Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

There is a fair bit that we need to discuss in this place and elsewhere about superannuation. We are getting to the point where the cost to the public purse of maintaining the super system is about to overtake the cost of the age pension itself. Given that super was there in the beginning to be a supplement to the age pension system and to take the burden off the public purse, it now turns out that we are on the verge of potentially spending more in tax concessions that we know are going to those who already have a lot of money. It is going to cost us more to keep the super system alive as it currently is framed than it will to keep the age pension alive. So there is a very good argument for saying let's go back to basics and work out whether the super system is doing what it was intended to do, which is to top up the age pension, or whether we need to be looking at some other broader reforms.

The Greens have certainly put some proposals on the table about how super might be reformed with respect to perhaps amending some of the concessional marginal tax rates that exist. There would also be some sense in having a discussion about how the savings in superannuation funds that we have in Australia at the moment, currently worth between $1½ trillion and $2 trillion, could be put to better use. Given that we have such a huge need to invest in key public infrastructure in Australia, we have to ask the question: why aren't we getting more investment in some of that from our super funds and what could we do to open that up? I am not a fan of the measure that some super funds have taken of advocating for asset recycling—that is, flogging off some state assets and letting us and the super funds own them—but there is so much greenfield investment and infrastructure that needs to be built. Surely, that is something that we could turn our minds to. Not being exposed to having to borrow from overseas quite so much would also assist Australia. We could use some of the money that we have here already—that is, people savings—to invest in infrastructure here in Australia. Those measures are not on the table from this government. What is on the table from this government is a bill about governance, and so we have to deal with that.

As the Treasury spokesperson for the Greens, which has a number of members in the Senate, I have not exactly been subject to a sustained lobbying campaign from people saying this bill is very important and must be passed. In that context, we have decided to have a look at the problem ourselves to see whether, in fact, this is a problem that is worthy of this parliament spending its time on and, if so, whether this is the solution. This is something that I and the Greens come to with an inquisitive, open mind, looking at the evidence to see whether it is a problem.

As anyone who looks at the parliamentary register of interest would know, I have money not only in an industry super fund but also in a fossil-fuel-free private fund, Future Super. That is done for varying reasons, including ethical reasons. So we are not coming to this with a particular point of view about the best of setting up funds. But what you see when you look at the evidence is that, first of all, from the point of view of returns, the industry super funds are consistently good and have been so for many, many years. They have been returning funds to members on a not-for-profit basis but with good returns.

But, more importantly, given that this is a bill about governance, when you look at the history of the governance of industry super funds, in particular, but also some across the board, it is difficult to find a big, glaring problem in the governance that somehow requires this parliament's attention. Some have said, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Perhaps that might be a little bit too glib. In this parliament we should always be vigilant about making sure that when so much money is at stake the governance arrangements for that money are the best ones. We should not necessarily wait for a problem to arise before going and fixing it. But are there any warning signs going off? No-one has come and put any before us.

Are there any reasons to think that the current strong regulation from APRA is somehow inadequate? That really ought to be the question, and I think the government ought to be demonstrating that somehow what APRA is doing at the moment is not good enough and that some structural change to the way superannuation boards are governed is required. It is difficult to see what it is that APRA is supposedly doing wrong at the moment. Indeed, one might say that part of the reason why industry funds and other funds have been able to perform so well over many years is that APRA has been doing its job. That is a conclusion that is available to be drawn on the evidence in front of us at the moment. So I do not think this is a bill where the government has made out a case, nor is there a big public clamour for us to take action.

What makes me sceptical also about why we are spending time on this and whether governance really is a question of concern for the government is that, if you look at what they are doing here and you compare it with what the government did with financial advisers and financial planners, with financial advisers and financial planners they ran the other way. When it came to the private sector and financial planners, the government said: 'In the last parliament, you worked together to put in some protections for consumers that regulated how financial planners behaved. That is a great imposition. People should be able to decide things for themselves. We should let the market rule.' This was despite the scandals—where there was a massive case, with strong evidence, made out that people had lost a lot and that many people had been fleeced and had lost their life savings—despite a crying need there for regulation and despite some very, very basic conflicts of interest that do not exist when you have member-led super funds. There are some very basic conflicts of interest that exist when financial planners get money for selling products to people—from the banks who benefit from the products—whether or not it is in the person's best interest. When I look at what the government has done in the financial planning sector, there is a dissonance with that and what it is trying to do here, which again makes one sceptical about the government's motives and wonder whether the government is really trying to just break open a model that is working so that there is more custom available to the blanks—to be blunt. That seems to be what the government is doing.

As I say, this question of superannuation is something that we as the Greens come to with an open mind and without perhaps the same kinds of vested interests or allegiances that others in this place might have, and yet there has not been a strong case made to us to seek our votes to support this legislation. So, for the reasons that I have just outlined, it is not a bill that we will be able to support here or in the Senate.

There is ample opportunity in this place for us to have a sensible debate about superannuation and to go back to basics and say, as I said at the start, 'Is this system doing what it was designed to do?' I am hopeful that perhaps a change of leadership in the government will open up space for some more sensible debate about that, because I think it is a debate that people are prepared to have. I know the last leadership said that superannuation tax concessions were off the table. They said: 'We're not going to touch them. We're happy to talk about making you pay more to go and see the doctor, but we're not happy to talk about getting rid of super tax breaks for the very wealthy. We're quite happy for those still to be used by some very rich people at the end of their life as, essentially, a tax haven and a way of washing money through it. But we won't talk about that.' Well, I hope that the government does talk about that, because, if the governments puts those things back on the table, then maybe there will not be the suspicion about motivation.

But, at the moment, in the absence of any case being made out, and when you compare what the government is doing here with the complete lack of action about financial planners and the response today to the financial systems inquiry—where, again, the big banks and their financial-planning model are just being given a small pat on the head and being told, 'Look, you might have done something wrong in the past, but, as long as you do a bit more education, it will all be all right'—you do wonder whether this government has at its core the interests of consumers and people who are trying to save or simply the interests of the banks. On the available evidence, you would have to think it is the latter, and, for that reason, we will not be supporting the bill.

See this speech in context