Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am, 31 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Reynolds proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

'The need for the Senate to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector, and to support measures that ensure superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money.'

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standin g orders having risen in their places—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector, and to support measures that ensure superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money.'

I have moved this urgency motion today as it is very clear to those on this side of the chamber that the dead hand of the trade union movement is alive and well, not just in the Prime Minister's office, not just in this chamber on the government benches, in building work sites across this nation, but also in the pockets and the wallets of Australian superannuation holders. This is shocking but hardly surprising that the Albanese Labor government has reversed the requirement that we introduced for super funds to disclose—so the government have reversed the requirement for disclosure—how they spend their members' funds on sponsorships and payments with no line items, no transparency, no accountability and absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

Service payments are clearly political and are designed to buy political interference and influence. How could they not be? These payments, some at least $85 million over the past five years alone, from superannuation funds are for things like million-dollar football sponsorships, corporate boxes, union kickbacks and lobbying. This is the money of Australian workers' superannuation funds. It is their money. It is the money that they have earned, that they have put into their superannuation fund. Australians deserve to know how their retirement income is being spent.

The Labor government's amendments, with the encouragement and the persuasion—probably not too hard a persuasion—of the trade union movement, go against recommendations from both the Productivity Commission and APRA. Of course, they oppose what those opposite wanted, because it is against the best interests of all Australian superannuation holders, who unknowingly are having their superannuation funds used for such things.

If those opposite had a modicum of seriousness about transparency, their very first move in government would not have been to support winding back these transparency measures for every Australian worker. The measures that we introduced were designed to let sunlight into the $3 trillion industry. This is an industry that impacts on the retirement of all Australians. What absolute hypocrisy. Labor government parliamentarians and crossbenchers ran their campaigns on integrity and trust, and what is the first thing they do? They come into this chamber and move a motion to get rid of the regulations that we introduced that provided transparency. They now seek to pass regulations that would hide the disclosure of payments that superannuation funds make. It was the first thing the Labor party did in government. They talk about integrity but, on their first test, they failed dismally.

In this chamber and on the government benches, we have to always strive for the best when it comes to Australians' hard earned money. Australians work hard, making their income, putting money aside for their retirement, doing the right thing. The key thing here is that they do it compulsorily. Australians, by law, if they are working, have to put some money aside for the future. Compulsory savings by ordinary Australians has seen the growth of the super industry now to over $3.4 trillion—on the face of it, a fantastic result. After all, the initial intent, and still the intent, of superannuation was to take the financial pressure off government or taxpayers by ensuring that Australians can pay or partially pay their way through retirement with their own money. Remember this: it is their own money.

On this side of the house, when we were in government, we wanted to make sure that members actually had transparency about whether money was going. We will continue to support that. In stark contrast to the union puppets opposite, there are three key principles coalition MPs will continue to adhere to in relation to superannuation: we know it is members' money, we are always committed to fund performance and we are always committed to transparency and integrity for every single superannuation member. These principles are the bedrock of what we know delivers the best superannuation system.

The coalition government's Your Future, Your Super reforms, which were so ably championed by my colleague Senator Jane Hume here in the chamber, were the most significant reforms to superannuation since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992. The name says it all. It says what we're all about on the side: Your Future, Your Super. These reforms ensure that superannuation works in the best financial interest of all Australians and not in the interests of superannuation board members and trade unionists who had corporate tickets at the cost of superannuation members—they never even knew about it. We also supported superannuation members by removing unnecessary waste, by increasing accountability and transparency and by providing more flexibility for families and individuals, particularly lower-paid Australian woman.

Critically, when in government, we were all about doing three things in relation to super. Firstly, strengthening obligations to ensure trustees only act in the best financial interests of members. If these services fees are paying for corporate boxes or paying money to the trade union movement and the Labor party, is that in the best interest of Australian superannuation holders? Of course not. That's what we wanted to do to make sure Australians understood where there superannuation money was going. Secondly, we also ensured that superannuation funds provided better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money in advance of annual members' meetings. Thirdly, we looked after their interests through enhanced portfolio holdings disclosure. Again, this was all aimed at supporting the transparency and management of an individual's funds.

