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

Transparency is important when it comes to superannuation. I draw the House's attention to an exhibit that that went to the Hayne royal commission: a KPMG review of payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations. I am referring to a public document that was tabled and used and is publicly available. The executive summary says that Cbus members' interests are represented by the ACTU, the CFMEU, the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union, the AMWU and the Master Builders Association. It says, 'The sponsoring payments made by Cbus are governed by Cbus policies and the benefit obtained is recognised as retention of funds.

Here you have Cbus making payments to five sponsoring organisations, no others, just these five—the five who set the fund up. The report goes on to say that these funds are to be paid when an invoice is received. No other sponsorship is reported; just sponsorship to these funds. Page 2 has the payments: $1.3 million in 2010; $1.5 million in 2012—from Cbus, members money, in sponsorship payments to these union movements; in 2013 it doubles almost to $2.7 million; and drops back down to $1.8 million in 2014.

Why would sponsorship payments by a large superannuation fund using members money go to the union movement in 2013? What possibly happened in that year? Oh, I know: an election. Here you have sponsorship payments that must be paid on the receipt of an invoice—this is in a KPMG audit report that was tabled during the Hayne royal commission. These are sponsorship payments from members money must be paid to these union movements upon receipt of an invoice for sponsorship—no other payments outside of these four or five organisations—and they double in an election year. It's this sort of transparency that the Assistant Treasurer and this government thought was the most important act as the first part of Treasury. Clearly, they went through the Attorney-General's office, and the Attorney-General would have signed off on it. It would have gone through cabinet. Cabinet would have signed off on it. They have decided the very first act of Treasury in the government was to water down transparency of how members' money is spent.

The previous government didn't seek to strike out these cosy arrangements or these deals that double during election years—who would have thought? It simply was about being transparent—to actually produce the details, come forward and say, 'Here's what the expenditure is.'

The Assistant Treasurer just said then that this shouldn't be in annual member meetings notices; it should be in annual reports. Done deal, Assistant Treasurer! We'll accept that. Why don't we do a deal, as the Assistant Treasurer has just said, and have this detail line by line in the annual reports rather than annual member meetings? Accepted! Let us, together as a parliament, resolve to do exactly what the Assistant Treasurer said, because that will restore transparency and disclosure. Deal, Assistant Treasurer! Terms accepted! Let's put the breakdown of all this expenditure into the annual reports so that transparency is indeed maintained.

See this speech in context