Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against this motion. I will reflect on some of the arguments raised by the minister previously in this debate. I want to start with a bit of context. As the minister said when he rose to speak, this is not a debate where we want to descend into overfocusing on the motives of people on different sides and what might be underlying the position that they take, but the context is important.

This is the start of my second term. I've had a bit under four years in this place, less than many people who will be contributing to this debate. Even in that time, I feel as though I've experienced enough debates and enough public forums in which superannuation has been discussed that the kinds of arguments being raised—and, I might say, particularly by those opposite—are part of a broader agenda. It's when you look at them in that context that the veracity of those arguments becomes clearer, the meritoriousness of those arguments becomes clearer and, I might say, the lack of merit of the arguments becomes clearer.

The context is this: when we look at superannuation, there are a range of first order issues that we debate in this place routinely that are key underpinnings of the sector. For example, performance and sufficiency are two of the absolutely key underpinning aspects of the system. Performance by funds: How much are they returning to members? What are their risk-adjusted returns on a long-term basis adjusted for fees? What is the sufficiency of what members will receive in the long run to support them in dignity in retirement? They are absolutely key indicators of whether the system is working. Transparency is also important.

The reason I raise performance and sufficiency is that, in my time in this chamber—in the previous term, in this term and in my time on a number of committees, particularly the House Economics Committee—we've spent an inordinate amount of time asking, I might say, not the entire superannuation sector in a uniform way but some parts of the superannuation sector disproportionately: 'Did you spend money on tickets to the tennis? Did you spend money on this or that aspect of marketing? How much money did you spend on directors' fees to union representatives, where there might be working representatives on boards of directors?' It was interesting that we didn't spend nearly as much time looking at things like the long-run risk-adjusted rates of return to members and their performance. We didn't spend anywhere near as much time talking about sufficiency.

We spent an incredible amount of time talking about assertions about the fact that some super funds spent money on marketing. It was interesting to me that there was no evidence put forward that super funds were spending more on marketing than, for example, other parts of the financial services sector. It's absolutely clear that banks, insurance companies, all sorts of major companies in the financial services sector that need to build connections with new customers and maintain an awareness with existing customers, spend money on marketing of various types. What struck me is that those opposite routinely spend an inordinate amount of time attacking any kind of marketing, again, from a particular part of the superannuation industry. That is, I think, a very important piece of context, because when those opposite come to this debate, I do query, at times, whether they're looking at this from a serious policy perspective. More often than not, they seem to be drilling down—and often with a lot of hyperbole and huffing and puffing—on particular aspects of a sensationalistic view of the industry, without ever wanting to get to what I see as the really important long-term prospects of members. And, I might say that the funds that were dragged in front of committees I was on, in the last term, were quite often the funds that hadn't been found in the royal commission to have behaved badly. They'd had the best performance and were providing for the best efficiency, yet we ended up asking them question after question after question on issues that, frankly, didn't at all deal with, or relate to, these issues. As the minister indicated, all too often, in this debate, the word 'donation' slips in. Perhaps those opposite haven't used it in this debate here today; I'll go back and look at the Hansard. But all too often, the word 'donation' is used in a way that is very sloppy and imputes all kinds of relationships in ways that I think aren't appropriate.

Those opposite say that more transparency is always better. I think everybody in this place would agree transparency is important. As I said, performance is important, sufficiency is important and transparency is important, but, frankly, it's not just with super but with all complex products. I've got the most experience with products in the financial services space, but it's not just in financial services; it's right across the gamut of consumer products. But, particularly in financial services, one has to balance drowning people in reams of data—in different contexts—in ways that don't necessarily add to their understanding of the product or the situation that they're facing.

Those opposite say it's absolutely critical that we have nth degree order detail when it comes to all aspects of promotion, marketing and sponsorship—when, as I say, they've dealt with those issues, in my opinion, in a very sensationalistic way in the past. I query the extent to which putting that in the AMM is going to add to members' understanding. I'd much rather we focus on giving members a much better understanding of measures such as their risk-adjusted returns net of all fees and all costs. That, to me, is actually a much more important bottom line. And, to me, if we're really going to discuss this in a serious way in this chamber, we should be moving towards a system where members have a much clearer understanding of that, rather than trying to use this as way to attack this or that fund because, perhaps, they spent a bit of money on this or that marketing, when it's clear that marketing is something that's used right across the sector.

As the minister indicated, there are going to be all sorts of reams of data submitted through annual reports, transparency statements and other measures, and that reporting will be done publicly. That is a very important step forward, and I think the minister is right in saying that there is a balance to be achieved here.

The final thing I'll say is that I also find it a bit ironic that those opposite come into this place and huff and puff so sanctimoniously around superannuation, when they've, basically, over the last 20 years, opposed almost every single increase in the guarantee. When it comes to their relationship with all the fundamentals of super—with what kinds of returns it will provide and what kind of retirement nest egg it will provide the average worker—those opposite really don't have a leg to stand on. And I think those opposite also come into this place from a position of real weakness on fundamentals when they try to undermine another foundation of the system, which is preservation. Last term, we saw the ATO approve 4.55 million applications for over three million people, totalling over $37 billion in early release, and who did this affect? This affected the young, it affected women and it affected some of the most vulnerable people. How many people, how many tens of thousands of people, went to zero balances or less-than-a-thousand-dollars balances?

Those opposite continued with policies which use this kind of simplistic, highly misrepresentative approach to superannuation in their last budget reply. Those opposite come in here constantly looking at sensationalistic approaches to superannuation, frankly. I do query their motives when I don't see them coming in here with sensible, detailed approaches to what I see as the key pillars of this system, which, as I've said before, are performance, sufficiency and preservation. Those opposite are nowhere to be seen on those.

I think that we do have solid measures when it comes to transparency. We have all sorts of measures in the regulatory arrangements, we have the best financial interests and, as the minister said, it's a solid arrangement.

See this speech in context