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

I think that's right—I take the interjection. Because I'm a proper person, of course my lawyers responded in the usual way and said, 'Please show cause.' And so far: crickets, nothing. So an organisation wanted to commence a legal proceeding with me; my lawyers did the right thing and engaged properly, providing back information; and we have heard nothing—nothing since May.

So you have to think: why would an organisation do this? I think there are probably three reasons. Firstly, they want to silence a critic; secondly, they wanted to stop anyone else raising these issues; and, thirdly, perhaps they like the deal they've already got so much that they want to put more money into this scheme, more money into this propaganda outfit—more money for lobbying. According to ASIC records, they've already spent $30 million on this New Daily product. Thirty million dollars of workers' money has already been wasted. We have to assume they want to keep on doing this. As the good Senator Scarr just interjected, it is a classic case of trying to secure silence by bullying, and these tactics are totally out of step with a modern society.

The reason that I'm making these comments about this particular scheme is that I think it's very important for the Senate to reflect upon them. The superannuation guarantee is a government program established under law for various purposes. If, as a senator, I were precluded from making statements about a government program, what sort of democracy would we have? I think it's a very important line in the sand here. We can't have a situation where elected officials can't opine about the progress, capacity and success of government programs. It's very important that people are able to raise matters in the public interest, and I would say it is a matter of great public interest that an organisation has been set up, with $30 million of workers' capital, to smear and, through its websites and various parties, engage in all sorts of underhanded behaviour against people it doesn't like. That's not what super is for.

In this chamber there are many different views about superannuation. Some I agree with; others I don't. I think most fair-minded people would say that it's a good idea, that it's an idea that should be made to work, and that these propaganda outfits who are pursuing people through the use of workers' capital really should hang their heads in shame, especially when they're seeking to silence elected officials. If this defamation action were allowed to proceed it would have a chilling effect on the capacity of members of parliament to make statements about government programs. It should not be allowed to stand, and that's why I will not be bullied by these particular organisations and people.

I would say, having conducted an ASIC search of these two companies—because you can't find out who's actually behind these organisations through the usual way—that they should seriously consider their positions and seriously consider how they can justify the expense of what these lawyers have been required to undertake. The directors of Industry Super Holdings are just three people—Michael Migro, Linda Rubinstein and Gregory Combet—and then at the New Daily there are nine people: Gerard Noonan, Glenn Thompson, Tessa Herd-Court, Christopher Walton, Catherine Smith, William Watson, Catherine Bowtell, Brad Crofts and Susie Allison. My message to these 12 people is: who on earth is paying for these legal expenses? Who is paying for these legal expenses, and how can you justify that?

The good news is that this parliament has recently enacted a law which requires the super funds to act in the best financial interests of members. I don't see any possible justification for the ongoing expenditure of the New Daily for legal expenses in trying to smear, close down or collapse public debate about government programs. I don't think your positions are tenable. I look forward to receiving your proper responses to my lawyer's letters, given you have sought to engage this matter. It would be a great shame for our democracy if people like this could lurk in the shadows, set up boondoggle propaganda outfits like the New Daily, and undermine and silence legitimate public debate about a perfectly good idea. Superannuation is a good idea, but it is not working particularly well, and one of the reasons it's not working well is that people have treated the money like it is their own. It is not your money; it is the money that belongs to the workers. I thank the Senate very much for its time.