“The fact the government wheeled out 82-year old Paul Keating – the father of the modern superannuation system – shows its intention to lay the groundwork for accessing our superannuation for its ‘national priorities’,” writes political columnist ROBERT McMAHON.

In the three months since the government handed down its much-criticised Budget, and yet seemingly survived the backlash largely unscathed, it has increasingly engaged in a pattern of behaviour that signals it might be moving into a new phase of governance. Crazy-brave.

John Howard’s final term of government was, in very different ways, marked by a similar form of behaviour.

Having walloped the Labor Party in 2004 and been rewarded with that most rare of political prizes, majority in both houses of parliament, the Howard government moved too far too quickly on IR reform earning the ire of the community.

Despite later watering down WorkChoices to curb its excesses, the government went on to lose the election to Kevin Rudd in 2007. WorkChoices played a major part in that defeat.

Part of the motivation for the Howard government having moved too far on WorkChoices mark 1 was that it was under intense pressure from its business constituency, and indeed the more hardline of its ministers and MPs, to take advantage of its rare majority largesse to achieve fundamental IR reform. 

The Albanese government enjoys a similar form of parliamentary dominance following its emphatic win in last year’s election.

While it does not control the Senate, it holds a very large majority, at 94 seats. Not only is this dominance quantitative, it has become increasingly obvious that it is also qualitative.

Despite a litany of broken promises and failure to address cost-of-living pressures, the government has easily repelled accountability by an ineffective Opposition whose deposing of Sussan Ley and replacement by Angus Taylor has done little to nothing to improve its parliamentary performance against Anthony Albanese and his government. 

While this gap has allowed the government to push through poorly conceived and designed changes to negative hearing and CGT with little to no push-back by the Opposition, this parliamentary dominance is also starting to manifest in other ways, some arguably a good deal more reckless. 

I recently wrote about how the PM diminished his office and disgraced Australia in his disgraceful joking – replete with chest-level hand jiggling – about two royal melons presented by the female Japanese PM. This was perhaps one of the lowest points in diplomatic conduct by a prime minister I can recall. 

However, more recently, something caught my eye that made me think the government could be moving into the territory of policy hubris: its own version of WorkChoices.

At a recent “productivity investment” roundtable hosted by billionaire Anthony Pratt attended by Albanese, treasurer Jim Chalmers and former prime minister Paul Keating, Albanese posited that superannuation could be used as a “productivity tool” to fund national priorities.

Of super savings, he said there was “real potential to see these funds as a national asset that can be used more appropriately and get better returns not just for individuals and for retirees, but for the nation”. 

“More appropriately”? More appropriate for what? And more appropriate for whom? 

Earlier, in July 2023, the Treasurer gave some hint to what these “more appropriate” investments could be. He said these could be investing “in those big national priorities”, such as housing, infrastructure and renewable energy transition. All keynote Albanese government policy initiatives. 

And why wouldn’t the Treasurer be excited by super as a funding source? Whereas Australian net government debt is currently sitting at around $1 trillion, our superannuation savings pool is around $4.3 trillion. Quite the honey pot for governments short of a quid and looking for ready money to fund pet infrastructure projects that are monstrously expensive, prone to massive cost blow-outs and short on return. The NBN and Snowy 2.0 both being prime examples.

However, at this point it is worth remembering several things. First, superannuation is Australians’ own savings for our own retirements, locked up until we reach retirement age. 

Second, these compulsory savings have been created in part by workers forgoing pay increases. 

And third, for these reasons, superannuation funds have a statutory duty, a “sole purpose test”, to invest in assets “solely” to provide for members’ retirement benefits. And these do not include government pet policy projects.

The fact the government wheeled out 82-year old Paul Keating – the father of the modern superannuation system – shows its intention to lay the groundwork for accessing our superannuation for its “national priorities”.

What it also shows is that the government might well, in the words of Keating himself, be in the process of flicking the switch to (policy) vaudeville by changing the purpose of superannuation to serve its interests at the potential expense of members’ investment returns. 

Dr Robert McMahon PSM is a visiting fellow at the ANU, adjunct professor at the University of Canberra, and former assistant secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

News all day, every day at CityNewsQBN.com.au.