Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer's office received an FOI request in relation to the documents in question, and, as required under the legislation, they consulted with the party involved—in this case, Cbus. Cbus objected to the release of documents it considered to be business information, an available exemption under the FOI Act.

Consistent with this approach, the Treasurer made a claim of public interest immunity in response to a Senate order for production of the same documents on the basis of this third-party objection. The Treasurer did this in good faith to protect business information and to ensure that we can continue to undertake robust and frank stakeholder consultations which are ultimately in the public interest. These protections are in the legislation so that stakeholders can engage in consultation without fear that their business information will be compromised, and the same rules apply to all parties that engage in consultation. We want to continue to have frank and candid consultation processes in the future, and that's why we comply and did comply in this instance with the FOI Act.

Senator Bragg, through his political grandstanding, seeks to undermine these important processes, and we have released the relevant documents on—

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

Is there a point of order, Senator Scarr?

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

[inaudible] of Senator Bragg, talking about him seeking to impugn the processes in relation to claiming public interest immunity. He's actually seeking to uphold the processes as they should be applied.

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

Resume your seat, Senator. There is no point of order. That's a debating point. Minister.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—as Senator Scarr knows. We released the relevant documents on 5 September 2024, in line with the information commissioner's decision, in the usual way. I would say in the time allowed for me that this is just a continuation in another form of the coalition's war against super, particularly Senator Bragg's war against super. He seeks to undermine the superannuation industry and compulsory superannuation requirements in this country. Let's just be honest about what is actually the issue here.

We know that, at every opportunity the coalition gets—right back from the John Howard days and all through the days of all the leaders of the coalition—they have sought to undermine compulsory super, the superannuation industry and, in particular, the role of the labour movement in the superannuation industry, which is, again, what Senator Bragg seeks to do with his continued attack, including in a piece in the paper that I read this morning.

We know and we saw it yesterday again with an announcement of the amendments that the coalition are going to move in relation to super on PPL. They cannot bear compulsory superannuation. They just cannot bear it. They dress it up, as a Senator Cash just did, saying, 'We prefer choice.' Well, the choice at the moment is that women retire with a lot less super than men. Economic inequality is a problem in this country for women. You call it choice; we call it inequality. That's what Labor seeks to address in everything we do—to ensure that we are upholding equality for women, that we are representing their long-term interests and that we don't support this kind of underhanded, continued attack that undermines super. They are even prepared to do it on paid parental leave. We know that that is a massive issue.

Senator Bragg will take any opportunity he gets to undermine the superannuation industry. If he can besmirch industry super at the same time, then that's an added bonus for him. That's what he's seeking to do with this and with the attendance of the minister today. I've explained the process that the Treasurer went through, and I and Labor will continue to argue for the benefits of compulsory super so people are able to retire, with the benefits of their hardworking lives reflected in a dignified retirement because they have superannuation assets. We think that is a good thing. The coalition thinks it's a bad thing. They want to undermine it and tear at it. If they were in government they would seek to do that again and again. They've opposed it from the get-go. Every single change that we seek to bring in to strengthen super they will undermine. If they can undermine the industry that represents working people and their retirement savings, they will do that as well. That is the point of this attendance today. We aren't going to be suckered into your war on super, Senator Bragg. It's something you've done since the moment you got here, and I imagine you will continue until the moment you leave. But, at the same time, Labor will always stand up for super, including industry super.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's answer.

In those last five minutes of this attendance motion, we heard from Senator Gallagher a slew of insults, a number of personal slights and a real lack of detail that I and the Australian people would have expected from an explanation as to why the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, told untruths to this Senate when he filed a public interest immunity claim. The most disappointing thing is that the government came into office promising integrity and transparency, but what we've seen has been a series of cover-ups to protect vested interests. This has been a government for vested interests. And the reason that I filed these claims in relation to freedom of information was because I was suspicious that the government for vested interests had inappropriate lobbying from Cbus Super, the superannuation industry and various unions on matters of public policy.

