|
representatives vote 2021-06-03#14
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-06-12 09:30:51
|
Title
Adjournment — Consideration in Detail- Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Commencement date
Description
<p class="speaker">Michael Sukkar</p><p>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>- The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1) introduced by Hughes MP [Craig Kelly](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hughes/craig_kelly) (Independent), which means they failed.
- MP Kelly [explained his amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-03.137.1):
- > *This is very significant legislation that requires an enormous amount of change for the superannuation industry—and much of it justified. However, we are now in June. To have a start date for this legislation of 1 July when it is yet to even go to the Senate is, I believe, rush and haste. When you rush and you do things in haste, you make mistakes. I believe it would be far more prudent and wise of this House if we moved the start date for this legislation to 1 July 2022 rather than 2021. I believe that, if we are doing our job, that would give time for all the vested stakeholders to go through all the detail, and it would be far more prudent for our economy to get the best outcomes, which is what we all require.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Section 2 (Commencement), where the Bill specifies "the day this Act receives Royal Assent" or "1 July 2021", replace with "1 July 2022"*
- >
- > *Note: The intent of amendment 1 is to delay the start of all elements of the legislation until 1 July 2022.*
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6672), the bill was introduced to:
- * *provide that if a new employee has an existing 'stapled' superannuation fund and does not choose a fund to receive contributions, their employer is required to make contributions on behalf of the employee into the stapled fund; and ensure that employers are not in breach of various rules, or are not liable for superannuation guarantee charge, in certain circumstances;*
- * *require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to conduct an annual performance test for MySuper products and other products to be specified in regulations;*
- * *require trustees of registrable superannuation entities and self managed superannuation funds and directors of the corporate trustee of a registrable superannuation entity to perform their duties and exercise their powers in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries;*
- * *reverse the evidential burden of proof for the best financial interests duty so that the onus is on the trustee of a registrable superannuation entity;*
- * *allow regulations to be made to prohibit certain payments made by trustees of registrable superannuation entities and prescribe additional requirements on trustees and directors of trustee companies of registrable superannuation entities;*
- * *allow contraventions of record-keeping obligations specified in regulations to be subject to a strict liability offence; and*
- * *remove an exemption from disclosing information about certain investments under the portfolio holdings disclosure rules.*
<p>I thank the Minister. The question is that the bill be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Sukkar</p><p>By leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 29 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 3, items 18 and 19, page 32 (lines 6 to 24), omit the items.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>This is a bill that was half-baked when it was announced, it was half-baked when it went through their party room and it was half-baked when it entered this parliament today. Let me just go through some of the issues. A bill that was supposed to have the effect of reducing the fees that members paid on their superannuation account, because of their incompetence, actually did the opposite! They had to be browbeaten into including administration fees to the benchmarks. A bill that was supposed to strengthen superannuation and their investments did the opposite, because it actually created a disincentive for Australian workers' money to be invested in Australian infrastructure and Australian agricultural investments. They had to be browbeaten into changing this. We thought after two embarrassing backflips they would've got the message and listened to the sensible suggestions that were being made by Labor. This bill, in the form that it was brought into the House, was so bad that even members on their backbench weren't going to vote for it.</p><p>This is the royal commission. We weren't surprised that a government that voted against this royal commission document 27 times wasn't going to implement all of its recommendations, but this is <i>Das Kapital</i>. We were absolutely flabbergasted that a government that calls themselves conservatives and liberals would introduce a bill with a power that is more inspired by Karl Marx than Ken Hayne. But that's exactly what they've done, and that's why we are here today—because they have introduced a bill into the House more inspired by Karl Marx and more befitting of Soviet-era Russia than modern Australia. Never again will the Treasurer be able to lecture Labor on economic responsibility. We will remind Australians that the Treasurer and the government that can't balance their own budget wants to take over the savings of ordinary Australians. We will remind them every day until the next election.