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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 presented in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.

(3) Schedule 5, page 14 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), omit the Schedule.

There are only two groups of amendments the opposition will move, this being the first set. Amendments (1) and (3) effectively excise schedule 5 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. That is the measure that allows faith based super funds to not have to meet the requirements of the benchmark that was put in place under the Your Future, Your Super legislative changes. We do that quite soberly. If we look through at the benchmark requirements that this parliament passed, it requires super funds to meet basic benchmarks of performance. If they do not, then of course they are named and they will need to inform their members that their fund is not performing to those benchmarks. If they fail a second time they are no longer able to receive contributions that are mandatory and therefore they can't be a MySuper regulated fund. This has already occurred once. Thirteen funds failed, and they all quite rightly sought to merge with other funds. Quite recently five other funds have also been named for underperformance.

It's not as if these benchmarks are onerous. In terms of Australian listed equities, the average large-scale fund will have about 15 per cent listed equities. The benchmark simply requires the super fund to meet, ostensibly, the Standard and Poor's 200 index. So if you took your money and put it into an index fund, which is a fund that just invests across the top 200 companies in Australia at the same percentages to which they are represented in the stock market and do nothing else—no active trading, nothing—that's the benchmark. It is the laziest benchmark of all if in terms of bond trading you can't meet a Bloomberg index. So they go. It's designed to ensure that your super funds aren't being ill managed or fees aren't high. The 13 funds that were named—shamed, if you like—and folded, some of them were appalling. The MUA fund was just outrageous in terms of what was going on. Quite rightly, members' money, Australians' money, is being protected by ensuring these benchmarks make these funds accountable, because super is the second-largest asset outside of Australians' homes. It's the asset that no-one pays attention to, yet it's the asset where rivers of gold flow to it under superannuation guarantee payments. Therefore setting a benchmark is appropriate. The government made an election commitment saying, 'If you're a faith-based super fund, you don't have to meet those benchmarks, because you're investing along your faith principles.' The bill says, 'If you don't meet the benchmark, we'll create another benchmark for you.'

So I sat down with APRA and said, 'If you were a faith based organisation, what percentage of the Australian stock market would you not invest in, because as a faith community you may not want to invest in munitions or alcohol or cigarettes?' The answer is two per cent. So there's two per cent of the market you ostensibly can't invest in, but suddenly that two per cent means you don't have to meet the benchmark. What the government is putting forward is saying to faith based communities: 'If you're in a faith based fund, you don't have to have as great a retirement as any other Australian, because we're going to give a leave pass to that faith based fund.' They're not going to have to meet a benchmark. 'We'll create something else for them.' APRA will create some other benchmark for them, based on what their investment strategy is.

What we're saying is that every Australian should be treated equally. Every single Australian should have the same right to a dignified retirement, and every super fund should be held to account in the same way. That is why we are moving to strike out schedule 5 to this bill—so that every Australian is treated the same way, every Australian Super fund is treated the same way, everyone can expect a dignified retirement in the same way and no-one gets a leave pass. Whether you're a person of faith, whether you believe in ESG or any other principle, the bottom line is that retirement is important, a dignified retirement is important and everyone should have the same ability to receive that.

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

Let me just explain to members of the House the proposition that is being put by the government, because it's important. It bears no resemblance to the characterisation that was just given to the House by the member for Fadden. What is most disappointing about what he said is that he knows full well that what he just told the House was not true. He knows full well that he just misled the House. So let me explain quite clearly what the government proposition—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fadden on a point of order?

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

The minister doesn't get to make an unsubstantiated allegation of that seriousness.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will state the point of order.

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

There are other forms of the House for the minister to do that.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has the call.