I suspected correctly that this was happening. The FOI request of March 2023 came back with a redacted response in September 2023. Then I filed an order for the production of documents in the Senate, which was supported by the crossbench. I want to put on record my thanks to the crossbench for standing for integrity and transparency in relation to these matters when the government has failed to meet the standards that it set at the last election when it promised it would be an organisation that would stand for transparency and integrity.

In November 2023, the response to the OPD from Mr Chalmers was that the government would not release these files from Cbus to the Treasurer and that there was a public interest immunity claim from the Treasurer which said that a disclosure of the documents sought would provide an unfair advantage into Cbus's private opinions and business affairs, and this would destroy commercial-in-confidence information. We appealed that to the Information Commissioner in November 2023, and we received the outcome in August 2024 and the documents just last week. It took 18 months to get access to a document, which had been provided by Cbus to the Treasurer, which was inappropriate lobbying that had nothing to do with commercial-in-confidence information. This is an incredible position that we're now in, where the Treasurer of the Commonwealth would make a false claim to the Senate—a lie—that there was commercial-in-confidence information provided by Cbus when there was none. The PII claim was falsely made, and the Information Commissioner itself said: 'I do not accept that the remaining material would cause detriment if it were disclosed. The remaining material does not contain commercial information about the fund.'

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

Sorry; just resume your seat. Minister?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe Senator Bragg said the Treasurer lied. If so, that should be withdrawn.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There Treasurer presented a significant mistruth in relation to this PII claim. The Information Commissioner said there was no commercial information and that it should be released. Thank God for the Information Commissioner, because, without them, we wouldn't have this information in the public domain.

Yesterday, Senator Chisholm said that Cbus had objected to the release of these documents and that that's why the government didn't release them. But it's not up to Cbus to run the government. The government should be run by the people who have been elected by the Australian people, and it was for the Treasurer to make the judgement, in accordance with Senator Gallagher, that these matters were not commercial in confidence, and they should have been provided in accordance with the order made by the Senate.

There was no commercial-in-confidence information. This information was all about a secret lobbying attempt so that Cbus could exempt itself from disclosing fees to members. They didn't want to show their members that they were incurring stamp duty costs when they were investing in property, because they are so desperate to become the corporate landlords of Australia. They want to own the Australian dream, and the Labor government have sought to help them cover up this secret lobbying with a cloak of commercial in confidence which is not there.

That is why it is very important that we get to the bottom of this, and that's why I again thank the crossbench for helping us bring on this motion. As former senator Patrick said in a piece on the weekend:

How was it that Mr Bragg, as a private citizen, can get documents under FOI that Senator Bragg could not using the powers of the Senate?

Patrick goes on to say:

Ultimately, Chalmers' Senate betrayal is a betrayal of the Australian public—who are the real source of the Senate's power and purpose.

Now, I think that is, really, the summary here. We are here to do the work of the public. We are here to expose wrongdoing and get to the bottom of things, and we're being obstructed by a government that promised integrity and transparency. This was a false public interest immunity claim. It had nothing to do with commercial-in-confidence information. It was all about secret lobbying which the Treasurer is ashamed of. (Time expired)

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Minister Gallagher has responded to the matter at hand. I am sick and tired of having to defend industry superannuation against constant attacks from the coalition. Senator Bragg should focus on the fact that Australian women retire with less in their superannuation balances than men, and that is just not fair. The coalition continually use superannuation as a political football for their own means. That is what this is about.

Just last night we heard the ridiculous suggestions from the coalition that women and families can make choices that suit them when it comes to draining their superannuation balances. At a time when they are having to look after a new family, they can make a very difficult choice and decide whether or not they take some money out of their superannuation account now, at the expense of a decent retirement later. This is outrageous. How is it a choice for women and families to drain their superannuation accounts, when we know that women over 50—

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

A point of order of relevance: I can find no logical connection between the motion which is being discussed here and a general discussion with respect to people taking money out of superannuation.

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

Senator Scarr, there is no point of order. You know that these debates can be far-reaching.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said earlier, I think Senator Gallagher has responded to the question at hand. Industry superannuation continues to be a point of discussion in this chamber. What I am simply talking about is the point that industry superannuation is not a political football. I have worked with hundreds of women who have watched the debate in these houses over the years. What they are interested in is making sure that governments do the right thing to ensure that they have a dignified and decent retirement.

