Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I move, as an amendment to the motion moved by the minister:

(1) Omit subparagraphs (2)(a) and (b);

(2) Omit paragraph (3); and

(3) Insert new subparagraph (2)(a) as follows:

"that the question on the disallowance motion not be put until such time as every Member wishing to speak on the question has spoken as provided for by the standing orders".

In speaking to the motion that the Leader of the House has just moved and to my amendments, can I start by issuing the normal public safety warning that I issue in these debates, which is that, whenever the Leader of the House comes into this place and adopts his most reasonable tone, those who are minded to be sceptical ought to be put on notice. In the words of that great American president, trust but verify. That's a very good principle in international relations. It's also a very good principle when dealing with the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House sought to give the impression to the House that there were two matters of urgency that had equal weight when it came to their importance and that it was urgent that the two matters be dealt with quickly. Therefore, in a wholly reasonable way, he was putting forward this motion that would allow the House to deal with its urgent business.

Let me start by saying that the opposition certainly accepts the proposition that there is absolutely a degree of urgency in relation to the question of the designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing centre. Let's be clear about why there is urgency. It is because this government has absolutely and hopelessly dropped the ball on a matter which is of considerable importance to our national security. The relevant opposition spokespeople, including the shadow minister for home affairs, will address this when the matter comes to be dealt with substantively, but I make the point that the opposition accepts that there is a need to deal with this urgently. It's highly regrettable that the government has managed this so poorly as to create this urgency, but as the shadow minister for home affairs will explain, we accept that this matter needs to be dealt with urgently.

Let me turn to the second matter, which the Leader of the House has sought to bundle with the first matter, trying to adopt, perhaps, some of the approaches we see, for example, in the US Senate or House of Representatives, where completely unrelated matters are bundled up in an attempt to achieve political objectives. Very clearly, the government has an absolutely explicit political objective here, which is that it wants to have as little discussion as possible about the fact that it is trying to kill off transparency and scrutiny of the way that superannuation funds deal with their members' money. The shadow Assistant Treasurer removed a disallowance motion some time ago in relation to regulations that had been made by the government the effect of which would be to relieve superannuation funds of an obligation they had under the law as it stood under the previous government under provisions that we introduced and were proud to introduce because of the important policy objective to which they gave effect. That objective is that members of superannuation funds and the broader community are entitled to know if superannuation funds are making political donations and making donations to unions. Regrettably, this is an activity which many industry funds engage in very enthusiastically. The money trail, the paper trail, has been well documented. Of course, the Albanese Labor government is very keen to avoid scrutiny of what is an extremely touchy issue for it. The simple fact is that superannuation funds are set up for a specific purpose, which is to manage the money of their members, money which, it must be remembered, members are required by force of law to provide to a superannuation fund. The job of trustees is to manage that money to provide for the retirement incomes of those members. It is not to take a portion of that money and to donate it for political reasons to a union or to the Labor Party or to engage in other kinds of exotic activities.

That is the reason the previous government put in place disclosure obligations and requirements in relation to superannuation funds, including industry superannuation funds. Disclosure—transparency—is something we are told repeatedly that this government is very committed to. When it comes to superannuation funds, when it comes to anything to do with industrial arrangements, they are very keen to avoid transparency and scrutiny. So they don't like this disallowance motion that was moved by the shadow Assistant Treasurer.

We've seen a series of efforts by the Assistant Treasurer—himself a former union secretary, something that could be put into the biographies of half the people on the other side of the House—who is jumping to the tune of his union masters and very keen to avoid scrutiny. He gave a series of increasingly threadbare and ludicrous reasons as to why he feels that this scrutiny isn't necessary. Well, on this side of the House, we're not having it. Nor are we having this attempt by the Leader of the House to suggest that this is an issue of public policy importance that must be dealt with urgently in the same way as correcting the mess they've made in relation to the national security issues in relation to Nauru.

What the Leader of the House has sought to do with the motion that is on the Notice Paper is to provide that there should be a time-limited debate on the disallowance of these regulations made by the Assistant Treasurer that would have the impact of protecting superannuation funds and trustees from the highly desirable scrutiny, visibility and transparency required under the laws as passed by the previous government. This government has very little desire for this matter to be ventilated. They don't want the sunlight here at all. They want this all done in darkened backrooms. They want to get rid of a law that they see as inconvenient and that reveals truths they don't want to have revealed. And they're using every possible parliamentary tactic to seek to achieve that aim, including the Leader of the House's 'oh so reasonable' suggestion that this is a matter of urgency that needs to be dealt with quickly and that he's attempting to be facilitative et cetera.

Let's be clear: this is nothing more than an attempt to cover up a special deal the Labor government is seeking to do for its union masters. The appropriate role of the parliament is precisely to subject these kinds of deals to appropriate and proper scrutiny and transparency, and that is the effect of the amendment the opposition has moved. We have no objection to having this debate. We're delighted to have this debate. We simply say, let this debate occur according to the normal rules, the normal standing orders of this place, and any member who wishes to contribute on this matter ought to have the opportunity to contribute at length.

There are a lot of facts that need to be shared about the extent to which union-appointed trustees of superannuation funds are engaging in consistent efforts to divert the money that rightfully belongs to members, that rightfully is there to provide for their retirement. But we see, regrettably, this pattern of particularly union-appointed trustees of superannuation funds enthusiastically wanting to divert that money for a range of political purposes. It is a very serious issue. It is something that, on this side of the House, we have consistently objected to, and it needs the full sunlight of transparency. That is what, in a grubby fashion, this government is trying to avoid. The amendment we are proposing would allow the full sunlight of transparency—a debate on this matter that is not constrained by an artificial time limit.

See this speech in context