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

Let me explain what the government is proposing to do and why the member for Fadden has just misled the House. There are fewer than five faith based funds in the country, and they are set up with a specific investment mandate. They say, 'If you join our fund, you can be assured that your funds are going to be invested in accordance with your religious and your faith based precepts.' Just putting the word 'Catholic' in your name does not make you a faith-based investment fund. Just putting the word 'Presbyterian' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. Putting the word 'Anglican' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. What makes you a faith-based investment fund is if your investment mandate specifically says, 'We are going to invest members' money in accordance with our faith based principles.'

Let me give you an example. If you are a member of a faith that prohibits participation in gambling or if you are a member of a faith that prohibits participation in usury—lending for an interest rate—then it is almost impossible for you to invest your funds in accordance with the principles that were just outlined by the member for Fadden, because if you invest your fund either directly or in an exchange traded fund, which is leveraged off the ASX 200, you're investing in Woolworths, NAB, the Commonwealth Bank, Coles and AHL holdings. You're invested in all of these—

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

What's wrong with Woolies? What have you got against Woolies?

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

I love Woolies. The member for Fadden asked me what I've got against Woolies. Absolutely nothing. But I'm not—

Well, if he would be quiet for just a moment, he might understand why he has just misled the House. And thickness makes a lot of noise, in the case of the member for Fadden.

Let me explain it to you. If someone is a member of one of these religions that prohibits them participating in gambling, why should we be saying to them: 'We are going to deregister your fund unless it performs in accordance with an index which assumes you invest in a gambling business, or you invest in a banking business or invest in one of these businesses which is specifically operating against the religious precepts of that community'? Now, I don't happen to hold those views; I don't happen to find those activities offensive. But I do understand that there are many members who represent communities where they do hold those principles, and they want to ensure that their life savings, their superannuation savings, are invested in accordance with those principles. I've mentioned the example of gambling. I've mentioned the example of banking. There are others.

What the member for Fadden has done is specifically mislead the House. Let me explain to the House—and the member for Fadden, who clearly doesn't understand it—how the new test will work. A faith based fund will be measured in accordance with every other fund in the country, and they can't just stick their hand up halfway through the process and say, 'By the way, we're a faith based fund.' They have to have declared, in their investment mandate, way before the measurement period, that that is indeed what they are and they are investing their money in accordance with a religious principle. If they are run through the annual performance test and they fail it, APRA will then run a second test, which will ask a very simple question: but for this fund investing its money in accordance with those religious principles— (Time expired)

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

I'm always amused by the Assistant Treasurer's marvellous turns of phrase. The House is very clear what the bill is seeking to do. The minister of course can't explain what secondary test APRA will do. If you fail the primary test, APRA will then devise some secondary test in line with whatever your investment mandate is. But let's understand exactly what products and sets faith based super may not want to invest in. Apparently, the Assistant Treasurer thinks that they won't want to invest in Woolies. I don't know what the government has got against Woolies—apart from a budget that passed two nights ago that does nothing for the cost of living that hurt their share price; apart from that, I don't know what you've got against Woolies.

But, in APRA's view, there's about two per cent of stocks on the ASX that wouldn't be invested in from faith based supers. Considering a super fund has about 15 per cent in domestic equities, that means: 85 per cent elsewhere. So, in terms of the total fund balance, there's about 0.5 per cent of products that that total fund couldn't invest in, and for 0.5, we should junk the benchmark designed to protect Australians—because of a measly 0.5. It doesn't stack up; it doesn't hold water. Every Australian should be assured that their fund is doing the very best they can. The benchmarks are the mere bottom of what you could possibly invest in. They set the lowest possible balance necessary. Every fund should be able to deal with it, and, if only 0.5 per cent of your total investment mandate is ineligible because of your faith base, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be meeting the benchmark.

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

Let me explain how the benchmark, the secondary test, will work. If you fail the first benchmark, APRA will then conduct a very narrow, specific second test, which will ask the question: but for you investing your funds in accordance with a faith based principle, would you have failed the test? And, if the answer to that is, yes, you would've failed anyway, you're out—that is, if the faith based investment principles made no material difference to the performance outcomes of that fund, then you're still out; you have still imposed upon your fund all the rigours of the failure of that test that would apply to any other fund in the country.

