Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

It is always interesting when you have debates on superannuation, because people—both sides, I guess—like to take ownership. It was a Labor government that introduced compulsory superannuation, and former Prime Minister Keating has a lot to be proud of there. But, when it comes to industry funds and retail funds, it always bemuses me that it is a 'them and us' argument when it should not be. We all get the right to choose—or most of us. There are some small sections of society who still do not have the right to choose because of some legacy issues in their particular industries, but, by and large, the Australian community gets to decide who is best to meet their long-term retirement needs by looking after their nest egg in the form of superannuation. It is a very serious issue because, over time, it is the largest investment that we will all make. It will determine the sort of retirement that our families can enjoy and, in doing so, determine whether we will or will not be a burden on the public purse. Of course, our period of retirement is, happily, growing longer. As I get closer and closer to it, it is something that I pay a lot more attention to. As, on average, Australians now live to 80 or 80-plus, people should be looking forward to a post-pensionable age of at least 15 years. Now, with the preservation age being approximately 55 or 56, depending on your date of birth, it could be a considerable period longer.

That brings me to the point and the purpose of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) Bill 2015. It is about the people you entrust—that is the word here. Trustees are entrusted with the care, the management and the investment of your retirement income. For many of us, we almost do it with blind faith; therefore, we expect legislators, people sitting in this place, to make sure that there are safeguards and provisions that are going to protect our nest egg and ensure that it is there when we need it. This is not about one form of fund—retail versus industry—it is about the qualities, the experience, the qualifications and the diversity of the people whom we would seek to have look after our nest egg. That is why this bill is being enacted. It is here to give further assurance that we have that independence—that third-party look-through to ensure that nothing untoward occurs and that the best intellect and experience are brought to bear, along with all of the investment advice that is gathered independently and professionally by the superannuation funds.

When we are talking about a $2 trillion asset, that is a heck of a lot of zeros. We need to say to ourselves, 'Isn't it prudent for the parliament to continue to review the legislation that protects people's assets and retirement income to ensure that we meet community expectations and do everything in our power to give those mums and dads, the workers of Australia, whose superannuation is going into these funds the confidence that their interests are being protected?' Having the existing boards of these organisations look outside for qualified, independent, experienced personnel to add the grunt that they need to their boards to protect that investment is something that we should all applaud.

So you have to ask yourself: why is it that only one side of this House has an issue with genuine independence and agrees that this is strong? I know from personal experience of speaking to industry funds that at least one that I am aware of has independently already taken this step. It has got ahead of the curve and said, 'This is the right and proper thing to do on behalf of our members.' It has reached out to the corporate world, given that diversity to its board and, in doing so, made it a board that can provide more holistic, rounded advice and can protect people's interests.

There is no downside to this. There is no ideological bent on the part of this government. This is about good governance that should underpin the superannuation system, because $2 trillion is a lot of money and it is a big interest that we should all be ensuring that we protect for the long term. I commend the bill to the House. I know that there are other speakers who will add their voices to the debate, but I ask those who come after me to reflect: do we really want independence? What is there to be afraid of with independence? Perhaps you could reach across the aisle and embrace something that is actually good for everyone in Australia who needs their superannuation for their retirement.

See this speech in context