Now we learn, as I said, that the first thing this Labor government is doing is putting these reforms under attack, with the dead hand of the trade union movement coming in persistently behind them. Of course, it was not in the Labor Party policy before the last election that they were going to go ahead and dismantle this transparency. Of course it was not. For the Prime Minister and for crossbench members who campaigned on accountability and integrity, this was the first act of those opposite in government: to extinguish transparency on how unions and the ALP access millions and millions and millions of dollars every year of trade union funds. The first action was to do this. It was not to take measures straight away to deal with cost-of-living pressures on Australian workers, and it was not to take action to actually address workforce challenges or anything else; it was to do the trade unions' bidding to hide where superannuation members' funds are going.

Staggeringly, there are elements of the superannuation industry who support this watering down of transparency. How can it possibly be in the best interests of superannuants to hide this expenditure—this self-interested expenditure for Labor and the unions. Most of all, when we on this side of the chamber have a look at this issue we wonder how this can possibly not be a matter of integrity. Of course it is a matter of integrity. The fact is that they are hiding millions of dollars of expenditure which flows through to trade unions and to the Labor Party, and now they want to do it without disclosure so that people cannot see the benefits that Labor and the trade unions are getting from superannuation funds. You've got to ask why. It is very, very clear. Earlier this month, Michael Roddan in the Financial Review, let the cat out of the bag when he noted that Senator Nick McKim is working alongside the Treasurer to help him hide the disclosure of payments. Senator McKim tweeted on 16 September:

The Greens want meaningful transparency that tracks the flow of members' money, including for political purposes and for profit.

What bunkum. It is utter hypocrisy. If you read that article further, you will see exactly why that is the case.

The Hayne royal commission's exhibit 5.368—the KPMG audit into payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations—is illuminating. Any superannuant who wants to know where their money is going should look further into this, because shortly Labor will be hiding all of these payments from you.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the urgency motion on transparency and accountability, moved by Senator Reynolds. I can assure chamber that our government is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system. So we welcome this motion today.

You've really got to ask yourself what is going on with those opposite. It has been only a matter of months since Australians banished them to the opposition benches and ended their decade of wasted opportunities and messed up priorities, and apparently, they haven't learned a thing. They've got nothing to offer Australians. They themselves admitted: 'We're the opposition; we have no policies.' Instead, they're throwing random bits of mud and trying to see what will stick.

Today they're trying to talk about transparency and accountability of all things. We welcome this motion. We welcome the conversation today. It's pretty rich for those opposite to suddenly claim that transparency and accountability are matters of urgency for them, on the opposition benches, considering their decade of rort after rort, scandal after scandal, cover-up after cover-up. This motion has come from the people with the former Prime Minister who was the minister for health; the Minister for Finance; the minister for industry, science, energy and resources; the Minister for Home Affairs; and the Treasurer—all at the same time.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You must have missed some.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I probably missed some. They were all kept secret from his own ministry, and from the Australian public as well. So let's talk about transparency and accountability. We welcome it. They are the former government, who want to come to this chamber and talk about transparency and accountability—really! Let's be absolutely clear: those opposite have no interest in transparency and no interest in accountability, and they had 10 long years to demonstrate that.

This motion has absolutely nothing to do with either of those anyway. It is just another ploy in the war that those opposite are waging against our proud Labor legacy of superannuation in this country. What Australians are asking themselves right now is why the Liberals hate super so much. Is it because it was thought up by the union movement, Senator Hume? Is it because it was made universal by a Labor government, Senator Reynolds?

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

Order! Excuse me, Senator Walsh. Now, I'm pretty lenient here, Senator Reynolds, but I am going to ask you to withdraw that.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, and my apologies.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Reynolds.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe they hate super so much because it is a legacy of the union movement; it is a legacy of the Australian Labor Party. Or is it just the industry super funds that you on the opposition benches hate? And why would that be? Is it because the industry super funds consistently outperform the rest of the sector? Is it because you can't stand the idea that workers in a union would have an interest in ensuring their retirement savings are working for them and choose to invest them in an industry super fund? Or is it because industry super funds have dared to invest in nation-building projects and infrastructure in this country—projects that will deliver good, secure jobs for the very workers whose retirement savings are invested; nation-building projects like the Star of the South, Australia's first offshore wind farm; nation-building projects like the construction of social and affordable housing, which will create thousands of jobs, as well as drive down the cost of housing and rentals?

Those opposite can't stand to see these projects funded; as well, they can't stand to see the returns that those projects will deliver for members. They just can't stand to see the superannuation industry step up and deliver the very things that your government refused to deliver. That's why the former Treasurer tried to insert himself into the boardrooms of the super funds. And it's why they're back here, continuing their ideological war on super.

