Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I'm always amused by the Assistant Treasurer's marvellous turns of phrase. The House is very clear what the bill is seeking to do. The minister of course can't explain what secondary test APRA will do. If you fail the primary test, APRA will then devise some secondary test in line with whatever your investment mandate is. But let's understand exactly what products and sets faith based super may not want to invest in. Apparently, the Assistant Treasurer thinks that they won't want to invest in Woolies. I don't know what the government has got against Woolies—apart from a budget that passed two nights ago that does nothing for the cost of living that hurt their share price; apart from that, I don't know what you've got against Woolies.

But, in APRA's view, there's about two per cent of stocks on the ASX that wouldn't be invested in from faith based supers. Considering a super fund has about 15 per cent in domestic equities, that means: 85 per cent elsewhere. So, in terms of the total fund balance, there's about 0.5 per cent of products that that total fund couldn't invest in, and for 0.5, we should junk the benchmark designed to protect Australians—because of a measly 0.5. It doesn't stack up; it doesn't hold water. Every Australian should be assured that their fund is doing the very best they can. The benchmarks are the mere bottom of what you could possibly invest in. They set the lowest possible balance necessary. Every fund should be able to deal with it, and, if only 0.5 per cent of your total investment mandate is ineligible because of your faith base, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be meeting the benchmark.

See this speech in context