Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Last week the Australian reported on the millions of dollars flowing from industry super funds to unions, including over $3.5 million from super funds to the CFMMEU, a union which donated $4.3 million to the Labor Party last year. Why did the Assistant Treasurer try to change the rules so such donations would no longer have to be publicly reported?

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

I thank the member for his question. It is true that Labor stands behind superannuation—30 years of history. It is making our economy stronger. It is making Australians wealthier in retirement. The average Australian woman today is retiring with $120,000 in superannuation, and the average Australian male with $180,000 in superannuation. This July, superannuation contributions will go up by 0.5 per cent. Every single one of those dollars and every single per cent has been opposed by those opposite. We stand for superannuation. We believe that it should be performing well and we believe that every single dollar that is contributed to a superannuation fund should be used for the purpose of advancing members' retirement income, which is why, upon coming into government, we reviewed all of the transparency arrangements that were applying to superannuation funds and the reporting arrangements. When we did that review, we discovered there were big gaps. Yes, it is true that the members opposite, in the previous government, introduced new reporting arrangements. They were politically driven and ensured that members received misleading and ambiguous information. So we have reviewed these arrangements and put in place new reporting and new transparency arrangements. No. 1: as a result of the legislation introduced by me—

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

Order! The Assistant Treasurer will resume his seat.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right will cease interjecting. I'd like to hear the member for Groom on a point of order.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, this is a cover-up, not an answer. The question was very clear: why did Labor change the rules—

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

Resume your seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

The House will come to order. I thought I'd made this crystal clear about the abuse of standing orders: you do not rise to your feet and start yelling anything you want. That is an abuse of the standing orders. We've been down this road before. That is not acceptable behaviour. You will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Groom then left the chamber.

Honourable members interjecting —

The House will come to order. The Assistant Treasurer will continue with his answer.

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

As a result of the new reforms that our government has put in place in transparency in superannuation, there will be a new requirement for superannuation funds to publish an annual report and have it filed with ASIC. It didn't occur under this mob over here. They said they stood for transparency. There was no requirement to produce and file an annual report. That is a new legislative requirement.

In addition to that, there will be an annual transparency report, including on the matters that have been raised by the member who's been ejected from the chamber, about donations, about payments to related parties—a single point of truth so that it is available not only to fund members but to journalists, to analysts and to members of parliament to understand and look at the payments that have been made and the performance of every single fund that you are a member of and every other fund in the registered superannuation system as well. In addition to that, they will receive a notice of annual meeting.

Under the proposition that the members opposite are putting forward, you will not get one extra skerrick of transparency but loads of confusion. (Time expired)