Women in particular—I have worked with hundreds of them over many years—are worried about their future. They are worried and they are concerned that our governments should be looking after what should be in their balances at the end rather than pointscoring around what might be determined to be the issue of the day. We know that women over 50 are the largest cohort of people who are becoming homeless, and they are approaching retirement with 25 per cent less superannuation than men. Australian women want our government and the opposition to focus on financial security in retirement for all of us. Unlike those opposite, Labor will always stand for the right of working women to retire with dignity and security while protecting our superannuation that is the envy of the world.

On the point around families making this so-called choice to withdraw their superannuation early: I wonder whether the coalition understand what compounding interest is, or, if they do, whether they think that is just a concept that is good for men. When people are given a choice to take out their superannuation when they are younger in their careers, they miss out on the compounding interest benefits that will benefit them in retirement. Women, on average, as I said, have 25 per cent less superannuation than men when they are approaching retirement. I think they want somewhere to live and they also want to have security when they retire.

Honourable senators interjecting—

If the coalition really cared about women's economic security—

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

Senator Darmanin, resume your seat. Senator Ciccone, you have a point of order?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that you enforce the standing orders and make sure that senators in this place give every senator the respect they deserve. Senator Darmanin is a new senator, and it is quite disrespectful for some senators across the board to be very disrespectful, heckling and making all sorts of comments towards Senator Darmanin. I think it's important we all uphold the standing orders in this place.

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

Hear, hear; thank you very much. I agree 100 per cent.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll finish with this final point, on a theme that I believe is relevant and is worth mentioning: we have a situation where we know that women are the predominant beneficiaries of some of the reforms this government has brought in around closing the gender pay gap, enabling superannuation payments on paid parental leave to address the issue of women retiring with less in their balances than men, to address the concerns around women becoming homeless and to address women feeling secure after a lifetime of work, for the simple fact that they might be taking career breaks to look after family. I think we should be focusing on those things, not continuing to use superannuation as a political football like those opposite.

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

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

I too rise to take note of the statement by Minister Gallagher, and I note that the minister explained the Treasurer's approach in her answer and that the government's approach to this particular order has been made in good faith to protect sensitive commercial information.

But what is not in good faith is the persistent and constant attacks on our universal superannuation system by those opposite. Our superannuation system in this country is absolutely the envy of the world. It's a system that is a proud Labor legacy and it's one that we will continue to build on, despite the attacks of those opposite on our superannuation system. I've been here for long enough to remember many of the attacks that have been made on our superannuation system by those opposite. I know that Senator Rennick is no longer a member of the coalition; he's left to establish his own political party. But I do remember his time in the coalition, when he told us that Australia's universal superannuation system should just be abolished. It shouldn't exist.

I remember a policy that my colleague Senator Bragg had at one point, which was that people on lower incomes should not receive superannuation—that employer contributions should not be made for people on lower incomes. Of course, these are the people who absolutely need their superannuation, and these are the people that we will stand up for to make sure that they do have a dignified retirement through our super system.

We're also seeing from those opposite persistent attacks on our superannuation system through the coalition's so-called super-for-housing policy. Now, I've been in a number of hearings with Senator Bragg on this policy—

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Acting Deputy President Allman-Payne: this is not relevant to the motion before the Senate.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order. The scope is broad. Senator Walsh.

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

Apparently Senator Bragg doesn't want me to give a view from the hearings that we've been in—to report on the evidence that we've heard—on his super-for-housing policy, which is not a housing policy. It is actually a policy to undermine our universal superannuation system. It's not a housing policy, because every witness who's come to give evidence at our hearings on these matters has said that allowing people to take their superannuation out to pay for a home will do one thing and one thing only, and that is push house prices up. So this is not a housing policy. People who have come to our inquiry have also said that people in the target range for this policy don't even have enough super in their accounts to withdraw to be able to make a home deposit. So this is not a policy to help anyone buy a house. It is a strategy to undermine our universal superannuation system. Senator Bragg keeps pushing it as if it's about housing. It is clearly, according to all the evidence that we're seeing, only a policy for dismantling our universal superannuation system.

