her industry. The Liberal Party was not so happy. They wanted to give that money back. Such is their commitment to fiscal discipline, they will give you public money whether you want it or not!

The sixth one, of course, in the list of the greatest economic hits of the Liberals in opposition has been the employment record. Unfortunately, we're heading into further sore-point territory here. We've heard them talk about 'jobs, jobs, jobs' for decades, but the record of jobs under this government speaks for itself. Last week's data from the ABS showed that nearly 76,000 jobs were added to the economy last month. The same report showed unemployment dropping to just 3.6 per cent, which is only slightly higher than the 48-year low of 3.4 per cent, also set, I might add, by this government in October 2022.

The same report showed unemployment dropping to just 3.6 per cent, which is only slightly higher than the 48-year low of 3.4 per cent also set, I might add, by this government in October 2022. Unfortunately, this makes difficult reading for the Liberals and their economic policy in opposition, because despite all their criticisms, despite all their predictions at the Jobs and Skills Summit, which they failed to attend, all of their predictions of calamity and disaster coming from Labor's policies, which they have needlessly opposed, the record speaks for itself—an outstanding job creation record. In fact, it is the strongest jobs growth of any first-year government on record. It makes it difficult, I imagine, to be arguing that Labor's policies are delivering ruin and wreckage to the economy in the face of such an outstanding set of numbers. Here we have an opposition that has to make arguments in the face of the strongest employment record of any new first-year government in history and the delivery of a budget surplus that they themselves were unable to deliver in 12 months. It makes it tough going for them, and I wish I could say they had ridden through that but, unfortunately, they have not. Which brings us to No. 7.

The seventh greatest hit of the Liberals in opposition, which is a small one but a goodie, one for the aficionados, is for not knowing Australia is not in the G7. The shadow Treasurer keep saying that Australia has the highest inflation of the G7. Of course, not only is that not true, but somebody does need to tell the shadow Treasurer that we are not actually in the G7.

The eighth of the Liberals' greatest hits of economic policy in opposition is their response on superannuation. We have had a wave of misinformation on this topic. It is a good one for the Liberal Party because, again, it gives them an opportunity to fight for a group of people who nobody feel sorry for. But they have said that superannuation is not a piggy bank. The shadow Treasurer, the member for Hume, said 'Super is not a piggy bank for Labor's pet projects. It is your money, not the government's.' The member for New England backed him in. He has never seen a scare campaign he did not like. He saw an opportunity here and he said, 'Labor is decreeing that your super will elevate and broaden in its purpose,' but what he wants is for this super policy to make sure that your super looks after Labor objectives.

According to the ABC fact check unit, 'There is no suggestion that money will be taken out of super accounts to support the budget or that super funds will be forced to invest in specific Labor projects.' That is a big negative from the ABC fact check unit. It has not slowed those opposite down, of course. They continue to claim that Labor's policies for super will undermine it. But the question becomes: Who has actually been undermining super in Australia? The real disrespect for Australian super came in the last couple of years, when those opposite put out a press release in the height of COVID, during which they allowed a policy for people to take superannuation out of their accounts. In doing so they created a giant sucking sound underneath the Australian superannuation system that led to $36 billion being removed from super accounts and, in many cases, eradicating the entire balance of many Australian's superannuation accounts. They had so few checks and balances on it that when reviews were done they found that most of the people who took that money out were either not unemployed or many of them had not even had a reduction to their income. They created a huge open door in the superannuation system and watched as money flowed out. Of course, they did that in an attempt to stimulate the economy, in an attempt to alleviate hardship, but the policy was so ham-fisted that it did not so much alleviate hardship as transfer hardship from one point in someone's life to another point, to the point of retirement, where those people who were encouraged and enabled to withdraw their superannuation will now with retire with a far smaller superannuation account, costing them tens of thousands of dollars.

Let's get to No. 9, the productivity record of the opposition. Those opposite left Australia with the lowest productivity rate in decades. They delivered next to zero economic reform in the nine years they were in government yet they have the gall to come into this House and complain about the low level of productivity growth, productivity that operates and is measured with a lag. The low level of productivity today speaks uniquely to their record over the last 10 years. It is this government that is investing in infrastructure, this government that is investing in education and investing in competition changes to lift productivity.

Finally, No. 10, the 10th element of the greatest hits of the Liberals in opposition, the crowning glory of their 12 months on those benches, is their record on energy prices. We all have to come into this parliament, boring as it is, each question time and listen to the opposition's questions on energy prices. It's always the same question—it's a little like Groundhog Day: 'Why are energy prices going up?' This is the height of hypocrisy.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43, the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Parramatta will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.