If, on the other hand, the independent regulator determines, after assessing that fund, that, but for the investment in accordance with their faith based principles, the fund would have passed the test, you will not be closed down. Who are we, as a parliament, to say to those members who say, 'I want to invest in accordance with my Islamic faith,' or 'I want to invest in accordance with my Christian faith'—let's name them here, because, quite frankly, these are the two great faith groups; it will be the Islamic faith or it will be the Christian faith. Who are we to say, as a parliament, to those thousands of Australians: 'You are not entitled to have a fund available to you which will allow you to invest in accordance with your religious principles'? Understand: that is exactly what the member for Fadden is arguing.

Let's assume for a moment that the member for Fadden is right, and the test will have almost no bearing on those funds. Then you have to ask yourself: what is his problem in allowing members of a faith based community to invest their superannuation in a faith based fund? If his argument is correct, this will have no bearing on the ultimate performance outcome. What is your objection? It is nothing but politics. The thing that bells the cat on this is that the same member, when he was sitting on this side of the House, apparently thought it was more important to give a school the right to dismiss a child on the basis of their sex or gender or sexual preference, or a teacher or a principal on the basis of their sex or gender or sexual preference—they thought it was more important to enable a school to dismiss somebody on this basis—than to enable the teachers of that school or the members of that faith based community to invest their money in accordance with their faith. If we are truly to be a parliament which respects the principle of freedom of religion, surely it's got to extend beyond the schoolyard, surely it's got to extend into grown-up life as well. I put it to you that the argument by the member for Fadden is based on pure politics and is grounded in hypocrisy. All the members of this House should enable all the provisions of this bill to pass through unamended.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll speak to the amendments in a moment, but, just briefly: the government may want to go and check the record about the way that Labor voted when we moved to ensure that staff, as opposed to students, couldn't be discriminated against or sacked in faith based organisations, because it might not be exactly as has just been outlined by the Assistant Treasurer.

With respect to these amendments, with respect to schedule 5 and schedule 5 only, this matter is currently before a Senate inquiry. The Greens are reserving our position on schedule 5 until it gets to the Senate. Our reasoning is different to the opposition's. We do believe that there is a case, in principle, for looking at values based investment in superannuation. Indeed, you can see around the country at the moment that very, very many people want to do that, especially with respect to investment in fossil fuels, ethical investment and the like. We think that matter has not got the treatment and the understanding from the regulatory system that it deserves.

The reasons that the minister just outlined with respect to some funds could arguably apply to others as well. But schedule 5, as drafted, does not purport to address this question of values based investment more broadly. It does not purport to deal with those questions that I've raised and what might be the appropriate way of dealing with them. As such, we want to put the government on notice that it cannot rely on our support for schedule 5, as it's currently drafted, when this matter comes before the Senate. We take a different approach from the opposition, so there may be a different way through when it comes to the Senate. The opposition did not put us on notice that they would be moving these schedule 5 amendments separately today, so our position is to reserve our position until the matter comes before the Senate. It may well be that we move our own amendments with respect to schedule 5 in the Senate, given the way things are at the moment.

I just want the government to clearly understand that we cannot commit to supporting schedule 5 in its current form at the moment. We are open to seeing if that matter can be resolved before it comes to the Senate; I'm just putting that squarely on the government's radar. The matter is, as I understand it, before an inquiry, so we will wait and see the outcome of that inquiry.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments be disagreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (2) and (4) to Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 in my name:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(4) Page 19 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Annual members' meetings

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993

1 Paragraph 29P(3)(b)

After "the notice", insert "the information required by section 29PAA and".

2 Paragraphs 29P(3)(c) and (d)

Before "give the notice", substitute "subject to section 29PAB,".

