Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens made it clear in our speech in the second reading debate last night that we're not at the point where we can support the SCT going into this new structure, so I need to be very clear that we'll be supporting Labor's amendments to keep the SCT out of a new AFCA. Our view is that AFCA should proceed as the FOS and CIO at this stage. As I made clear last night, I believe that negotiations, consultations and discussions should be occurring between stakeholders in the superannuation industry, the government and the new AFCA board. I just want to make that very clear. The issue to me is a simple one. It's an issue of trust and a lack of confidence in this government and, of course, a question of the government's motivation for bringing superannuation into this new body. I don't find it surprising that superannuation stakeholders, including the employees at the SCT, their union and others, are highly suspicious of this government's intentions.

This issue around superannuation has been a political battleground. I don't necessarily blame the minister so much for some of the rhetoric that has been out there in the public sphere, but all of us have heard in recent weeks how this government is deadset bent on changing the model of not-for-profit super through industry super funds in this country. To me, this is a matter of getting this organisation set up, getting this architecture in place today and then having discussions. We're in this impasse where SCT have admitted that the union who wrote to me, the CPSU, have admitted their performance hasn't been good enough, but they're hampered by funding and a business model, which looks at the volume of complaints, that needs to change. They're not happy with the upper oversight and the way that works at the moment with super contributions, so that needs to change. At the same time, we've got a government that wants to push ahead with bringing the SCT under this AFCA architecture, and the SCT and other industry stakeholders in superannuation, including ASFA—that's the retail and for-profit funds side of superannuation and the not-for-profit side—don't agree. They believe this has been rushed and needs more work.

Keeping that in mind and then coming to this amendment, the Greens will be supporting Labor's amendment to keep the SCT out of this new structure. But what we essentially have before us in this amendment on sheet HU180 are the amendments that SCT wanted put into this bill if they were to lose this fight. Let's be clear about this: the SCT have recommended these amendments to the bill if superannuation were to be included in AFCA and if we were to lose this fight on the Senate floor here today. So we will be supporting these amendments because, if we lose this fight, at least this tries to improve the situation for the SCT if they're going to be incorporated under this umbrella.

Item (2) on sheet HU180 says:

Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 18), after paragraph 1051(3)(d), insert:

(da) the operator’s constitution provides that the Chair of the board of the operator must be an independent person; and

As I also said in my speech last night, we've had some constructive discussions with the minister's office over weeks about this legislation. Ultimately, we couldn't land on supporting the inclusion of the SCT, but we did urge the minister to consider an independent chair of this organisation. This was a recommendation of the Ramsay review, but we took on board the concerns that Senator Bernardi and One Nation and others have outlined here today.

The CIO has been out there writing us letters saying they're very worried that the big banks and big financial services companies are going to have the run of the new one-stop shop. They're going to be calling the shots, so to speak. So putting an independent chair in place is a really important point. It will mean the chair of this body won't be associated with the big end of town, with the big financial services companies—and I hope that's the case that there will be no conflicts of interest—and they'll be able to stand up for some of the smaller businesses and financial services companies that are currently covered by the CIO.

This is actually an important amendment. Should this bill get up, the Greens would rather see an independent chair in place than have one that was perhaps appointed by the minister or someone who may have conflicts of interest in relation to the existing financial services industry. I just want to get that on record. We don't support the inclusion of the SCT, but, if it is going to be included—and the government has the numbers—at least this improves their lot. The Greens will be supporting this amendment.