This motion has absolutely nothing to do with transparency and accountability. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the interests of super fund members, because those opposite do not care about super fund members. They do not care about Australian workers and their retirement. They definitely don't care about workers' hard-earned retirement savings, because, for the last decade, on the watch of those opposite, Australian workers have lost $5 billion per year in unpaid superannuation. There has been $5 billion per year missing from the retirement savings of Australian workers because those opposite have sat back and allowed the ATO to take a light-touch approach to dodgy employers—a light-touch approach which has done nothing to stop employers stealing super from their workers.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were the ones that tried to block the amnesty.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the taxation commissioner has admitted it himself, Senator Hume. A light-touch approach has resulted in less than 15 per cent of unpaid super being recovered by the tax office and has shifted the responsibility for chasing unpaid super onto workers themselves.

As if forcing workers to do the job of government agencies weren't enough, those opposite made that job almost impossible. We know those opposite just sat by when workers tried to get their stolen super back. We know they sat by while workers who reported unpaid super to the ATO were consistently given no information about the progress of their claims. We know they sat by while the ATO kept workers completely in the dark about any deals they made with employers about their hard-earned super. Where was the sense of urgency then? Where was the sense of urgency from those opposite about transparency and accountability then, when it came to unpaid super? Where were the Liberal senators who could have come to the defence of Australian workers or super fund members then? Why did those opposite sit back while $5 billion per year went missing from members' super accounts?

Well, we know why. It is because those opposite are only moving motions like this one as part of their ideological war on super. But going after the funds isn't enough for those opposite. In their war against super, the Liberal Party themselves are going straight after workers' retirement savings. They want to force workers to raid their retirement savings to buy a house, despite the consequence that will have of driving up house prices.

I will take your interjection about choice, Senator Scarr, because during COVID you did force Australian workers to raid their retirement savings to get through the global pandemic. You said this in the chamber yesterday; you're saying it again today. You're saying that it's a question of giving people a choice. I am not sure whether you actually understand what choice is.

When you champion low wages growth as a deliberate design feature of your economic plan, when you do nothing to drive down housing prices to make them more affordable, when you deny Australian workers access to pandemic support based on the industry they work in, when you leave casual workers, workers in the arts and university workers off pandemic support because you hate those sectors, when you leave workers with absolutely no support in the middle of a global pandemic, you are not giving them a choice. You are not helping them to make a choice. What you are doing is forcing them to raid their hard-earned retirement savings because you can't be bothered coming up with policies to actually help them yourself. Almost half a million Australians had their super funds closed or almost completely cleaned out as a result of what you are calling a choice; $37 billion was taken out of accounts by people who really needed those funds the most, leaving them at absolute ground zero when it comes to retirement security.

But those opposite, they don't want to stop there. It's not enough to have workers drain what's already in their accounts. Now coalition senators have even more policy ideas to go after workers' retirement savings. So apparently you do have some policy ideas, Senator Hume, on the backbench. They're suggesting that the government increase taxes on super. They've said the government should not proceed with the legislated increase to the super guarantee. They've called for the requirement for employers to pay super to be removed altogether. And, most shamefully, they've called for super not to be paid to low-income earners at all. If they cared about transparency and accountability they would own up to their hatred of superannuation.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I'm trying to listen intently, and I understand these conversations can get quite boisterous, but when there are three of you, who haven't got the softest voices in the Senate, it's starting to hurt my ear. So I'll just ask if Senator Walsh can be heard in silence for the remaining 29 seconds.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you cared about transparency and accountability you would own up to the fact that you hate super. You hate Labor's proud super legacy, and you hate the industry super funds the most. You would be honest with Australians that you just want to tear the whole system down, and that's what this is about. Our world-class superannuation system is a Labor legacy. We will always stand with workers to strengthen it and protect it. We have no interest in being drawn into a war with you on super. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is being asked this afternoon to reaffirm the importance of transparency and accountability in Australia's superannuation sector and to support measures that ensure that superannuation funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money. The Greens could not agree more with those sentiments.

Just after the election the new Minister for Financial Services, Mr Jones, gave what I dare to suggest is a pretty optimistic take on how this new parliament was going to deal, broadly, with the issue of superannuation. Mr Jones is quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying:

The spear carriers have left parliament, so there is now an opportunity to sign a treaty to end the super wars.

