Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister Sherry, in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and in his capacity as the former minister for this portfolio. Given that Minister Sherry personally hand-picked Mr David Harris to be one of the principal leads for the Matthews review into the pension indexation arrangements for military superannuation, does the minister agree this appointment raised a serious conflict of interest given that there are reports that Mr Harris, back in 2005, treated the minister to a return airfare to England and Scotland, as well as four nights accommodation? Is it just convenient that the Matthews review happened to come up with a recommendation that was contrary to the findings of every other Senate inquiry on the issue and that it just happened to support the government’s position?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm Mr Harris did provide some sponsorship for a trip to the UK. That has been declared; it is on my Senate register. That is a matter of fact. As to the appointment of the individual who conducted the inquiry into Public Service pension indexation, it was carried out by Mr Trevor Matthews, not Mr Harris. I understand that Mr Trevor Matthews did take some advice—

Opposition Senator:

Opposition senator interjecting—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly not Tasmanian. Mr Trevor Matthews did take some advice from Mr Harris, but the report is known as the Matthews report. That was carried out by Mr Trevor Matthews. He was appointed on my recommendation. Mr Trevor Matthews is an Australian; he works in the United Kingdom. He is the former head of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. I do regard him as eminently qualified to have carried out that inquiry.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why he did not believe there was a single actuarial or financial adviser in all of Australia who was competent enough to assist with the Matthews review and that he had to import his mate from the UK, Mr Harris, to be the lead principal? Can the minister inform the Senate what kind of remuneration Mr Harris received for his role?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. As I have already pointed out, Mr Trevor Matthews was the one who conducted the inquiry. I understand he did utilise Mr Harris in terms of some advice and assistance. Also, you may not have been present at the Senate estimates, but one of the reasons in fact that attracted me to Mr Matthews, aside from the fact that he was the former head of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and aside from the fact that he was not in the country—so I regarded him as independent—he did not charge for his services. He did it voluntarily. I thought that that was pretty good value for taxpayers’ money. When I looked at his background and his qualifications and the fact that he was from outside the country, I saw that as a positive advantage. I particularly saw as a positive advantage that he was not going to charge— (Time expired)