3 After section 29P

Insert:

29PAA Information to be included with notice

(1) If, under section 29P, the RSE licensee of a registrable superannuation entity is required to give notice of an annual members' meeting for a year of income of the entity to a member of the entity, the following information must be included with the notice:

(a) a short-form summary containing the information set out in subsection (2), which must:

(i) fit on a single page and be the only information on that page; and

(ii) be the first page of the pages of information referred to in this section;

(b) a copy of each of the following:

(i) a summary of each significant event or material change notice (if any) given under section 1017B of the Corporations Act 2001 by a trustee of the entity to a member of the entity during the 2 year period finishing at the end of the year of income;

(ii) the remuneration details that, at the time the notice is given, are required to be made publicly available under subsection 29QB(1) of this Act in relation to the entity;

(iii) if the trustee or trustees of the entity produce an annual report for the entity for the year of income—that report;

(c) if a determination made under paragraph 52(9)(a) of this Act in relation to the entity is publicly available at the time the notice is given, or must be made publicly available before the meeting is held—a copy of the determination;

(d) a copy of each of the following:

(i) the most recent periodic statement (if any) given to the member under section 1017D of the Corporations Act 2001;

(ii) the most recent information (if any)given to the member under paragraph 1017DA(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001;

(e) for each contract (if any) under which one or more payments were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, where a purpose of each payment was promoting the entity, promoting a particular view on behalf of the entity or sponsorship on behalf of the entity:

(i) the sum of all such payments that have been or are to be made under the contract during any year of income;

(ii) the name of each entity to whom such payments have been or are to be made under the contract during any year of income and, for each such entity, the sum of all such payments that have been or are to be made to the entity under the contract during any year of income;

(iii) the term of the contract;

(f) if any gifts (within the meaning of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, to another entity who, at the time of receiving the gift:

(i) was a political entity (within the meaning of that Act); or

(ii) was, or was required by that Part of that Act to be, a significant third party (within the meaning of that Part); or

(iii) was, or was required by that Part of that Act to be, an associated entity (within the meaning of that Part);

an itemised list showing each such gift and the name of the entity to whom each gift was made;

(g) if any payments were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, to another entity who, at the time of receiving the payment, was an organisation (within the meaning of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009)—an itemised list showing each such payment and the name of the entity to whom each payment was made;

(h) if any payments were made, by the entity (the main entity) during the year of income, to any of the following:

(i) a connected entity of the RSE licensee of the main entity;

(ii) an associated entity of another entity (the third party) if the third party is a connected entity of the RSE licensee of the main entity;

(iii) an entity over whom the RSE licensee of the main entity has significant influence;

(iv) an entity who has significant influence over the RSE licensee of the main entity;

(v) an entity whose key management personnel include the RSE licensee, or an executive officer of the RSE licensee, of the main entity;

(vi) an associated entity of another entity (the third party), if the RSE licensee, or an executive officer of the RSE licensee, of the main entity is a member of the key management personnel of the third party;

an itemised list showing each such payment and the name of the entity to whom each payment was made.

Note 1: Information mentioned in subparagraphs (b)(i), (ii) and (iii) must be made publicly available on the entity's website (see subsection 29QB(1)).

Note 2: The determination mentioned in paragraph (c) is to be made publicly available on the entity's website within 28 days after the determination is made (see paragraphs 52(9)(b) and (c)).

(2) The short-form summary referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must set out the following:

(a) the sum of the remuneration referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), which is to be described as the aggregate remuneration expenditure relating to the entity for the year of income;

(b) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(e) that were made during the year of income (under all contracts referred to in that paragraph), which is to be described as the aggregate promotion, marketing or sponsorship expenditure relating to the entity for the year of income;

(c) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(f), which is to be described as the aggregate political donations relating to the entity for the year of income;

(d) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(g), which is to be described as the aggregate industrial body payments relating to the entity for the year of income;

(e) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(h), which is to be described as the aggregate related party payments relating to the entity for the year of income.