We here in the Greens very much appreciate that sentiment, but I'm sorry to say to Mr Jones that the end to the super wars is very clearly nowhere in sight, because the opposition has a deep reserve of spear carriers and they are committed to fighting the super wars. That, colleagues, is exactly how we find ourselves having this debate today.

This debate is cloaked in very respectable language and, in fact, language which the Greens support, and we will support the question being put about the need for transparency and accountability in superannuation and for measures to ensure that super funds provide better information regarding how they manage and spend members' money. We look forward to supporting that. But this is, of course, in the context of the government's new regulations that establish a set of rules for what information is provided by super funds in their annual members' meeting notices. The opposition has put forward this debate today precisely because Senator David Pocock has postponed his motion to disallow these regulations. The fact that it's Senator Pocock's disallowance, not the LNP's disallowance, is an incisive insight into the mercenary nature of the spear carriers inside the LNP. If the spear carriers inside the LNP are so confident of their case that the new government's regulations should be disallowed and the old regulations should stand, why are they relying on Senator Pocock's good name and reputation to lead the argument for them? Why doesn't the LNP put up its own disallowance?

I'm going to answer the question I've just put to the chamber. The reason that the opposition is so keen for Senator Pocock to lead the charge in this battle is that the transparency and accountability regime that the LNP put in place when they were the government was designed to target the unions. It was designed to target industry super funds while going soft on for-profit retail super funds. That's because the LNP is full of spear carriers who want to fight the super wars. It's also full of spear carriers for whom the very idea that organisations that represent a collective of workers would have access to large amounts of capital is actually hell on Earth.

The idea that working people can have a say on how large amounts of capital are distributed in our society is a complete anathema to the LNP. The opposition's idea of transparency and accountability is a line-by-line itemised account of payments by super funds to unions but nothing whatsoever—this is the critical part—on the payments of dividends or other proceeds for profit by retail super funds to their parent companies. You want to make the industry super funds declare payments to unions, but you don't want the retail super funds, the for-profit super funds, to declare their payments, their dividends, to their parent companies. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, go and take a good look in the mirror. That's all I have to say to the LNP.

The previous government's regulations provide lopsided transparency because—this is the critical part—they were designed to provide ammunition for those on the side of profit in the super wars. Those regulations were drafted under the Morrison government, a government that was the absolute living embodiment of crony capitalism. That crony capitalist government spent every day of its existence fighting organised labour as hard as it could and defending the rent-seekers as hard as it could. That is what you are doing when you saddle up Senator Pocock to take the lead in this battle.

The Greens are not interested in playing along with the spear carriers in their war on industry super. What we are interested in, and what we are working to deliver, is meaningful transparency. We want to see an annual super transparency report, published by the regulator, APRA, that tables all of the relevant expenditure, including expenditure for political purposes and expenditure for profit. We want that all together in one space so cross-comparisons can be made by members. Members would get a better understanding of how their super fund rates relative to other funds, and it would enable institutional scrutiny from the media, from NGOs and from parliamentarians on expenditure and profit-making by super funds. That is far more likely to bring about meaningful change than either of the regulations that the LNP want us to choose from.

We are in discussion with the government, and we hope that we can land in a place which will provide a far more meaningful transparency regime than either the LNP's old regulations or the Labor Party's new ones.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this urgency motion, which calls on this chamber to reaffirm the importance of accountability and transparency in Australia's superannuation system. It is so disappointing that we have to have a debate like this, on a motion like this, in this very chamber, whose primary role is scrutiny, whose primary role is to shine a light in dark corners. You would think—indeed, the Australian people would expect—that this chamber, no matter which party you are from, would support accountability and transparency in Australia's superannuation system. But no—clearly, no. After all, the trustees that operate within Australia's superannuation system are the custodians of $3.4 trillion of Australia's retirement savings. Let me put that into context for you: $3.4 trillion is twice the size of the ASX. It's 1½ times the size of Australia's GDP. It is an enormous amount of money, and yet we allow these enormous companies—these huge, huge organisations—to operate in the dark.

Unfortunately, this is not a view that's shared by everyone in the chamber. We in the coalition have always supported transparency and accountability in the superannuation sector because we know that it will deliver choice and better outcomes for Australians if we do. That's why, when we were in government, we implemented a series of reforms that modernised the superannuation system, addressing the two key drivers of poorer outcomes for superannuation members: opacity and underperformance. Our reforms, through the Protecting Your Super legislation, choice legislation and Your Future, Your Super legislation, were designed specifically to improve transparency and to allow for better informed choices and greater retirement outcomes for Australians. And it is working.

