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

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022, which has the effect of reducing the transparency of how super funds are being spent for members. Instead of itemising each sponsorship, political donation, payment to a union and payment to a related entity under the regulations, these are able to be combined and disclosed as a lump sum.

The argument for the regulations is that they reduce the reporting and regulatory burden, therefore ultimately reducing members' fees. But super funds are required to keep accounts and record all this information, and the cost of disclosure would be immaterial. It's hard to believe that in the context of billions in fees the cost of transcribing payments made from a superfund's accounting system to a public notice of meeting would be significant. So, I'm not convinced by argument of cost.

I'm supportive of Australia's superannuation system. It's an example of farsighted policy with an intergenerational impact. Australians now have more than $3.3 trillion in superannuation, paying about $30 billion each year in fees, either directly or via companies that help manage investments. That is nearly two per cent of Australia's GDP. The Grattan Institute points out that we pay more in super fees than we spend on energy. A household nearing retirement pays average superannuation fees of $3,700 each year.

Members of super funds should be able to easily find out how their money is being spent. Spending needs to be disclosed in a way that's digestible and informative. I'm not suggesting that the previous government's legislation about superannuation payment disclosure was perfect, but it's unlikely that reducing the detail will make it better. If the intention of the regulation was only to remove double counting for greater clarity, I would support it. But it goes much further than that to reduce transparency. 'Streamlining' is sometimes used as code for reducing.

Since the last election, the government has spoken about its intention to increase transparency and integrity, and I'm pleased to have been part of the parliament that passed the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. Given the government's relationship with unions, it's important that similar transparency is protected in other systems, including our huge superannuation system. Transparency is the key to rebuilding trust. Australians want to know if their super fund is making political donations and to whom. They want to know if their super fund is providing large sponsorships to sporting teams or other bodies. They want to know if their super fund is making payments to unions. And they want transparency on whether their super fund is making payments to related entities. The requirement to itemise these spending items in the notice of meeting might not provide all the detail, but it at least provides the opportunity to seek further information at the subsequent annual meeting if something doesn't seem right.

Wherever there's money and power there's a need for transparency to rebuild trust in our systems. This is true in our superannuation system, just as it's true in our political system. I support the disallowance motion in relation to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022 because our communities want more transparency, not less, in relation to money and power.

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

I'm pleased to be speaking on the matter of superannuation, and I take the opportunity to address each of the issues that have been raised in a thoughtful contribution by the member for Curtin. I disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn and I particularly disagree with the arguments that have been made by the member for Fadden, and there are a lot of reasons that I disagree with the arguments and the motivation. We can separate those things, but in this instance the campaign that has been run by the member for Fadden and his colleagues in this party is built on dishonesty, frankly, and I'll address the reason. It comes in the name of transparency but it also comes from the party that, frankly, refused to tell Australians its prime minister had secretly sworn himself into a whole number of ministries without telling the parliament or the people of Australia. The member for Fadden might argue, 'We didn't know; that error wasn't on us.' But, when they had the opportunity to distance themselves from this behaviour, they backed him in a vote on a censure motion in the parliament.

The motion is moved on the very day the parliament has heard the former minister for human services secretly commissioned a $1 million report and then buried it because he didn't like what the report told him. And it's moved by a former minister who, frankly, had to be relieved of his former duties in his portfolio because of his behaviour, which did not meet ministerial standards.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That's reflecting on the member.

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

On relevance: the minister is required to speak to the motion. He is not allowed to speak widely on other things. He can't reflect on members. He's got to remain relevant. He's breaking at least three standing orders. He's been here long enough and should frankly know better.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister to address the motion.

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

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In November last year I spoke of my complete disbelief in how the government was pushing through its signature Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I said:

I, and every other member in this place, was elected as part of a democratic process that is the envy of many countries around the world. Internationally respected democracy does not and should not stop on election day; however, the treatment of this bill is, in my view, undemocratic and seriously undermines the parliamentary process. The government is deliberately rushing this bill through the parliament.

I said that last year, and here we are again. It's like Groundhog Day. We're commencing the 2023 parliamentary year where we left off in 2022. Again, we're in the position where we have insufficient to no opportunity to properly scrutinise legislation presented by government. Again, we are told that it's urgent and will consequently be rushed through this House with limited opportunity to speak to it. I remember when the government sought to change sitting hours to allow the opportunity to have these urgent bills. They said they would be few and far between—absolute rarities. We are seeing them with enormous regularity in this place, and it is not a good thing. This is not a good practice. This is thwarting democratic process.

I want to work collaboratively with the government, but it is a difficult task when I'm provided with no notice, no briefings and no explanation as to why such bills and regulations must be dealt with in the manner that is proposed today. It's simply not good enough. These regulations seek to unravel changes made by the former government that were introduced to provide greater scrutiny and greater transparency in relation to the reporting of promotional, marketing or sponsorship expenditure by superannuation funds. It's disappointing that the minister isn't even in the chamber for this debate. We've got only an hour of debate. Surely the minister could spend his time in the chamber for that hour.

I ask a simple question of the government. Why would the government wish to remove such transparency? For most workers, superannuation will be their largest asset outside of their home. The industry funds frequently advertise the importance of superannuation and the financial benefits of industry funds over retail funds. They draw attention to savings and administration fees and their impact over time on retirement fund balances. Funds understand the compounding effect that small amounts have over long periods and, through their advertising, industry funds have appropriately educated superannuation fund members. But we need to know exactly what they're spending their funds on.

