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

To the matter on the Notice Paper: the reasons I've said are why members of parliament are entitled to be suspicious about the motion and the way it's made its way to this House. We can separate the motivations from the substance of the motion. This is what the member for Fadden knows. He is trying to make a big deal about the fact that this is somehow a set of regulations designed to flush out donations. This is what the member for Fadden knows full well. He knows full well that donations are unlawful. They are unlawful for two reasons. The first is that superannuation trustees have an obligation to ensure that every dollar contributed by members to that fund is used for the sole purpose of the members of that fund. He also knows full well that every expenditure in the fund has to be expended in the best financial interests of those members. He knows full well that donations are unlawful, but time and time and time again in his address just now he used the word 'donation' to attempt to confuse members in this place that that is what this is about. He knows full well that it is not true.

There is a second reason why this motion comes through and why it should be rejected: there is absolutely no evidence that funds are being given for the purpose of political donation. I have asked the regulators time and time and time again, 'Is there any evidence of political donations here?' And time and time and time again the regulators say, 'We have found no evidence.' They've said that on the record; they've said that before Senate estimates. I will ask them regularly, time and time again, 'Is there any evidence of donations?' No, there is not. I want to know, because I would have the same concerns as the member for Curtin and any other member in this House if payments were being made from a superannuation fund for this purpose. That would be an improper purpose. It would not fit the sole-purpose test and it would not be in the best financial interest of the members. Donations are unlawful, and there is no evidence they are occurring. That is not from me; that is from the regulator, who has pored over this—sometimes at the instruction of members of the coalition—for many years and found no evidence.

Let's go to the issue of transparency. I agree with every word the member for Curtin said on the issue of transparency. If we are to believe the member for Fadden and his motivation—that fund members deserve more transparency and should have an accurate record of how their funds are expending that money and how their funds perform—I agree with that as well. In fact, when this brouhaha came up, I went back to the department, went back to the regulators, and said: 'Let's have a look at the lot of it. How is reporting going on between superannuation funds and their members? How is reporting and the collection of data going on with the regulators? And how does the annual member meeting notice relate to those other three levels of reporting?'

I found some gaps. There were gaps in the reporting. There was no legal requirement on registered superannuation entities to publish an annual report. I moved legislation in this House to ensure that that requirement is now a matter of law. In fact, Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 will require every registered superannuation entity to prepare and lodge an annual financial report. It will also provide the government of the day with the capacity to make regulations stipulating the particularities of that annual report, because if something is worth reporting on it probably should be reported in the annual report. It just make sense. If something is worth declaring and reporting to members, it should be reported in the annual report, because that is the primary document which is the means of accountability between the fund and its members. There'll be a new requirement that didn't exist when the original regulations that the shadow minister wants to restore were made. It didn't exist when I made an alteration to those regulations. It will exist as a result of the new Treasury laws amendment bill and the consequential obligations that will come into place as a result of that.

In addition to that, I listened to the argument that was made by the member for Fadden, the crossbenchers, the Greens and others about the fact that the report does not actually provide members with the capacity to compare what their fund is doing and the expenditures that their fund might be making with other funds. As the member for Curtin said in her contribution, members may be paying $3000 or $4000 a year in administration and investment funds. That sounds like a lot of money. How does that compare with every other fund? How do I, as a member, know whether I'm paying more or less than the industry average? The way to do that is to ensure that we have a transparency report which is based on data collected from every fund within the sector. Every registered superannuation entity is required to provide data to the regulator on fees, performance and, in addition to that, political donations—it'll come up with a big fat zero, and the member for Fadden knows that—and any other payment made to related party, such as a marketing payment or an education payment. In fact, I made it specifically clear that every item that was included in the previous annual member meeting notice is going to be reported in the annual transparency statement, and more.

What is special about doing it through the regulator is that it has an annual and central point of truth. It is available not just to the members of a particular fund so that they can compare their bond with every other fund; it is available to every journalist, every analyst and every politician in the country. They can pore over it. They can look at it. We will have a single point of truth so that we won't have these spurious arguments year after year and allegations that are untested and, frankly, untrue about how members' superannuation funds are being expended.

Here's something that I want members in this place to know: if funds are being expended in a way that is not for the sole purpose of the members of that fund or does not meet the best financial interest test, not only will the regulator be all over it but I, as the minister, will want to know, the Treasurer, as the responsible portfolio minister, will want to know. In fact, every member of the government and I'm sure every right-thinking member of this place will want to know, and they will have that information, because it'll be published in a single point of truth that is able to be analysed and is available to everyone.

As a consequence of this, though, it will not add one iota of additional transparency. It will add more red tape and more confusion but not one iota of transparency.

See this speech in context