The Your Future, Your Super reforms were the most significant since the introduction of compulsory super back in 1992, consolidating 3.5 million unintended multiple accounts, which were an intentional design feature of the system so that you paid twice as much in fees, twice as much for administration. It was an intentional design feature. Well, they have diminished dramatically; 3.5 million unintended multiple accounts have now exited the system, making you more money. We banned exit fees, we capped fees on small balances, and we ensured that younger people do not have to pay for insurances that they do not need.

We also provided Australian workers with a genuine choice—a real choice. You didn't have to be told by your employer which fund you had to go into. You didn't have to be told by your union. For the first time, you got to choose which superannuation fund best suited you, your family and your lifestyle. These measures stopped superannuation balances being eroded by unnecessarily and overly high fees, which, over time, will save people—particularly young people now—who have combined their accounts tens of thousands of dollars, which will be compounded into hundreds of thousands in their retirement. Following this, the Your Future, Your Super reforms will save all workers around $17.9 billion over the next 10 years by putting increasing downward pressure on fees, removing unnecessary waste and, most importantly, increasing the accountability and transparency of all superannuation funds.

Unfortunately, the Labor Party and the Greens fought us every step of the way on all of this legislation. They were desperate to keep their mates in the industry—and particularly in the unions—happy at all costs. That's at the costs of super fund members—at the cost of you. One key element of our reforms was to ensure that super funds had to act in the best financial interests of members—not the best interests, because that morphed. All of a sudden, it was in the best interests of members to drive across great bridges or to invest in housing developments in London! No, the best financial interests of members should be the primary purpose of superannuation funds.

Unfortunately, those opposite prioritise mates instead of ensuring accountability and transparency for all Australian superannuants. That's why it wasn't surprising, although it was extraordinarily galling and extraordinarily brazen, that the first thing Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, did in the other place upon coming to government—the very first thing; the number one priority in the Treasury portfolio of a brand-new government—was to wind back transparency and accountability in superannuation. You would think that, after nine years in opposition, you would have had a little bit more to do once you hit the Treasury benches. But, no, that's what Labor have prioritised. That was their first order of business. It's shameful, it's brazen and it's after all the good work was done. I will agree with Senator Walsh: yes, superannuation was certainly the invention of a Labor government, but by god it took a coalition government to make it work for members rather than making it work for the funds and fund managers.

The Assistant Treasurer has quickly followed up with a review of the Your Future, Your Super laws, the laws that improved member outcomes, that improved performance, that improved transparency and that got rid of the underperforming funds. Now there's a review going on—a secret review, I hear. We don't even know who's on this secret review, but I reckon that we can guess. Under the former government's accountability and transparency reforms, super funds were required to disclose, line by line, their expenditure on things like political donations, marketing and whether they sponsor football stadiums or football teams. They were required to disclose payments to industry bodies, including unions. They were required to disclose inter-related party transactions, this mysterious, amorphous blob. They were required to disclose exactly what that meant. That's what the Assistant Treasurer has decided to unwind.

Why is this outrageous? Because superannuation funds are trusts. Every single dollar that a superannuation fund has belongs to a member. It doesn't belong to a big corporate entity. It's not as if they can borrow it. It's your money, and they won't tell you how they're spending it. For every dollar that they spend, that's one dollar that's gone from your retirement savings. Don't you think that you deserve to know where every dollar of your retirement savings is being spent? That's all we ask. Yet the first order of business for the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, is to unwind these reforms.

I'm very disappointed in the Greens. It appears that the self-appointed arbiters of transparency in this place, the Australian Greens, are backing the Labor Party. Senator McKim has actually said out loud in this place that the Greens want meaningful transparency that tracks the flow of members' money. Well, the fastest way to do this, Senator McKim, is to commit to supporting the disallowance of the government's watered-down regulations. But he refuses to do that. Senator McKim talks about working with the government to improve accountability, while at the same time maintaining that the Australian Greens will not commit to supporting a motion on the Notice Paper this week to disallow a repeal of these watered-down measures.

