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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to talk about the Effectiveness of public sector boards: Commonwealth Superannuation Corporationreview by the National Audit Office, a very exciting review, I know! It is very good that we have the Audit Office, which is able to look at the structure and operation of government organisations. In this particular case, this very exciting review has made recommendations that the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation itself has decided it will adopt, but it is a review that is going to make some small improvements, maybe a bit like moving deckchairs on the Titanic.

The bigger issue here is: why would we have a situation where the Commonwealth government is running its own superannuation fund, or sovereign wealth fund, called the Future Fund, while also a Commonwealth super corporation and then separately running an enormous superannuation scheme for the public, which costs the budget an absolute bomb? It doesn't work particularly well. It charges the Australian people $30 billion a year in fees and doesn't make any improvement to the budget over the long term. So we've got a public pension scheme outsourced to the private sector, which is completely failing, as measured by return to taxpayer over the long term, as measured by theft of the Australian people's savings, as measured through some of the highest fees in the world. As I say, we have a highly successful future fund, run by the Commonwealth. We have a Commonwealth super corporation. We've had a very exciting inquiry into that board's governance—which, by the way, is all pretty much good. So why wouldn't we entertain a conversation about merging those entities and then allowing the public to invest in the Future Fund or for that Future Fund to become a default fund, given its strong performance over a very long period of time? I would think that would be quite a good idea, given that the whole concept of super, of course, is a government mandated scheme.

So we have a very successful future fund, which has beaten the super funds that the public are forced to invest in over the long term. You have a Commonwealth super corporation, which is running the administration of a large super fund-like organisation, which is managing the public's requirements—the public being Commonwealth public servants and former Commonwealth public servants. So I think in this parliament one of the things we should be pursuing is: how can we get the Australia people better bang for their buck in superannuation and how can we deploy the organisations of the Commonwealth here through the future fund and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to deliver that aim? Ultimately, if we are going to force people to put their money away into a locked box and we have a perfectly well-functioning and high-performing government agency, why would we not do that?

One of the policies I'd like my party to seriously consider developing and trying to work with other colleagues and other parties on in this parliament is a better deal for the Australian people if they are going to be forced to have this superannuation scheme into the future forever. I think that we can deploy these organisations for the benefit of the Australian people.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bragg. Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks?

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

I don't think I am. Am I? I am. How did you know?

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm telepathic, Senator Bragg. So you're seeking leave to continue your remarks.