(3) Despite subsection (1), if any information (the extra information) referred to in paragraph (1)(b) to (h) required to be given to a member of the entity:

(a) is accessible by the member (including by being publicly available) at the time the notice of the annual members' meeting is given; or

(b) must be made so accessible before the meeting is held;

it is sufficient for the purposes of that paragraph if the information included with the notice includes details of how to access that extra information.

Note: The short-form summary referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must still be included.

(4) In this section:

associated entity has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

contract includes a deed.

key management personnel has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

29PAB How notice is to be given to members

If, under section 29P, the RSE licensee of a registrable superannuation entity is required to give notice of an annual members' meeting to the members of the entity, the RSE licensee must give the notice by:

(a) making the notice of the meetingpublicly available on the entity's website; and

(b) ensuring that the notice is readily accessible from the website at least 30 days before the meeting.

4 Application of ame ndments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a notice of an annual members' meeting for a year of income for a registrable superannuation entity if:

(a) the notice is given on or after the commencement of this item; and

(b) the year of income ends on or after 30 June 2022.

Amendments (2) and (4) seek to put what was the annual member meeting notices by regulation into primary legislation. Imagine an incoming government's first act of Treasury. You would think the first act would be fairly significant. They've been out of government for nine years, and the very first act of Treasury was to water down transparency in super. That's what it was. Under the previous government's Your Future Your Super changes a range of changes came through on stapling of funds, on benchmarks, and one of those changes was that every single super fund had to report to their members, whose money it is, a breakdown of what those funds are actually spending their money on. They already produce that because it has to go to APRA. The very first act of the Treasury and its ministers—in this case the Assistant Treasurer—was to knock out the requirement for transparency in super and for disclosure as to what super funds were spending their sponsorship and support and contributions on, and for it only to be reported in the aggregate.

The Assistant Treasurer said that it was to reduce complexity of administration. But to produce an aggregate you must have it line by line anyway. There is no way to lawfully produce an aggregate without having it line by line, and funds have to report that to APRA anyway. So it's a complete fig leaf, a complete sham, an attempt by this government, which they then move regulations on, to actually say, 'We don't want the disclosure of that. We will simply have the aggregate.'

Why was this rushed through as the first act of Treasury? Apparently it was the most important thing. Not cost of living—that wasn't the most important thing of Treasury. Not looking at other areas when it comes to fiscal reform or discipline. No—it's the transparency of what super funds were spending members' money on. Now we know why it's so urgent: because the annual member meetings all start from September and October. The Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, owned by the Commonwealth, have had their annual member meeting, and they broke down their expenditure line by line: a bit over $670,000, so everyone can see exactly what they're spending their sponsorship or support or advertising money on. Prime Super did exactly the same thing.

The first of the big super funds, Australian Super, came through. They announced $30 million in sponsorship in the aggregate, with no idea what it's for or where it goes. More importantly, the members don't have any idea where it goes. And of course over $80 million in the aggregate of co-payments, if you like, with nothing outlined of where the funds go.

The disclosure mechanisms in these regulations that the Assistant Treasurer has now overruled take away any transparency of what super funds are spending on sponsorship, support, contributions and co-payments. It has nothing to do with donations. There was never any levelling, that industry or other super funds were making donations to other political parties. This is about contributions and sponsorship and support, about saying, 'Let's be transparent to members.' So how the government's first act of Treasury was to water down transparency is simply beyond understanding. Amendments (2) and (4) moved in my name seek to take those regulations that have transparency in where member's money is being spent and put them into primary legislation so transparency can be brought back to super.

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

Well, the award for chutzpah goes to the member for Fadden. If there's a person in this House who is least qualified to talk about transparency, it's the member for Fadden. The people of Australia still don't know how he acquired the Greywolf shares and how he disposed of them, but he stands here and lectures the Australian Labor party and the people of this parliament on transparency. The bloke who was sacked from his last job—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will return to the amendments.