</p><p>I want to congratulate those members of the government backbench who, having originally voted for it when it went through their party room, woke up to the enormous threat that it presents to Australians and their savings. They have raised their concerns with me, with members of the Labor opposition, with members of the crossbench and eventually with members of the government. I want to congratulate those members of the backbench of the coalition parties for doing the right thing. Many of them have raised their concerns in this place, and I want to congratulate them for doing the right thing.</p><p>As bad as the directions power is, it is not the only problem with this bill. Labor wants to foreshadow that we have a range of amendments. If this amendment fails, we have an amendment which covers the field. We have a range of other amendments that we propose to move in the House today. I'll go through the issues that they cover off.</p><p>Firstly, this government has said the purpose of this bill is to ensure that members have funds that are performing for them, and, to give effect to that, they want to introduce a performance measure so that we can weed out the underperforming funds. Members of this House, Labor wholly supports that objective. We want to see that happen. But why on earth would a government that says that what it wants to do is weed out underperforming funds introduce a bill in the House which actually staples members to underperforming funds? There aren't a small number of them. According to the Treasury, three million Australians are going to be stapled to underperforming funds because of the legislation that you are foreshadowing that you will vote for. So, we encourage you to contemplate that fact. Are you going to be on the side of the three million Australians who, if you let this bill through, are going to be stapled to an underperforming fund, or are you going to support this sensible amendment?</p><p>I call on the crossbench to contemplate that fact. You were so confident in the advice that you were given by the government and by the Treasurer that they had this bill right. You were so confident the government had this right. I say the same thing to members on the coalition backbench as well. A couple of weeks ago the government said they had this bill right— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Trent Zimmerman</p><p>Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Whitlam.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. A few weeks ago the Treasurer stood in your party room and said, 'This bill is ready to go.' But today they have been forced into an embarrassing admission that the bill was anything but ready to go. How can you have faith in what they are telling you now, when it has been pointed out to you that three million Australians are about to be stapled to dud funds? You can have no faith in what the government is telling you. You can have no faith in what your Treasurer is telling you. I ask the crossbench to consider this as well.</p><p>Another factor that our amendment goes to is the timing of this bill, because in four weeks time this bill will become effective in every Australian workplace. The tax office isn't ready to implement it. Small-, medium- and large-sized businesses aren't ready to implement it. Australian workers know next to nothing about it—and certainly the superannuation funds will not be able to implement this bill either. So the timing needs to be considered. Our sensible amendment is on the side of small and medium-sized businesses in this country. It will push back the implementation of this bill as amended and as proposed to be amended by Labor.</p><p>One of the excellent speeches that was made in the second reading contribution on this debate was the speech given by the member for Warringah, a former barrister, a law officer, of New South Wales, who pointed out that the reverse onus included in schedule 3 of this bill turns the law on its head. Normally a reverse onus in law is something that is only confined to the most egregious of criminal offences. We don't, for example, apply a reverse onus for heinous sex crimes. We don't apply a reverse onus for heinous drug crimes. But apparently not having your books in order is a worse offence than a serious sex offence. Apparently, not having your books in order is a worse offence than importing drugs into this country. This government has got their priorities all wrong. It is a simple amendment, a sensible amendment, and I ask all members of the House to support it.</p><p>We want this bill to work. We support performance management. We support the amendment that has been moved by the government in removing this heinous power—more appropriate to this book here, <i>Das Kapital</i>, than a modern Australian economy. So, if these amendments fail, we ask all members of the House to support the amendments that Labor has foreshadowed and I have just spoken to.</p> <p class="speaker">Trent Zimmerman</p><p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">(1) Section 2 (Commencement), where the Bill specifies "the day this Act receives Royal Assent" or "1 July 2021", replace with "1 July 2022"</p><p class="italic"> <i>Note: The intent of amendment 1 is to delay the start of all elements of the legislation until 1 July 2022.</i> </p><p>This is very significant legislation that requires an enormous amount of change for the superannuation industry—and much of it justified. However, we are now in June. To have a start date for this legislation of 1 July when it is yet to even go to the Senate is, I believe, rush and haste. When you rush and you do things in haste, you make mistakes. I believe it would be far more prudent and wise of this House if we moved the start date for this legislation to 1 July 2022 rather than 2021. I believe that, if we are doing our job, that would give time for all the vested stakeholders to go through all the detail, and it would be far more prudent for our economy to get the best outcomes, which is what we all require.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p>
|