Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say, in taking note of answers given today, that in my experience it hasn't been a successful strategy for politicians to quote opinion polls, but we wish you well with that approach. The point is that the government, which won the election with very few policies, has gone in search of some policies, and it has tried to do that by talking to a series of vested interests.

When I call this government a government for vested interests it is a serious point that I'm trying to make. One of the consequences of being a government for vested interests is that, while there could be some good ideas and maybe some bad ones, there are good ideas that are not considered, because the funnel is so small. I think there have been some missed opportunities over the last seven days or so.

I was surprised that there wasn't more consideration given to a small business award: a simple set of conditions that could cut across the complexity that many small businesses face in our economy. I was surprised to hear the Labor Party talk about their desire to see higher wages but not consider the fact that compulsory superannuation increases eat 80 per cent of the projected wages growth in the budget. I was surprised that people didn't consider that maybe we could use that superannuation system to deliver wages growth now. I was surprised that the super funds, with one of the strongest vested interests in this government, came to Canberra asking for another tax cut, asking for a scheme which would allow them to own all the houses, to become the landlords in Australia, where Australians would become serfs to the super funds and be forced into renting for life. Those are the things that we could have had a discussion about, but instead we have seen a series of policy initiatives designed to fill the coffers of the closest friends of the government.

Of course, we have already seen in the last seven days the Attorney-General announcing that he would abolish the regulation that we put in place for class action lawyers, where people who are seeking redress through the courts system often find that the awards that they are provided by the courts are eaten up by bloodsucking class action lawyers. We also find that the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Stephen Jones, on Friday afternoon made a regulation to conceal $30 million in payments from super funds to unions that are due by 2030—$30 million per annum. This is on top of the $130 million or $140 million over the past 10 years that has already been paid from the super funds into the unions. So Minister Jones has delivered that.

Then of course you see Mr Jones's other initiative, which is to review the best financial interest duty that super funds face, thanks to a coalition reform. Why would you want to review a best financial interest duty? Only because you want to permit payments which are banned today. Then, of course, the other matter before the Senate later tonight, is the matter of the abolition of the Building and Construction Commission, which of course has been a successful institution that has upheld the rule of law on construction sites, which of course is a very large industry—almost 10 per cent of GDP. So, again, you see pay-off for the CFMMEU.

So, between the class action lawyers, the super funds and the unions, you have seen the government try to deliver their agenda in their first 100 days. We are only 100 days into this government, and eventually their vested interests will run out of ideas that are in the top drawer. The big risk for the country is: what is in the second drawer? It could be even crazier ideas. My good friend the member for Whitlam has already talked about 15 per cent super. That would be a really good way to crash wages. But I'm sure that there are many, many other ideas that will come from the vested interests and be facilitated by this government in the near future.

Question agreed to.