Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Recent collapses like Shield and First Guardian have put over $1 billion of Australians' hard-earned retirement savings at risk. How many times has the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC to effectively regulate these schemes?

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for the question. I acknowledge his interest in this area and I look forward to constructively engaging with him and members across this chamber on this issue. I know that this affects members across this chamber in terms of how it's affected their constituents. I want to acknowledge from the outset how distressing this has been for many people who have lost considerable amounts of funds. There are many individuals and families who have lost a significant proportion of their life savings. I've met with victims of these collapses. I have heard firsthand harrowing stories, and I understand how difficult this has been.

Can I stress that the focus of ASIC, the independent regulator, over recent months has been to protect investor funds, and it has undertaken a range of actions to do so. It has a range of actions already underway in court. This includes actions in relation to financial advisers involved in these collapses. It also involves actions against individuals involved in the managed investment schemes. Importantly, there were also significant actions in relation to the platforms. I welcome the fact that recently there was an agreement reached between Macquarie and ASIC which saw over $300 million returned to investors. So a significant proportion of the investors in the Shield MIS will see a full return of their capital. But I do acknowledge that there is more work to be done, and I continue to work with ASIC and with other regulators in relation to the immediate priority of protecting investor interests.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on relevance. I appreciate that the minister is entitled to preamble, but the question was in relation to how many times the government ignored warnings from Treasury and ASIC.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has covered some ground. He was asked a specific question. I can't compel him to give the number that you're requesting, but he won't be able to go too much longer, because he'll need to be directly relevant. He can choose how to answer the question as long as he's being directly relevant, and so far he has been.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say is I haven't ignored any warnings. When I was notified of this matter earlier this year, I very quickly sought a briefing from my department in relation to the matter. Following on from that, having found out about these matters, I wrote to APRA to receive briefings from APRA in relation to what further actions might be needed in relation to platforms. I've been working constructively with the Financial Services Council and with the industry on that matter. Furthermore, I've written to ASIC in relation to whether or not capital holding requirements of MISs are sufficient. Having been notified of these matters, I have asked my department to provide me with briefings in relation to how we might strengthen regulatory arrangements going forward.

So I would say to this chamber and, of course, to the member who's asked this question that, as we consider options going forward, I certainly look forward to working constructively with members of this House in order to find ways we can strengthen arrangements going forward.