Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

Can I say at the outset that I am a member of an industry super fund, AustralianSuper, as are a lot of my colleagues. So this concept that there is some sort of war on superannuation from this side of politics is absolute nonsense. I should say that my super fund, AustralianSuper, lost $1.1 billion in an investment in Pluralsight; I'd like some transparency over that, please!

I'm a member of an industry super fund and I believe in super. I think it's an important part of protecting people's retirement. All the nonsense we heard was deflection from three fundamental points. First is the fact that this Senate, the representatives of the Australian people in this Senate, sought these documents from the Treasurer. The representatives representing the majority of the Australian people, on their behalf, sought these documents from the Treasurer, and he refused to provide them—notwithstanding that a majority of this Senate sought those documents. That is wrong as a point of principle.

The second point I make is that the Treasurer forced Senator Bragg to go through the Freedom of Information Act process to get these documents. It took 18 months to get these documents which should have been provided when a majority of the Senate passed an order for these documents to be produced. Our Information Commissioner, who assesses these claims with respect to governments of both persuasions refusing to release documents, is overwhelmed because of this culture of secrecy—this culture of refusing to provide transparency not to us but through us to the Australian people. It is wrong is a matter of principle. The government are seeking to defend the indefensible; they can't do it, so they're deflecting and pivoting to all this nonsense about other issues relating to superannuation. This debate is about transparency and it is about open government. That's what it's about. Senator Bragg quoted from, in my view, one of the great warriors for freedom of information in this place, Senator Rex Patrick. I deeply acknowledge him, and probably no senator in this place has done more to promote freedom of information than Senator Rex Patrick during his time here and afterwards. I congratulate him, and I read his article as well.

The third point I want to make is to get into the detail. A point of order was taken by Senator Gallagher, which is her right, in relation to my friend's characterisation of the claim which was made by the Treasurer. I'm going to walk you through what the Treasurer said so you can see how gossamer weak it is. I won't use the word Senator Bragg used. I'll say it was a misrepresentation. I'll say it was gilding the lily. I'll say it was an incorrect assertion. I'll say it was a dodgy claim. I won't say what Senator Bragg said, but this is what the Treasurer said in his response to an order from this Senate:

Disclosure of the documents sought would provide an unfair insight into CBUS' private opinions and business affairs.

That's what he said. It would provide an unfair insight into Cbus's private opinions and business affairs.

Let's actually look at the documents. This morning I read all the documents which were disclosed by order of the Information Commissioner 18 months after they should have been disclosed. What do the documents say? This is the earth-shattering stuff which the Treasurer wanted to prevent disclosure of. I'll quote:

We propose that stamp duty should be excluded from fee and cost reporting entirely.

Please, people listening to this debate, you make a judgement as to whether or not you think this goes to the heart of private business affairs and commercial-in-confidence discussion. This is the paragraph:

We propose that stamp duty should be excluded from fee and cost reporting entirely. This would:

That's it. I'll make these observations in relation to that information. First, it is not particular to Cbus. It is not information which relates particularly to Cbus. It is a point of general application across the superannuation industry and the property industry. So there is nothing particularly private and confidential in that regard. That's the first point I would make. (Time expired)