Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

My contribution will be short. Quite simply, if schedule 2 of this bill were to have the effect that the member for Melbourne said it will, I would be advocating for the Labor Party not to support it and to support the amendment put by the member for Melbourne, but it does not. There's nothing in this bill which will prevent disclosure of the fact of a holding of the Future Fund by simple observation, by a question at question time, by a Senate estimates question or by any other form in this place. Whether it holds an interest in Adani Ports, whether it holds an interest in Telstra, whether it holds an interest in any other corporation, or whether it holds any other financial interest, nothing in the bill will prevent the disclosure in this place or anywhere else of the fact of a holding. What it will do is prevent the disclosure of certain commercially sensitive information.

Let me explain why this is important. The Future Fund does not just buy interests in other commercial entities and other investments; it sells them as well. Like every other investment fund in the country, it doesn't just buy them; it sells them as well. If you are a counterparty to a transaction with a government body and you want to get inside information on the value of a particular holding that you're interested in purchasing, you could engage a commercial investment adviser to kick the tyres on that particular investment and do all sorts of normal processes that you might do in a non-transaction due diligence process, or you could, under the existing laws, conduct a freedom of information request, which could disclose a whole range of commercially sensitive and prejudicial information to the vendor of an asset on the sell-side transaction.

It is for this reason that we did not support a proposition put by the government which would have applied to every private sector registered superannuation fund in the country, except themselves, in what was known as the portfolio disclosure holding proposition, which was intended by the government to be introduced by way of regulation. We did not support that and we said to the government, 'We will not support this proposition if you're going to have one law for yourself but another law for every registered superannuation entity in the country.' We actually happen to support the proposition contained within the current bill before the House, which is perfectly commercial. We had big questions as to why they would try and treat every other private sector superannuation entity differently to the way they are proposing to treat themselves.

That is the background to the Labor Party's position on this bill. The government changing its wrongheaded position on the portfolio holding disclosure proposition and bringing it into line with what will now apply to the Future Fund is the reason we are willing to support this proposition for the bill. So I stress again: if the effect of schedule 2 in this bill were as outlined by the member for Melbourne, we would not be supporting it, but it isn't. Nothing within this bill will prevent disclosure of the fact of the holding or an investment by the Future Fund or any of its associated entities, but it will prevent a counterparty in a commercial transaction using freedom-of-association laws to get an advantage over what is essentially the Australian taxpayer in a transaction which involves the sale of an asset held by the Future Fund. That is why we will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne.

See this speech in context