Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this disallowance of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022. I do congratulate Senator Pocock for this motion, which I think is terribly important.

In this place during the last sitting, I got up and gave a speech in relation to the performance of a listed public company called Cleanaway, its environmental performance and it's renumeration outcomes. I could do that because it is an ASX-listed public company and there was granular disclosure in its annual report released on the Australian Securities Exchange. I could go through that report and hold it accountable for concerns I had with respect to its environmental performance for the people of Ipswich. That's what transparency delivers, and that's all we're seeking—transparency in relation to reporting to the members of the superannuation fund. It's their money, it's the members' money. It isn't the money of the super fund; it's the members' money.

As Senator Pocock has said, and has written about previously, people are concerned about this issue. Given the concern, why not disclose? What is the issue? What are they scared of? Given the interest, why not disclose? I haven't heard any cogent argument against disclosure. I used to be a company secretary of a listed public company. This argument about compliance costs and reams of paper is just an absolute nonsense. These superannuation funds would have accounting systems that would be able to access the relevant information quickly and easily. The cost of compliance is absolutely immaterial in the scheme of things. There is a legitimate public interest in favour of disclosure and transparency, and given that legitimate public interest—indeed, it's more focused than that, the interest of members of the industry super funds want to know this information. Given their interest, why not disclose? Why not be transparent and disclose?

I listened very closely to Senator Waters' arguments, and I couldn't tell at times whether her argument was in favour of transparency or not. I don't know about other members of the Greens, but I don't think her heart is in this debate in terms of arguing against this disallowance. I think there's something going on behind the scenes here. I'm not sure what it is. I'm not sure what the Greens and Labor are negotiating.

On the face of it, I can't see any reason why the members of the superannuation fund should be denied the opportunity to make their own assessment of this relevant information. That's what you're doing, you're denying the members of the super fund to make their own assessment of that information. Why deny them that right? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you consider particular vested interests that those opposite, in government, are seeking to protect from the position of the government benches. That is the only reason why you would be against transparency in this situation.

The costs argument is just ridiculous. It's immaterial. These industry super funds have obligations to keep accounts and to keep track of all this information, so the costs argument is just absurd. It's embarrassing you even raise it in this context, given the billions and billions of dollars we're talking about under management. The only reason you would disagree with Senator Pocock in this regard is if you're trying to protect vested interests and they're scared about releasing this information. That is the only reason.

Ask yourselves why. Why don't they want this information to be released? Why not? That's the very reason why it should be disclosed. That is the very reason why it should be disclosed. Because of that very reason, it should be disclosed. I commend those who have argued in favour of this motion. I think you're absolutely correct, and I congratulate Senator Pocock in this regard. I think his radar is right on track, and I'm happy to support him in this respect.