Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to speak on the urgency motion moved by the opposition today. I agree, like all of us on this side—and that side will speak for themselves—that transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector is extremely important. But those measures must reflect real-world behaviour and be built for the majority of Australians, not just a chosen few. The motion also goes to the level of information given by super funds to their members and how they spend their members' money. Of course relevant disclosure should be made when required and reporting dates met. Members deserve to know where their fees are going and how their money is being managed. That's why we have regulators such as APRA and ASIC that are tasked with overseeing the health of super funds and ensuring governance and accountability. I could also add that we've had a financial services royal commission, too, which some people seem to have forgotten about, which was heavily opposed by the other side until they were dragged kicking and screaming into it. They don't talk about that at all, do they?

Let's be clear. It wasn't the industry super funds with both worker and employer representatives making decisions in the best interests of members that got touched up by the banking royal commission. No, it wasn't those funds. It was the other side's mates in the big banks and the profit-to-shareholders super funds that were found to be up to no good. Remember that? We don't hear that coming from that side, but none of us on this side will ever forget that. In recent weeks we've heard a bit from the opposition on this topic of transparency and accountability around super, but let's be clear: this is really just another opportunity to bash super and to bash unions and the huge outcomes delivered for everyday Australian workers. How do I know? Because I am a member of the fund. I was signed up in 1987 through the Transport Workers Union. I remember asking, 'What am I going to do with $1.87?' when I was 27 years old. Thank God for the Transport Workers Union! And thank God for all the unions that have pushed these super funds and done it in the best interests of their members that their mates, through the banks, and all that side—that cronies' side—I'd love to hear their record of what they've done for their members!

We saw it last year with the former government's Your Future, Your Super package of changes to super laws. While there were some changes supported by Labor—yes, there were—there were also some ridiculous changes that only increased the admin burden on super funds and did nothing to help the best financial interests of super fund members. The Your Future, Your Super package, which we've heard some squealing about today, was met with a chorus of concern from all sides, including investment managers, actuaries, business groups and of course the unions. But the former government would not listen, and the legislation and regulations were flawed. So it has fallen to this Labor government to fix their mistakes, as in so many other areas.

I recall the rushed Senate inquiry last year, where dozens of submissions outlined the concerns with the real-world impacts of the new legislation, and we didn't even get to see the associated regulations until the 11th hour. This was a deliberate attempt by the former government to avoid scrutiny and came despite concerns being raised by bodies such as CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand and the Law Council of Australia, along with almost the entire industry. I will repeat that: almost the entire industry. So whether deliberate or accidental, certain regulations that were introduced by the former government as part of their Your Future, Your Super package have acted as a ridiculous admin burden, especially for smaller funds, and proved to be a waste of members' money, which required change which was ultimately led by the industry itself—not that side but the industry. In particular, the former government's regulations about annual members meetings didn't adhere to existing accounting standards and did nothing to improve real-world disclosure for super fund members.

In order to improve productivity and the quality of service being provided to the superannuation holders, the superannuation sector, especially the profit-to-member industry sector of the industry, with a strong track record of actually delivering better return for members, have supported changes to the annual members meetings regulations, which the minister issued on 9 September. But it wasn't just flawed on disclosure regimes, where the former government got it wrong. As senators know—and I've said it before—I come from the transport industry. I am a truckie. Being a transport worker is the most dangerous job an Australian worker can have. For many workers, the only insurance coverage they and their families have is through the insurance attached to their super. That's one of the reasons why it's so important that we have industry and worker voices represented in the governance arrangements for super funds.

Alongside terrible regulations that did nothing to provide better real-world disclosure to members was the former government's aim to override default provisions and agreements with the introduction of stapling. The ability of transport workers to exercise collective choice through collective enterprise agreements has been a key avenue for those workers to ensure superannuation and associated product options are tailored to their collective needs and maintain vigilance that their interests are protected against practices and fund offerings that, as testimony before the financial services royal commission demonstrated, might otherwise leave them worse off in the short and long term. Those default provisions once provided a measure of security both to employers and workers. Those workers joining transport employers can be confident they will have superannuation coverage and services that reflect their occupation and industry—even where they neglect to make an active choice.

I've heard directly from industry that those changes are leaving people without the coverage they need—all for an ideological bent of the former government. Do we hear anything from them about what those workers in industries such as transport, construction and agriculture need? No. That is why I'm pleased to reiterate Labor is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system, including in superannuation. That is why we have committed to recommendations of the Hayne royal commission that expand accountability on banks, superannuation funds and other financial service providers.

The Albanese government believes Australians deserve a dignified retirement supported by a strong superannuation system. Our $3.4 trillion superannuation system is world-class. It's the fourth largest in the world, though our economy is the 13th largest. How proud should we be of this? This is an Australian success story against which those opposite have been waging a tireless, ideological battle for many years—and some continue to do so now. The Albanese government, by contrast, is committed to strengthening the system in the interests of working families. Never forget: those opposite are the same party who, in the final hours of the election campaign, introduced a policy that would allow first home buyers the ability to borrow $50,000 from their superannuation to get into the property market—a policy which was widely condemned for a range of reasons.

Furthermore, the regulations the previous government introduced regarding the notice of annual member meetings were clunky and ideologically motivated. Burying super members under mountains of paper riddled with double counting serves no useful purpose. The level of detail previously mandated was excessive and far greater than required by public companies to their shareholders. It is important to have consistency in disclosures wherever possible and to have a level playing field. Furthermore, there was no clear alignment with the Australian Accounting Standards Board or APRA reporting—under both of which funds currently report now. This adds unnecessary costs and reduces the efficiency of the system as well as accountability across public disclosures.

It's also created confusion due to a lack of consistency across disclosures made by funds. The aim is to assist members to better understand fund expenditure by the provision of adequate information, not to confuse them by using different definitions in different public disclosures. Adequate information is designed as information that informs, not overwhelms, and provides useful insights into fund expenditure but does not put funds at a commercial disadvantage by disclosing granular, contractual information.