Sure, we have education, but not all the money associated with promotion, marketing and sponsorship expenditure is well spent. We have to keep reminding ourselves that this is a compulsory product, and we need transparency. Every one of us in this nation has a super fund, and we need to know what these funds are spending their money on.

One Sunday morning, I was watching Merv Hughes Fishing. It's a good show. I love my fishing shows.

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

Relevance?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very relevant, because it was sponsored by Cbus. Everybody on the boat had their Cbus shirts on and they were all talking about Cbus super. I thought to myself: 'I wonder if the people who have Cbus super funds actually know that their money is being spent on a fishing trip. I'll turn it on again next Sunday.' Again, there we had Cbus spending their money on a fishing show. How is that value for money for those who have Cbus super funds?

The Australian Financial Review reported:

… aggregated data taken from the Electoral Commission shows a total $85.5 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 funds to political entities and associates over the past five years.

Let me repeat that number: $85 million over five years by 51 super funds for non-donation and non-gift payments. That's a pretty expensive dinner. It has to be a very expensive dinner. Why should the people whose money it is not know what it's spent on? Coincidentally, it always surges during election years. But they're not political donations—no, not at all!

I do not support these changes; I do not support the continual erosion of our parliamentary processes; and I do not support any move in this place that thwarts transparency. We need more transparency, particularly around our super funds and how they are treated as cash cows largely by the union movement. I want to see more work done in this space, not less.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of this disallowance motion. Last year I spoke about this bill to this House. I observed then that it would end the requirement for superannuation funds to tell their members how much they're spending on marketing and sponsorship expenses, political donations and payments to industrial bodies.

The requirement for itemised information on payments to unions and industry bodies has been abolished. Australian super fund members deserve that information. In 2021, Australian super funds paid $13 million to unions. It's been suggested that that amount may increase to as much as $30 million a year. In an interview late last year, the minister said that those payments to unions and industry bodies were payments for services and that they should be treated consistently with other types of payments. He added that, if members had questions about those payments, they could attend their annual members meeting and request additional information about them. How very generous of the minister!

Data taken from the Electoral Commission in September 2022 identified more than $85 million in non-donation and non-gift payments by 51 super funds to political entities and their associates over the past five years. That is an extraordinary amount of money. It's the sort of amount of money that can sway an election. We've heard a lot about electoral donations in this place in the last year and we will hear more this year. It's a real issue in this country. We need more donation reform and we need more transparency about our political donations. This bill will deliver less.

Our voters sent all of us a message last year. They asked for sunlight in politics, and for integrity and transparency. This bill takes us backwards. This is not integrity. This is not an exercise in cleaning up unnecessary red tape, as the minister would have us believe. This is not making members understand how their super funds are spending their money. This is the opposite.

I'd also like to note that today this government has rushed this bill back to the parliament without proper notice, to avoid further scrutiny. Debate about the legislation has been truncated. I'd like to quote a much-respected member of this place about the importance of unimpeded debate in the House. He said last year:

It's actually about the millions of Australians who didn't vote for Scott Morrison. They deserve a voice in our parliament—but this is a government that doesn't want to hear any voices but its own.

… Governments of both persuasions have used their numbers to silence the other side from time to time—but not like this, not systematically, not as a matter of course.

This is the second time today that we've had a truncated debate in this place. Those words were spoken in this House last year by the current Leader of the House. He's not here now—very few members of his government are—and that's a bit of a shame because this is a really important issue, on which we've not been given much time to speak.

I have committed to the people of Kooyong that I will demand of their government due commitment to the democratic process and to detailed debate and discussion. I've also pledged to work in this place to improve the integrity and the transparency of all of the bills that we legislate. For those reasons, and for my reservations both about the process used and the substance of this bill, I cannot support it.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hadn't planned on speaking on this motion but this is just quite extraordinary what's happening here. This is one of the situations where the government should just walk in and tell the truth. The government should walk in and say: 'Yes, we are deliberately restricting the ability of super fund members to find out what is happening to their money. We are doing that deliberately. We are seeking to do that and we're doing that because it's inconvenient for our friends in the union movement for these marketing payments and other payments to be disclosed. We don't want people to know about that, so consequently, we're moving this change to the regulation.'

I must admit I felt a bit sorry for the member for Fraser—who is quite an accomplished person and a good contributor to this place—tying himself up in intellectual knots trying to justify this, but it is ridiculous. What sort of government takes an existing rule which is about transparency and allowing people to find out what's happening to their money, which they must compulsorily contribute through super, and says: 'Let's not do that anymore. Let's take that away.' That is outrageous.

You can see from the breadth of concern about this legislation, right across the chamber, that this is a regulation that is unusually bad and completely unacceptable. For a government that was elected, to a significant degree, on a platform of integrity—so-called—to make one of their early moves to literally tie a blindfold around the eyes of superannuation fund members so they can't find out how, specifically, their funds are being spent on things like marketing payments to unions is absolutely outrageous. We all know that. We could tell by the very contorted contributions of those on the government side that they are embarrassed by this regulation—perhaps not the minister, but the rest. They should be embarrassed because it's shameful. I very strongly support the shadow minister's motion in this regard.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next day.

Debate adjourned.