Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting to listen to the opposition talk about the MPI on FoFA. I realise that, whilst this is indeed an important issue, the reality is that it is a discussion about rent seeking. That is the story of the FoFA reforms. Yes, people did lose money with Storm, Westpoint and Trio, but many of the changes in FoFA will do nothing to prevent those things happening again. If ASIC had actually done their job in relation to Storm we would not be having this discussion.

At the end of the day this is a battle between the super funds and the banks to gain control of a portion of the compulsory acquisition from Australian salaries of the superannuation guarantee charge. The union managed industry super funds have lobbied hard and sought to dirty up advisers at every opportunity—and I think they have done a very good job—and sought to achieve a crackdown on avenues of revenue for financial advice outside the superannuation system. I think it is a disgrace that those opposite aided and abetted that and in the process destroyed the reputation and the good name of many good, independent financial advisers in the marketplace.

The very thing that they complain about about the big banks is actually a direct result of their actions under this legislation, because they have created the incentive for the big banks to buy up the small financial planning businesses because they have not had the resources to cope with this tsunami of red tape and regulation that had everything to do with backing their union mates in the industry super funds. I am sad to say that with FoFA they got what they wanted. Now they are crying over spilt milk.

This is where this MPI falls short, as most other things those opposite do. The very same industry super funds are increasingly being caught out, failing the very people that they so adamantly claim to protect. I would like to quote a few recent media articles to highlight this issue. In The Australian on 25 June, Hedley Thomas wrote about the meat industry super fund:

Audits of a union super fund for meatworkers have uncovered alleged corporate governance failures, conflicts of interest and an alleged failure by a union stalwart … to disclose six-figure "consultancy fees" …

In the Cooper review there are 17 recommendations under the heading 'trustee governance'. This is the standard those opposite hold up for the industry, but how many recommendations did those opposite implement in their time in government? Zero. That is what goes to the heart of this issue. APRA, finally, has got around to doing some of its work and has been examining—again in relation to the meatworkers' super fund—the justification for the number of poor investments by the meatworkers' fund in companies that have in turn paid significant fees, for personal benefit, to people directly connected with the fund—one of the key issues in the trustee governance recommendations that the Cooper review talked about. If you want to talk about the effect on local employers, I have 800 employees in a local abattoir that are in the meat industry super fund. I wonder how they feel knowing that their hard-earned superannuation money is being trashed by the industry super fund.

How about we also look at the alleged union super fund leak of members' details to the CFMEU in New South Wales? The CFMEU used those to ring members to put pressure on them because they want to railroad the company they work for. That was another breach of governance principles. They can sit over there and talk about governance and protecting consumer interests all they like, but some of their biggest supporters are failing to do exactly that because they failed to include in their legislation, last time when they were in government, those trustee governance provisions which go to the very heart of some of the major issues that we are talking about here today. It is only this side that is going to generally protect the superannuation holders in this country. (Time expired)

See this speech in context