Senator Darmanin has explained to those opposite, in case they didn't understand, why it is so important that our superannuation system is supported and why it's so important that people retain their superannuation in their accounts throughout their 20s and 30s—despite the efforts of those opposite to dismantle superannuation—and that of course is because of the compound interest that people get by having these savings for their retirement. We're now seeing the first generation of Australians retire with enough savings through the superannuation system to have a dignified retirement and to not have to rely on the age pension—to actually have ambition that is greater than relying on the age pension.

We know that those opposite will always attack our universal superannuation system. It's a proud Labor legacy. It's one that we're determined to build on, and we are building on it in this term of government. We are building on it by expanding paid parental leave and also paying superannuation on paid parental leave, a policy that will boost the superannuation savings of women. We believe in our universal superannuation system. Those opposite only believe in tearing it down.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take note of the minister's explanation. Just so the Australian people realise the smokescreen that's going on here this morning, which is absolutely disgusting in itself, this is not about super and it's not about housing. This is about being honest with the Australian people and about integrity. It's about integrity and transparency. That is what this is about this morning.

This issue is about a minister that was called to the chamber to explain why Senator Bragg was refused access to information he sought using the Senate's OPD powers. This is what this is about. So forget the smokescreen. The sprinklers are finished. The smoke's gone. There is no more smokescreen. That's what this is about. And yet, Mr Bragg—as Mr Bragg, not as Senator Bragg—was granted access to the same information under FOI. This is what this is about, because this should have been made transparent and it wasn't, and good on Senator Bragg for drawing this issue to the Senate's attention.

All senators should be worried about what has happened here—all of you. While our primary role is to review and pass laws, it is also our job to hold the government of the day to account on behalf of the people out there. We sit here on behalf of citizens in all states, and it is our duty to make sure the government is performing its job efficiently, effectively, with transparency and with integrity. That's all we ask in the best interests of the people outside this chamber. But we can't do that without access to information. The Labor Party went to the last election—you remember, you voters for the Labor Party—on a promise of greater transparency. Have a good look, Australians. How has that been going for over two years? Has there been greater transparency? I don't think so. That was extremely misleading, and you wonder why those people out there don't trust us in here.

Here's the deal. What just happened to Senator Bragg is not new to this Senate, is it? I can remember the same thing happening to former senator Rex Patrick in the last parliament. He would regularly get access to documents under FOI that he couldn't get using the Senate's powers. So this is not just a Labor thing. It's not just a Labor thing, and you haven't done any better with your transparency. The Albanese government is doing exactly the same in the Senate as the Morrison government did in the 46th parliament. That's what is going on here. This is just the major party protection racket at work, and we've had enough of it. I can assure you that when they get elected, all they do is wrap a secrecy cloak around themselves. That's what they do up here, and that's not what we're here for. It's just a continual Groundhog Day.

We have the numbers to change the way that things work—for example, to adopt the process used in the New South Wales Legislative Council which involves the use of an independent arbiter when there is a disagreement between the executive and the Legislative Council. This process was actually considered by the Legal and Constitutional Committee in 2013-14, after Senator Cash refused to provide documents to the Senate in response to an OPD. The committee referred the matter to the Procedure Committee, which came to the conclusion based on a submission by then Leader of the Government in the Senate Senator Abetz—of all people—not to adopt the New South Wales practice. He also didn't want to be transparent. He said in his submission: 'An arbitration process can succeed only if it is mutually accepted by all parties and only if it includes making the disputed information available to the arbiter. Absent these two preconditions and it is unenforceable in practice.' There you have it. Even though we have the numbers today to introduce a better system to allow us to perform our constitutional functions properly in here, we won't get a better system until the major parties both agree, and this isn't going to happen because both major parties consider themselves parties of government. Neither of them wants government to be held to account properly.