Senator McKim thinks that the government, which has already put its flag well in the sand on this issue and moved to repeal these transparency measures, will suddenly change its tune when the only mechanism in parliament that it has to stop it evaporates. I wish that I had Senator McKim's optimism. In fact, I think that's probably the wrong word. I thought that perhaps it was naivete, but I think when we heard from Senator McKim before we realised he's just as captured as those opposite. What a terrible shame for a party that prides itself on its ethical behaviour, its accountability, its transparency and its mission for integrity. What a shame, Senator McKim.

I do suspect that the Greens will support this motion. I suspect that they will claim that they do support accountability and that they do support transparency in super in order to deliver those better outcomes, but the proof of the pudding is always going to be in the eating. Put your money where your mouth is, Senator McKim. The proof will be how they vote when they get a chance to actually ensure transparency rather than just talk about it. They will have a chance to ensure transparency in super is maintained or removed. I call on the Australian Greens right now to walk this talk. First support the motion, but then commit to supporting the disallowance motion on the Notice Paper. But not only that; commit to supporting it today. Commit to supporting it this week. Your reputations depend on it.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to this matter of urgency. The Greens indeed agree that the superannuation sector needs more transparency. You've heard from Senator McKim exactly that. Australians should know how their super is being invested. In particular, it should be easily accessible for an individual to know if their super is being invested in, say, fossil fuels, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, logging, offshore detention and many other industries.

We've seen a rise in companies ramping up their policies and commitments regarding environmental and social governance, and it's great to see increasingly more companies starting to own this responsibility and take it seriously whilst also acknowledging that they have a lot of power and a huge role to play in relation to what environmental and social responsibility looks like. It's also great to see investors taking these factors more seriously, too, and being more conscious of the industries and companies they are actually investing in.

We all vote with our money. Every single day we do this. We might not put much thought into it, but every single dollar we spend sends a message to a company that we like them, the products and services they have to offer, and what they stand for overall. If we didn't, why would we spend our hard earned money there?

However, whilst on one hand we are seeing this increase of transparency and accountability, we are also seeing some take advantage of that. They are advertising themselves as being environmentally friendly; taking care of their workers; having social license to operate in those communities they operate in; and having good, diverse and accountable leadership, when in fact they absolutely don't. They are greenwashing and misleading the public and their investors on lots of occasions. Some businesses are taking advantage of investors who are wanting them to do the right thing and making great claims without actually embodying them.

This is why we need strong regulations relating to environmental, social and governance regulations. It's commonly known as ESG, and the EU has a comprehensive framework that governs ESG, which has formed part of the European Green Deal. The UK and New Zealand they have also taken measures to help regulate ESG, with a primary focus on environment considerations, which we here at the Greens obviously see as a priority.

Australia, once again, is about five or 10 years behind the rest of the world. We can start to elevate this through this process, particularly with the transparency of investment and transparency of super funds. We know there are some frameworks here in Australia that people refer to as sustainability that are already in place but in fact are not strong enough if we are seeing companies continuing to talk the talk without walking the walk, and without it being properly regulated and having the power to do that.

We know that fossil fuel companies in Australia know that the Australian public wants climate action, and they know they want renewable energy, so what are they doing? They're placing wind turbines and solar panels in their ads. That's what they're doing. But they're still continuing to extract coal and gas, cooking our planet. This is absolutely a marketer's dream, the greenwashing that they are doing. These ads are obviously curated for that sneaky and convenient purpose, to convince the public that this is not actually the issue. They are not providing transparency in relation to what superannuation funds are doing.

In the past we have seen that the super funds that are doing this are already performing better than others who are not: making sure that their governance is in check, and making sure there is transparency already for investors who are investing in fossil fuels, gambling and weapons. It has been found that these criteria actually helps investors avoid some of the controversy that can impact their stock prices and their investment returns. One example is BHP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We absolutely need to hold these companies to account and make sure that there is transparency in their ESG policies. We will not address the climate crisis with companies simply adjusting their market strategy.

If we want to make sure that if companies want to do good by the planet and people, then we actually need to create that transparency through a regulated framework. Many of us have seen super invested by these giant companies. We need to make sure that when they are making those investments they align with their priorities and their values and not aiding the burying of the truth.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator BRAGG () (): It's regrettable but necessary to make some comments on this matter of urgency. Effectively, this is about the compulsory superannuation scheme, which is compulsory and sees about $30 billion a year going out in fees—quite a lot of fees. On a comparative basis, it would be one of the least efficient and least productive retirement schemes anywhere in the world.

