Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm proud to support the member for Mackellar's motion on this important subject, because in the House Economics Committee we look at issues that directly affect Australians, and what we know is that we have had a royal commission led by Kenneth Hayne into misconduct in the banking and financial services sector. He did a job, but he didn't do the whole job. Sadly, after he handed down his report, we have seen time and time again clear consequences of where there wasn't a full investigation into some parts of the financial services industry, where there has been conduct that's been covered up and where there has been a failure to take action. Now we are simply seeking to shine a bright light in dark places.

Let's look at the simple facts. While the royal commission gave so-called industry funds a clean bill of health, that isn't now the view of ASIC, who is taking direct action against REST Super for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Laws have to be brought before this parliament to change the requirements, because industry super funds were deliberately reactivating low-balance inactive accounts. As a consequence, they were rolling over money, taking insurance premiums and fees for members with money that should have been rolled into the Australian Taxation Office. And of course we see the ongoing laundering of money through one of their major wholesale funds called IFM Investors. I don't dissuade or discourage the use of such funds, but when they are directly connected to the retirement savings of Australians they have the same degree of accountability as, of course, super funds of all persuasions—retail, industry and government funds. But when we have put questions to IFM Investors about simple information, like those on the reports and the allegations of bonuses, paid for by Australian retirees and retirement savings of Australians, of up to $36 million—which is not a number I came up with but the number that one of their former employees boasted about as part of legal proceedings—and when we simply want to know what are the structures of those payment systems, IFM Investors will not answer to this parliament. We want to know: How much money? What are the maximum bonuses paid? This parliament has asked the question; IFM Investors refuse to answer it. When we ask the big banks, they give us that information. When, to their credit, we ask industry super funds or retail funds, they give us the information. But IFM Investors will not, and it's simply unacceptable. We know on the public record that at least bonuses of nearly $13 million have been made, and what we know is that the structure of their bonus systems are directly proportionate to their activity, so where does it end?

Members on the other side of this chamber come into this parliament and complain about the bonuses of other corporates, and that's fair enough—there should be a proportionate relationship between the activity and the outcome. It takes money to hire people of talent, but can anybody say that out of the retirement savings of millions of Australians a single fund manager could be given $36 million in bonuses and that that passes not just a pub test but even the Labor Party's own test they impose on the rest of the community?

We know that the former member who spoke went on—and I'm sure the ones who will follow will go on—long rants of defence trying to distract, because they don't want a proper focus or scrutiny on these organisations because they're part of the structure, the ecosystem, that funds the modern Labor Party. But the reality is we need accountability in this place. If centralised and organised capital being used for ends and they want to make a virtue of it then they need to back it up with responsibility and accountability.

Finally, I know that the former member for Fraser gave a lengthy criticism of the principle that we want to prioritise homeownership. Make no mistake: I absolutely support homeownership for all Australians. Nobody is saying homeownership should come at the expense of superannuation, but we are saying that the biggest financial decision any Australian makes is to buy their own home. If anybody in this chamber wants to make an argument that that isn't the case, they're free to do so. The second-biggest decision is superannuation, but, currently, the law is socially engineered in favour of super at the expense of homes. Young Australians are paying the price, and those opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves.

See this speech in context