This is what's going on in this place, and you wonder why your votes are getting fewer and people do not trust you. You promised this in the last election. The Labor Party promised to be more transparent, and you have failed miserably. Let's be honest, you have failed miserably. In the meantime, Senator Bragg will just have to put up with the government advancing not proper public interest immunities but dodgy political interest immunities because that's all that's going on in here today. Just so the Australian people realise, we could change this. We could do this today. We could use the New South Wales way, but, no, both the major parties in here don't want to mention that. I wonder if I brought that bill up here, I could get it done just like that. Maybe that's a way to put both in a corner, because, quite frankly, it's all about transparency.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's exactly what this motion is about; it's actually about transparency. This is a government that, when they were in opposition, loved to lecture the then government on transparency and loved to tell the Australian people that, if they were given the privilege of governing this country, there would be a new level of transparency in Australia. The Australian people, quite frankly, need to understand that there is a whole new level of transparency in this country, but it is now known as 'secrecy'.

I don't think that there has been any time in Australia's history where a government has literally run a closed shop when it comes to democracy. Democracy is about robust debate. Democracy is about answering to the Australian people. It does not matter what portfolio you talk about, this is a government that runs a closed shop. In fact, it has been put to me time and time again, both the Australian Senate and the House of Representatives may as well now be shop floors. In other words, you close down debate, you silence people because that's the way the Albanese government runs Australia.

Stakeholder after stakeholder after stakeholder across portfolio and portfolio and portfolio, they have to sign, under this government, non-disclosure agreements. Again, the Australian people had better start to understand what is a non-disclosure agreement. It means that if you are going to consult with this government on something that affects you, you either sign a non-disclosure agreement and shut up—in other words, you don't get to breathe a word of it, let alone raise any criticisms—or you don't sign a nondisclosure agreement, and guess what happens to you then? You are blacklisted and you are shown the door. Again, the Australian people had better start to wake up and understand democracy is being eroded by the Albanese government, and today's motion is just another example.

Let's put it into context. It's a motion in relation to Cbus. It's a motion in relation to the production of some documents. It's a motion in relation to the failure of the Treasurer of Australia to respond to an order of the Senate. It's a motion that responds to the fact that Senator Bragg, 18 months later, was actually able to get these documents through the freedom of information process—not run by the Albanese government. But let's put it into context, because you've got a protection racket being run here by the Treasurer of Australia and the Albanese government. Cbus chairman is former Labor Treasurer of Australia Wayne Swan—wow! You have to be kidding me! If that doesn't say 'protection racket' under the Albanese government, quite frankly I no longer know what does. Cbus chairman, Wayne Swan, 'paid the CFMEU $1.25 million in the 2022-23 financial year'. Don't take that from me, as it's:

… according to disclosures super funds were recently forced to make for the first time.

Again, the Australian people need to understand that in the two-and-a-bit years that Mr Albanese has been in government—to say that they have been hoodwinked, to say that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes is an understatement. I've got no problems that the Labor Party and the Greens have the numbers in this place. That's life. But what I do have a problem with is this: the secrecy; the lack of transparency; the lack of accountability; the silencing of stakeholders by making them sign non-disclosure agreements, telling them they cannot breathe a word of criticism against this government and, if they do, they are silenced.

Stakeholders make representations on behalf of the Australian people, and this motion is another example of how democracy is being eroded in this country. The Australian people, quite frankly, are being silenced and they don't even know it.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from Senator Cash, this chamber exists for one reason only. It is the house of review. And when it is a house of review it means it holds the government to account. We have a government in this country who are becoming a byword for secrecy, for lack of transparency and for lack of accountability. This is a government who, before the last election, promised to be the most transparent ever, to be the most accountable ever. But actually this government is going to go down as the least transparent government, the least accountable government and the most secretive government ever since Federation in 1901.

The motion here, moved by Senator Bragg, is actually not a controversial motion. It's just this Senate setting out its rights in relation to the production of documents. This is what this chamber exists for. This chamber has said, 'We want these documents in the interests of the taxpayers and the people of Australia.' And what did this Labor Party government do? They went: 'No, you cannot have these documents. You cannot have this information.' Senator Bragg, through various means, was able to get those documents and to show the connection between Cbus, the CFMEU and the Labor Party.

