Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2020. There is no subject that better reflects the difference in philosophy between this side of the chamber and that side of the chamber. Why? This side of the chamber believes in free choice and individual responsibility. It believes in liberty. Give me liberty or death, as the great American patriot Patrick Henry said in his speech that helped trigger the American Revolution, a revolution that has echoed across the centuries and across the world, a revolution that has empowered the individual to make their own choices about how they live their lives, a revolution that overthrew the yoke of oppression, a revolution that continues today as we fight the forces of Marxism and communism.

So many of those forces sit opposite us today, all with their little red books, bobbing their heads to every command issued by their Big Brother: industry super funds run by unions. They sit there so smugly on the other side of the chamber, secretly plotting new ways by which they can impose more command and control over everyday Australians. Of course, there is no greater example of command and control than superannuation. How so, you might ask? By stealth and deception. That's how. By undermining the democratic right of working Australians by not ever seeking a mandate to take 12 per cent of people's hard-earned income every week and give it to unelected, unaccountable fund managers.

The Left love to praise New Zealand, saying what a great country it is, because they've got a leftie in power. Let's give praise where praise is due. In 1996 New Zealand had a vote on compulsory superannuation. Do you know what the result was? They voted it down: 92 per cent to eight. Did Paul Keating ever ask the Australian public if they wanted money taken out of their pockets, to be given to someone that the worker would never meet, until they were 60—with, I might add, no guarantee of ever getting their capital back?

We need to contrast the actions of the Labor Party and the unions with those of the Liberal Party with their belief in free choice. The original liberal philosophers Locke, Bacon and Rousseau sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings with representative democracy and property rights. I want to repeat this: there was never anything democratic about superannuation. Keating, in his typically arrogant manner, rammed it through parliament without ever seeking a mandate or holding a referendum, no doubt because he knew that it would never get up if the people were given a choice.

Surely the federal government has an obligation under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, which provides that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to 'the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws', to protect the initial capital put into super funds. It is my view that compulsory superannuation is unconstitutional if it doesn't return the initial superannuation that was contributed to the super fund. Let me add, it's only a matter of time before this gets tested in the High Court. If superannuation isn't voluntary, then superannuation funds, including industry funds, should be forced to make up losses—in keeping with the Constitution—if the initial capital isn't returned. People have a right to expect their property rights to be respected.

Let's talk about how much superannuation is costing us: $40 billion in tax concessions. The cost of these tax concessions is growing much faster than the cost of the pension. It's estimated that the cost of superannuation and the tax concessions will soon be greater. Who do these tax concessions go to? Mainly the wealthy. Don't get me wrong. People work hard and they're entitled to keep as much money as possible, but I fail to see why low-income earners should pay a higher rate of tax on their income than the wealthy pay on their superannuation income. Where is the Labor Party in this? I thought the Labor Party and the unions were the champions of the poor and oppressed. No—not when it jeopardises the rivers of gold that flow into the superannuation funds that then flow into the Labor Party's coffers. Then there's the $40 billion in fees that it costs to run superannuation. To put that into context, that's more than the cost of defence. Most of these fees go to white-collared blowhards in Sydney and Melbourne. Every week, rivers of gold flow out of regional communities, communities that desperately need to retain every dollar they earn.

I'm happy to put up a motion with the Labor Party that, if we make superannuation voluntary, I will put the first $4 billion in tax concessions that we save into aged care. We can take some tax from the wealthy Australians and put it into aged care, if you want to make it voluntary. Let's see if you're up for that one. It only costs around $6 billion to manage the pension. Why does it cost $40 billion to manage super? It's time to stop the rorting. And there's more: $600 billion of superannuation is invested offshore, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when Australia desperately needs infrastructure and development. What is industry super doing? Where were they when the Northern Territory government sold the Darwin Port? Where were they? Where was the CFMMEU? I've looked at the maritime union super funds, and they invest offshore. Why didn't they buy the Darwin Port? Why didn't they take an equity in their own livelihood?

Let's not forget the rorts. Entertainment budgets don't comply with the sole purpose test, but has that stopped Hostplus from spending thousands of dollars in wining and dining at the Australian Open? Or the New Dailya Communist propaganda tool used to peddle Marxist ideology—

Senator Ayres interjecting—