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

Context is relevant, Mr Speaker, and I accept your guidance. There is an important piece of work to be done on transparency and reporting in superannuation funds all across the country. Unfortunately, the politically motivated regulations that were introduced by the former government were all about the politics and had nothing to do with transparency. I ask the House to consider this: if there is something material that ought to be disclosed to members, would you stick it in the annual member meeting notice, or would you stick it in an annual report? Would you stick it in an annual member meeting notice that gets mailed out, or would you stick it in the annual report that is required to be disclosed to all of your members, to regulators and all the rest of it?

We want to have a discussion and reform job on reporting in superannuation, and we will do it. But it won't be motivated by the petty politics that dominated the coalition's approach to superannuation and, dare I might say, by the hypocrisy when it comes to the member for Fadden. We won't be motivated by that. We will have a reform job on transparency, but, to start, we have to undo the mess that was left by the other side. Why did we repeal the regulations put by the other side? Because they actually require funds to mislead their members. They were drafted in such an incompetent, politically motivated way, that they required funds to mislead their members, because, to report in accordance with the regulations, you would often have to double and triple count the same expenditure under various headings. So, it would appear to any member who is looking at the annual member meeting notice, trying to find the time and date of the meeting under 400 pages of documents reporting various transactions, that the same amount of money spent once had been spent like 10 times. That's what's wrong.

They were in such haste to execute a political agenda that they forgot to introduce one based on probity, one based on prudence. So we will reform the reporting arrangements for superannuation in this country, and we will do it on an even-handed basis, motivated by the best interests of members, not by the political and, might I say, the hypocritical rantings of the member for Fadden and of so many members that sit behind him. We reject the proposition.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I applaud the opposition for bringing this forward, because of all the areas that need reform in Australia—and to quote my own book, humble as I am: 'The socialist decision to put in 10 per cent compulsory superannuation? Excellent. Implementation? Disastrous.' We've gone from $70 billion a year going into the stock market, 20 years ago, to $1,700 billion going in today. A bunch of slithering Sydney suits out of Sydney universities now have control of all of the savings of Australia.

I want to put a personal note in here: my wife, she gives me a terrible time—I'm an abused husband! She informed me that her shares—I better not mention the name of the company—in her retirement fund have gone down now for three solid years. I don't know how much she's putting in. She won't tell me, but it might be $15,000 a year. But the value has gone down. Well, you're in a Ponzi scheme!

Kevin Rudd, in his latest book, said, 'The thing that most needs attention is that all of Australia's savings are going into speculation.' He quotes John Maynard Keynes as describing the stock market as a giant roulette wheel. I would call it a Ponzi scheme. If you have gone from putting in $70 billion a year to putting in $1,700 billion a year, we're just buying and selling shells to each other, and it just keeps going up. There is not a person in this House who does not know what happens at the end of a Ponzi scheme, that's for certain. Whatever else I might say about Kevin Rudd, he has got some very serious scores on the board: NDIS, the national transmission line, the best communication system in the world. But we don't need Kevin Rudd to tell us. It should not need Kevin Rudd to tell us that in 1995 60 per cent of all retirement funds went into government securities—where, of course, they should go, where they are guaranteed secure. When you retire, you want to know there is some money around to pay for your retirement. If it's going into speculation, no such guarantee exists.

The 60-40 rule was never objected to by anyone ever. But under the National Competition Policy, it was abolished, instead of the money going into development. Every inch of railway line to the mines in Queensland, every inch that delivers our aluminium, our coal, our copper, silver, lead and zinc, was built by the government out of that money. The biggest power station and the most efficient power station in the world is at Gladstone and it was built out of that money. In fact, the great edifice of the economy of Queensland was built out of that money and that money is now not there. No wonder no dams are being built. No wonder no mines are being opened up. No wonder no factories are being opened up in this country. There is no pool of money from which the infrastructure can be supplied.

So at the very least we should have a look at where it's going—traceability. But the failure of this place to deal with Australian savings going into a Ponzi scheme is a disgrace. At least, let's look at where it's going.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.