This is what it comes down to. This government doesn't want you to know what is going on, because there is a massive conflict of interest not just in relation to policy on the housing issue in Australia at the moment but also in terms of how money is laundered through the CFMEU to Cbus, back to the CFMEU and to the Labor Party. Senator Cash mentioned then the $1.25 million of members' money from the Cbus super fund that went to the CFMEU. Then the CFMEU donated $6.2 million to the Labor Party. The Labor Party, by the way, has not returned this money. The Labor Party is quite happy to keep the $6.2 million of CFMEU members' donations. Despite the Labor Party's protestations about how bad the CFMEU suddenly is, they're very happy to take the money. There is conflict of interest.

Who is the National President of the Labor Party? It is Wayne Swan, the world's worst treasurer. Who is the current Treasurer? It's Dr Jim Chalmers. He's not a medical doctor, so, if you've got a headache, don't go and see him; you'll get a worse headache, because he'll talk to you! This guy did his PhD on Paul Keating, another contender for the position of 'world's worst treasurer'. We've got the National President of the Labor Party, who is also the head of the Cbus super union, connected up with Jim Chalmers, who, by the way, used to be the chief of staff to Wayne Swan.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, resume your seat. I remind you to please refer to people using their correct titles.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. Dr Chalmers is Australia's runner-up for the position of 'world's worst treasurer'. In the middle of this Venn diagram is the CFMEU, with all the tentacles going out to Keating, Wayne Swan or the Labor Party, because we all know what the Labor Party is; we're just talking about the price of them. They will do anything for their masters in the union movement.

This comes back to the motion before us today, which includes covering up. The Labor Party position on the documents Senator Bragg requested is a political scandal. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party did not want these documents released. The question I put to everybody is: what else are they hiding? We don't know what they're hiding, but guess what? We'll find out. We'll make lots of orders for the production of documents and find out what other stinking, rotten deals are being done between the Labor Party, Cbus, the CFMEU and their acolytes in the Greens. How the Labor Party is treating the taxpayers of Australia is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleague Senator Bragg for bringing this to our attention. I too will speak about the transparency and integrity issues in relation to this. But I want to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that we have a school group upstairs watching this at the moment. It drew me to the website of the Parliamentary Education Office, where it talks about the role of the Senate. I'll read briefly; it will only take a moment. 'In the Senate, the work of the government is scrutinised.' That means 'closely examined'. I think that's something really important for us to think about in relation to Senator Bragg's order for the production of documents. If we can't have an environment where we can seek information in this place so that we can understand and ask questions, then we have a serious problem in our democracy. That is why we are here.

I want to go over some interesting facts; they've been spoken about, but I want to run through them. Cbus has some 920,000 members and manages $94 billion that belongs to those members. For 18 months, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and Cbus have been trying to keep secret the information that Senator Bragg has been seeking. Former Treasurer Wayne Swan is the chair of Cbus. The disgraced CFMEU owns 21 per cent of Cbus—we're getting some dots to connect—and don't forget that Wayne Swan is also the Labor Party president and was Treasurer Chalmers's former boss and mentor. Together, they have worked very, very hard to keep this information out of the public eye, and we have to ask ourselves why that is the case. But even more importantly, they claimed that it was commercial-in-confidence and that there was an important reason that the Senate couldn't know—because the information was private to Cbus—rather than being transparent with the Australian public and with Cbus's 920,000 members. Why? What didn't they want us and Senator Bragg to know? It was that Cbus wanted special treatment, to not be transparent in their fees and costs disclosures to their 920,000 members or to anyone else who wanted to be a member.

What comes next? Wayne Swan has publicly committed $500 million of Cbus funds to co-invest in the HAFF. Should taxpayer funds be put at risk by co-investment with an organisation that is 21 per cent owned by the CFMEU? That's an important question that we need to address here.

The last thing that I want to point to is the cost of building in this country during a housing and rental crisis. The CFMEU has made housing more unaffordable by imposing an effective 30 per cent tax on apartment buildings. They are the last people who should be helping this government with housing—or any government, for that matter. The Australian people expect that we will protect their funds and hold this government accountable. That is why we are here. This government promised transparency and integrity, and they have broken that promise. They should be held to account for that.