Effectively, what you have here is a very reasonable transparency measure. At least $15 million in this year is being spent by superannuation funds to go into union coffers, and that is not being disclosed to members. Now, that figure will balloon to $30 million by the end of the decade, so that is $30 million of retirement savings that is being shovelled into unions that members can't see.

The nub of this issue—and there have been lots of contributions on this issue—is that, in regard to the funds' expenditure, as a result of these changes in regulations, there is now more transparency by visiting the AEC website, where the unions are captured and have to disclose their sources of income, than there is available to the members of the superannuation funds. If I'm a member of a super fund and I go to the super fund website, I get less information than I would as a punter going to the AEC website and searching on associated entities and finding the income the unions get from the super funds. That's how ridiculous this is.

Effectively, the Labor Party was against these reforms. The now minister, Stephen Jones, wrote 90 letters to members of the then government, urging us not to proceed with our own reforms and pass the Your Future, Your Super changes. That's because the vested interests that Mr Jones and the Labor Party are closest to don't want to see these changes because they don't want to see transparency. They don't want people to see the amount of money that is being distributed from the super funds to the unions.

There is no question that there has been too much politics in super, but I think it's hard to avoid when you have a system that has been created by the laws of this country and you have allowed such a poorly run structure, where there is huge leakage, to operate for 30 years. There is no question that the banks have done a bad job with super. They have charged ridiculously high fees and they have plundered the retirement savings of their members, and the unions have been able to do the same. And they are proceeding with this agenda of taking tens of millions of dollars a year out of the funds and putting it into the unions.

Now, one of the funds, which is called First Super—it is a very small fund—is taking $3½ million a year in directors' fees on a tiny little super fund. This is more than an ASX 20 company would be doing. Of course, some of the first disclosures we've seen under this new regime, including from AustralianSuper, are that they are now able to conceal more than $100 million in related party transactions and a further $1 million in payments to unions. So we're now not allowed to see any of these payments. These are now secret—brought to you by the party that apparently is arguing in favour of transparency. I think it is very regrettable.

If the Labor Party were obsessed with the legacies of Paul Keating and all these people from the 1980s and were genuinely concerned about the longevity and the credibility of the superannuation scheme, surely they would be embracing the idea of transparency, because the people who are forced to put their money into this scheme are forced to put their money into this scheme; they have no choice. So the least you could do is show them where their money is going. And if you have concerns about the money going to related parties in other part of the industry, then make that transparent as well.

I think the issues that the Greens have raised may well be legitimate issues. Maybe there is scope for more transparency, but the bottom line here in this debate is that the regulations that were made by the last government that require transparency on payments from super funds to unions or any other related party are credible and should not be removed and that the disallowance that has been proposed by Senator Pocock should be supported by anyone who wants to campaign in the future on transparency and integrity. Certainly, they won't be able to make these arguments if they are not going to support this motion.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, we are hearing from all sides of this chamber that people want more transparency. Australians have voted for more transparency. And when it comes to superannuation we should be pushing for more transparency, not less. According to APRA, we pay some $9.1 billion per annum in fees, but the Grattan Institute points out that many super funds don't report the fees that they pay to companies who help manage their members' money. When you add that, it's more like $30 billion, which is an eye-watering amount of money. These are big, big numbers. Superannuation consumers have come out saying they want more transparency. They don't like these changes to the regulations. To make it clear: the old regulations apply to both industry and retail funds.

Despite Minister Jones's claims of high administrative burdens, Prime Super and Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation both disclosed under the old regulations. It didn't seem to be a problem for them. I'd like to address Senator McKim's point earlier, casting aspersions on my disallowance motion. I'm not carrying anybody's spear here. This is something I've heard a lot about from people in the ACT. They want to know where their money is going in superannuation. If we put aside the partisan nature of this debate, we should be for transparency. Regardless of where it is, we should be supporting it. That's why I have a problem with rolling back transparency in superannuation.

I haven't been in here for long, just a few months. One of the things I've noticed is that not everyone votes consistently for good policies. Often they are votes for politics, which you can understand. I'd point to a time a few weeks ago when I and the rest of the crossbench supported one of Senator Roberts's motions on the Climate Change Bill but all three parties voted against it, because to support PHON, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, was not politically convenient.

I will certainly continue to push for more transparency in super. It's something that the people I represent want and it is certainly something that I want to see.

Question agreed to.