|
representatives vote 2021-06-17#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-03-04 12:27:21
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021; Consideration of Senate Message- Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree and pass the bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Michael Sukkar</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>You've just heard all the arguments in favour of this legislation! There it is, from this minister. To be fair, there are some on the other side who are honest about what their view of superannuation is. The Liberal Party's Senator Rennick said in the debate about this legislation across on the other side:</p><p>… if we want to be serious about protecting the battlers in this country, it's time to kill superannuation stone, cold dead.</p><p>That's the view of the Liberal and National parties when it comes to workers having decent retirements and having dignity in their later years. They're not content to trash the aged-care system. They want people to also, before they get to aged care, have a pretty bad retirement. They can't stand the idea that anyone other than their mates can own capital. They can't stand the idea that Australia can have, in our economic system as one of our ballasts, $3 trillion in superannuation funds. The fact is that that is in our national interest, and it's also in the interests of working people. That is why we on this side of the House will always defend superannuation, and why those opposite will always take every opportunity to undermine it. Remember the royal commission aimed at industry funds? What did it find? It found that industry funds were the most effective form of superannuation. It found that self-managed funds and the retail funds just don't stack up in terms of returns and in terms of the costs to superannuants.</p><p>The flaws in this bill are multiple. One is that it staples members to dud funds. What we can see will happen is that some people will have an advantage—the retailers, the banks and the mates of those opposite selling their products rather than industry super funds. That's really what it's aimed at here. That has real implications, because workers could be stapled to their first fund. Those opposite mightn't have this experience, but certainly I did: the first job that I had was in retail. And many people will do that. I worked at Maccas, I worked at Grace Brothers, I worked at Pancakes On The Rocks and I worked at various other jobs.</p> <p class="speaker">Government Member</p><p>A government member interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>No, your bloke was the one that was sacked from jobs, mate. There was the idea that you would then go on to have a profession. You might be a plumber or in construction. You'd have different priorities. You need different insurance in terms of your job. The fact is this will staple people to funds that aren't appropriate for them. It will staple them to underperforming funds for life. It is bad policy.</p><p>There's no level playing field in terms of performance and monitoring. We agree that all funds should be subject to performance assessments. The government doesn't believe this. They're excluding funds that some three million Australians are members of. They're some of the for-profit funds. They're some of the funds with the highest fees. They're some of the worst performing funds. How surprising! And this is in contrast to the recommendation of the financial services royal commission. It's in direct contravention of it. But they're prepared to stand up for these funds because they don't actually want a level playing field—because, when you look at a level playing field, industry super wins every time as the best performers. This exposes the ideological agenda of this government. They've gone to every election, like in 2013 and 2016, and said they wouldn't interfere with the super guarantee, but then afterwards they did. They wanted to interfere with this one as well. It's only because, like a whole range of other changes, they're just waiting until after the election and you get Liberal and National parties 'unplugged'. The Liberal and National parties unplugged is killing superannuation stone-cold dead. They said it the other night. It's what they believe. It's what they do at every single opportunity that they have to undermine our superannuation system, while Labor— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>I'll keep my comments relatively brief, because I fear the impatience of my colleagues behind me more than anything that those opposite might do. We're being asked today to vote for a bill that's fatally flawed. It's vastly improved compared to the bill that was originally proposed to the government's party room. The bill that went through their cabinet, their Expenditure Review Committee, went through both of their caucuses unchallenged—it's a vast improvement on that. The reason for that is the tireless efforts of Labor members of parliament, crossbench MPs, members on all sides from the industry and, I have to say, a number of members from the coalition's own backbench who at first believed what their minister told them but then saw so much of it was definitely not true.</p><p>Let's get to the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is the objective of this bill to improve the performance of funds and the return to members. Every single member of this place supports that objective. If only the legislation did what its title suggests it wants to do. We want to do this. Labor wants to support a bill that will do this. The reality is that the government is intent on turning a blind eye to the funds which have the highest fees and the lowest performance. There is no other explanation for the fact that the government has excluded those funds, which cover over three million employees. The Productivity Commission has said that without government action those three million employees will languish in those funds forever, earning subpar returns and getting high fees. The cost over a lifetime is in excess of $240,000 in lost retirement income. We cannot vote for that. We want to vote for a bill which addresses that, and you refuse to agree to our sensible amendments.</p><p>The second proposition, as put by the Leader of the Opposition, is that this bill staples employees to funds which the government itself has said are so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join them: 'This fund is so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join it, but you're going to be stapled to it and stuck to it for life.' High fees and low performance, but you want to say that's good enough for these employees! We don't. Agree to our sensible amendments and we can get this fixed.</p><p>As the Leader of the Opposition has said, they have a proposition which will ensure that workers in high-risk industries will either be without insurance or be paying thousands and thousands of dollars per annum more for the life insurance they currently have through the group insurance in their superannuation policy. Any member of the public and any member of the crossbench listening to my submission today—I see the member for Hughes nodding—will understand that these are commonsense propositions that should enjoy the reasonable support of all members of this House.</p><p>It beggars belief that the government, instead of picking up amendments that were proffered by the crossbench in this place and in the Senate, has gone and done a grubby deal with Queensland's Senator Hanson. That's not good enough. We want a bill that we can vote for. It's not this bill. I turn to the members of the crossbench who gave impassioned speeches in the House when the bill was last before it. All the issues that you raised in your speeches last time have not yet been addressed. If you still hold those concerns the only hope you have of having them resolved is to tell the government that this bill is not good enough. Vote with Labor and send a message to the government and to the Senate that we want to vote for a bill that says what it's going to do. We want to vote for a bill that says what the label says it's going to do, and this bill does not.</p> <p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>On the issue of superannuation, I stand closer to the member for Goldstein than to the members on this side of the House. He gave an excellent speech today, which I would commend to everyone, on the importance of housing affordability and the right of young Australians to access their super for housing. However, I cannot support this bill. The issue we have is stapling. We have different requirements in different industries, especially in high-risk industries, for the insurance component of your superannuation. A worker in a high-risk industry, whether it is mining, deep-sea fishing, industry or farming, has a completely different insurance requirement than someone working in a government office job. Unfortunately the stapling provision will staple you to an insurance policy that is not satisfactory and will not adequately cover many high-risk workers. I don't care whether it is just one Australian that this happens to. If this bill is passed, as sure as night follows day, there will be a case of some young worker who was working in an office job, or at Coles or Woolies, who then goes to work in one of those high-risk occupations, be it mining or on a farm, and has an industrial accident in their first week of work. We know that will happen. They will go back to their stapled insurance policy and find that they are inadequately covered. We are not just stapling the investment component; we are also stapling the insurance component. That is not satisfactory, given the difference in risk in occupations in this country. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support this bill and vote for that risk to happen.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-06-17.135.3) "*The question is that the amendments be agreed to.*" The amendments were passed in the Senate and returned to the House for our MPs' consideration. Because this vote was successful, this bill will [now become law](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/).
- ### What does this 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.*
-
-
|