I want to finish by responding to a couple of comments from the other side, particularly as they relate to what women want and the protection of women's superannuation. I acknowledge that the largest growing cohort of homeless in this country is women over 55, and that is shameful. I have this question: why is a woman in her 50s not allowed to access her own money—her own super—to purchase a home to have stability in her housing, but once she reaches retirement age she can spend that super to pay rent to somebody else? Can somebody explain that to me? You can't use your own money to invest in your own home, but, when the time comes, you can pay it out to a corporate or institutional landlord and be beholden to them. That is shameful.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we're trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that's got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It's protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.

The Labor Party's defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg's comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I've had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.

To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That's it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They're claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It's taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor's behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt.

This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia's biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It's over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we've got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they're all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU.

My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice.

My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That's what we want. It's hiding tens of thousands of homicides.

Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that's the reason you're losing the confidence and support of the Australian people.

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

There's something really rotten going on here. But I think it's really important, before we begin the discussion about what rotten things are going on, to reflect on the many very good people that work in superannuation and the many very good people that are members of superannuation funds. Indeed, I've had a lot to do with Cbus and other superannuation funds over my time here and before I came to this place, and there is good work being done out there to make sure that Australians have a chance at a better retirement. This is not a discussion about those people. It is not a discussion about the people that work for Cbus either—and there are many good people who do that. But they should know what is going on here because there is this weird, cosy, uncomfortable and inappropriate relationship that is clearly going on between the highest echelons of Cbus and the Labor government. Our concern is that the Labor government is more concerned about what's important to Cbus—and indeed, more importantly, to the unions associated with Cbus, particularly the CFMEU—than it is with what is important and what matters to ordinary Australians that rely on both the government, and its integrity, and organisations that its money is invested in, like industry superannuation, like any superannuation fund, like Cbus, to behave to the highest possible standards—and that's not what's happened here.

There are plenty of opportunities that the Treasurer has had to address those issues that are important to ordinary Australians. Inflation is running out of control, economic growth is stagnating in this country and productivity is going backwards, yet he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in cahoots with his former boss—who is also the chair of Cbus—and making false claims to this chamber in the process. That is uncomfortable, and it should be uncomfortable, and it should be called out by this chamber.

Back in March 2023 my colleague Senator Bragg did something pretty basic, something that pretty much all of us have done at some stage; he sent a freedom-of-information request to the Treasurer requesting all communications between Cbus Super—and let's remember that Cbus Super's chair is Wayne Swan, the former Treasurer of the country and the former boss of the current Treasurer. He requested all communications with Cbus since the last federal election. Six months later Senator Bragg finally received those documents, but they were heavily redacted as to make them unintelligible. They included a redacted email sent by Cbus to the Treasurer's office on 24 November 2022, just a few days before the Cbus chair, Wayne Swan, publicly committed half a billion dollars of superannuation members' money for involvement with Labor's proposed Housing Australia Future Fund. That commitment came before any exposure draft legislation on the HAFF had been released by the Treasury.

On 17 October 2023 the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents requiring the Treasurer to release those documents unredacted, but on 6 November the same year the Treasurer, via the minister here, responded to that order by claiming public interest immunity over the documents. In that claim the Treasurer said that the disclosure of certain information relating to Cbus Super would be contrary to the public interest because it would disclose commercial-in-confidence information. In the Treasurer's letter to the Senate, he said that disclosure would provide an unfair insight into Cbus's private opinions and that that would have the potential to damage their commercial affairs. Well, we know that that was not commercial-in-confidence information and that that PII claim was falsely made. PII claims are not made lightly in this place; in fact, we all need to take them very seriously because if we don't take them seriously we debase the work that we all do—not just the current government, not just the current Treasurer, but all of us. This has been made a mockery of by the Information Commissioner. You have been found, on this one, to be not wearing trunks when the tide has gone out, Labor.

What is the Treasurer going to do about this? We want him to, via his minister, make an explanation to the Senate as to exactly why he would make a false public interest immunity claim, debase the work of the Senate and debase us all.

Question agreed to.