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

I move:

That the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members ' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022 made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 on 1 September 2022 and pres ented to the House on 5 September 2022, be disallowed.

The coalition is moving this disallowance because of the egregious attack on transparency from the government when it was removed. It was removed without a mandate. New transparency requirements, which would show Australians just how their retirement savings are being spent, were removed as the very first act of this government's Treasury. The first act of Treasury is generally the most important thing the new government does. The first act of Treasury of this new government was to water down transparency about how superannuation funds spend members' money. It was not taken to an election and it was not presented to the Australian people.

The Albanese Labor government reversed the requirements for super funds to disclose how they spend members' funds on sponsorships and payments—no line items, no transparency and no accountability on tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars of payments of members' money. These payments from super are for things such as multimillion-dollar football sponsorships, corporate boxes and stadium sponsorships. Tens of millions of dollars go to foundation unions for sponsorship, picnics, kickbacks and lobbying.

Australians, frankly, deserve to know how their retirement savings are being spent. Surely if members' funds are being spent then members should see what it is being spent on. The changes go against the Productivity Commission and they go against APRA's requirements.

If we want to have a serious conversation about transparency for a $3 trillion industry, it should not start with supporting the winding back of transparency measures that are designed to let the sunlight in. All members elected on a platform of integrity, I suggest, must support the disallowance because integrity matters, especially when it comes to members' superannuation.

The reforms were put in by the previous coalition government to increase transparency and accountability. They strengthened obligations to ensure that trustees only act in the best financial interests of members, and must provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money—in advance of annual members' meetings and through enhanced portfolio holding disclosures.

Unbeknownst to everyone before the election, the new Labor government wanted to dismantle some of these fundamental transparency and accountability reforms for super. In fact, as I said, it was the very first act of the Albanese Labor government's Treasury—not cost of living, not workforce challenges and not helping Australians deal with ever-increasing electricity prices. No, staggeringly, the very first act was watering down transparency so ordinary Australians could not see how their money is being spent.

There are elements of the super industry that don't support the watering down of this transparency. In fact all the super funds I have spoken with had no problems meeting the previous requirements. They'd already prepared annual member meeting notices that would have delivered the transparency to members. I found dealing with industry and for-profit super funds productive and, indeed, it's been a pleasure to work with them. None of them wanted to hide the transparency. All of the super funds I spoke to were more than happy to provide whatever information was required by law to their members. In that regard, the super funds should be commended.

It was only the Labor government that wanted to hide expenditure. All this from a Prime Minister who campaigned on accountability and integrity. The question has to be asked: why? Why has Labor done it? Why is this the first priority of Treasury? A start could be found in reports that the Australian Financial Review reported on—based on FOIs, so information that they had to ask to get—that report a total of $85.5 million in non-donation, non-gift payments by 51 super funds to political parties, namely the Labor Party, and associates, namely unions, over the past five years. Let me say that again: $85.5 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 super funds to the Labor Party and the union movement. That is what is trying to be hidden.

Hayne royal commission exhibit 5.368, the KPMG audit into payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations, is illuminating. I've got exhibit 5.368 in my hand. It goes through the payments from industry super funds to their sponsoring or founding unions. It outlines what those payments are and, secondly, it outlines that the payments double in an election year. Who would have thought? I'm looking at the KPMG report, page 2. In financial year 2010, there was a $1.3 million payment from Cbus through to its sponsoring unions; in financial year 2011, $1.5 million; in financial year 2012, $1.52 million; in financial year 2013, $2.708 million; and in financial year 2014, back to $1.8 million. Why would payments—these are non-donation, non-gift payments—double in an election year? The answer is quite simple: so the union movement can provide the money to the Labor Party to campaign. It's quite simple. It's not hard.

The issue is that it's members' money. Members should see where it's spent and, if it's not going to their retirement, when and how it's spent. The legislation and regulations that Labor overturned never sought to stop this expenditure. At no point did the previous coalition government say to industry super funds or other superannuation funds: 'You can't sponsor or support organisations.' It was simply asking them to be transparent to their members, in the same way we ask all major entities to be transparent. After an election fought on transparency, you'd expect that these regulations would have stayed in place, and I expect that the parliament will support this move to disallow what Labor has done, enshrining transparency into law so that a hapless minister acting on the whim of his union colleagues can't change it again.

We should always be striving for the very best when it comes to Australians' hard-earned money. This is money that is compulsorily taken from their pay and put aside so it grows to pay for their retirement. There is a key word here, and that is 'compulsorily'. Australians, by law, if they are working, have to put some of their money aside for the future. This is a good thing, something I think we all support in this place—a compulsory saving by ordinary Australians that has seen the growth of the super industry to over $3.4 trillion. That is a great national asset for members—not for government, not for founding union officials, but for individual Australians.

The initial intent of super was to take the financial pressure off the government, or off taxpayers, by ensuring Australians could pay, or partially pay, their way through retirement with their own money. Remember that. It's their money, which is compulsorily set aside. That is compulsory and it will remain compulsory under a future coalition government. There are no plans to change that. But we'll always strive to have the best systems that deliver the best outcomes for ordinary Australians and their money.

There are three key principles the coalition will adhere to when it comes to super. Firstly, it is members' money. Secondly, performance of those funds matters. Thirdly, there should be transparency and integrity in how those funds report on matters. These principles are the bedrock of what we believe delivers the best possible super system. The previous coalition government delivered some significant reforms to super in our last two terms of government, all built on these principles. The Your Future, Your Super reforms were some of the most significant in the last decade. They were certainly the most significant reforms since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992. The reforms ensure super works in the best interests of all Australians by removing unnecessary waste, increasing accountability and transparency and providing more flexibility for families and individuals.

There is no mandate for changes to the regulations as this minister has done. There is no mandate for any changes to super because no mandate was sought at an election. There was no policy position taken to the last election that watered down transparency, that increased taxation, that capped super, that lowered division 293, that changed transfer balance caps. None of that was taken to an election. Therefore none of those changes should be made, because the government has no mandate for that. I look forward to the parliament supporting the winding-back of what this minister has done to lessen transparency in this place.

See this speech in context