Allegra Spender
Wentworth · Independent · Australia
“Estimates are between 0.5 per cent and two per cent of all abortions over 20 weeks. They are generally because of late diagnosed anomalies, genetic syndromes or severe fetal growth problems.”
“The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this.”
“Across Australia, we're seeing rising threats to women's access to abortion care. We see it in bills in state parliaments. We see it in the way some politicians talk about this issue, using misinformation and scare tactics to drive divisions, tools straight out of the Trump playbook.”
“They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away. We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people.”
“I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making.”
“I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.”
The complete record
Every one of 907 lines we hold for Allegra Spender, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 19.
“I want to flag a conversation I had with someone in my electorate about this. A man came up to me—he was probably about my age, in his 40s—and he said, 'I'm concerned that what we're doing is giving concessions to people who have significantly more wealth in retirement than the childcare worker who looks after my kid every day.' That really stuck with me, because I think that is the question. Tax concessions are a choice. We don't have a lot to go around. The question is: Are they being applied in the way that we think is best for the country? Is it fair, consistent, economically efficient and predictable? Those are some of the themes we should consider with regard to our tax concessions. I think, in this case, where the government has landed is appropriate.”
“There is a financial benefit to the country as well. If we have a decent superannuation system, where people can have a dignified retirement, then they also have less recourse to the public purse and to age pensions. There is a sense that that is the purpose of super. I then look at my community and how they look at superannuation concessions currently and ask, 'Do they support that?' They do support a dignified retirement, but, in some cases, the concessions well and truly go beyond what is needed for a dignified retirement. That is why, on balance, I support pulling back the concessions on high-value super funds: because the concession should be directed towards supporting a dignified retirement, but it is unnecessary to give additional concessions that go beyond supporting that dignified retirement.”
“So I think it is extremely appropriate that there are concessions in the superannuation system above and beyond the progressive concessions in the working tax system. That is appropriate. Then the question is: are the levels of concessions appropriate? This is where I have a lot of common ground with, and where I do support, the government's bill. I think it is fair. When I talk to my community about the purpose of superannuation, and the purpose of giving people concessions for superannuation, people very much do agree that the point of the concessions in superannuation is to support people to have a dignified retirement. That's something that the country can unite on: we want people to have a dignified retirement. We do not want people to be in poverty or to be insecure in their later years.”
“That is why I support the government looking at tax in a way to make sure that all Australians, regardless of background, can afford decent lives for themselves and their families. I think that is something that, as a country, we do want. Let's come to the detail of this bill. There are many causes for some of the challenges in our system at the moment—there's low productivity and the lack of housing supply—but, certainly, the superannuation system has played a part. We do have a superannuation system where the concessions are very generous. It's appropriate to have concessions on superannuation. We lock people's money up for a long period of time. We say that they can't access it until a certain age.”
“So we've ended up with a bit of a generation gap emerging which I think has only grown since then, although we don't actually have the numbers. And so we have a situation where younger Australians are struggling to meet the milestones of their parents. We have a 20 per cent drop in homeownership for younger Australians compared to previous generations. So we do have real challenges in the social compact that we are offering younger Australians and that we're actually offering the broader Australian group—that sense that, if you get a decent job and you work hard, you should be able to create a decent life for yourself whether your parents can help you or not. I think it is really important that as a parliament we consider this. This is one of the issues that I have championed the entire time I've been elected.”
“For instance, in this country, if there are two families living next door to each other, both on 100 grand, the older, retired family, on average, pays half the tax of the younger family. A younger family is likely less wealthy, unlikely to own their own home, or certainly less likely to have paid it off, and more likely to have significant costs to them, such as child care or paying off HECS debts. A wealthier family, on average, pays half the tax as a younger working family. I just don't think that makes sense and I don't think that is fair. At the same time as we saw from 2004 to 2016 the wealth of households over the age of 65 grow by around 50 per cent, the wealth of households under the age of 35 didn't move.”
“I have had many people recently say, 'I'm benefiting from various concessions, but I support change here because it can help other people.' So when members of parliament demonise those people and say, 'It's just the wealthy, so it doesn't matter if we take money away from them because there are only a few of them,' it doesn't help. It's actually not going to help drive the reform that the country needs in a way that the country can stay together on. I just really warn people to consider this as they are considering these bills. Why do I think this reform is appropriate? It is genuinely because we have a tax system and a broader economic system at the moment which has various features which I think have delivered outcomes that we don't really want. I'm going to talk specifically to some of those outcomes.”
“I had a number of people write in to say: 'The current tax concessions actually are beneficial to me personally, but I still support reform because I do want to make sure that all Australians can have good lives and I think that this is a reform that is appropriate.' It's that spirit that I do think the speakers particularly on the Labor side, given the language of the previous speaker, need to bear in mind. I represent a lot of wealthy Australians who are very concerned that people across the country aren't able to live dignified and decent lives. I represent many people who are well off who worry about their kids and their grandkids and, frankly, even if their kids and grandkids are sorted out, they worry that other Australians who are working hard just can't get ahead. So they worry about that. They are open to reforms.”
“I have spoken to my community a lot about superannuation, about its purpose and about what people want. Particularly when the government first floated changes in the superannuation system, I went out to my community. We had over 1,100 people respond to a survey, and over 80 per cent of people said they do support changing tax concessions on super, reducing some of the highest tax concessions and, indeed, increasing tax concessions for less wealthy people because they see the need for that. It was interesting.”
“I rise to speak on the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 and the associated Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. I do welcome this bill, and I welcome the government's approach to the superannuation system in its current form, not in its previous form. I'd like to talk a little bit about why it's important and why I think it is a useful reform, and, at the same time, why I disagree very strongly with the previous speaker and how they characterised that reform. I'm very wary of people setting up reforms as class warfare. I think that that does not help this country stay together. Certainly some of the language that has been used around these bills is not helpful to making reforms which are genuinely useful.”
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Last weekend I marched in the Mardi Gras, and I recognise that you were the first prime minister to do so. But, in 2026, teachers can still be fired and students expelled because of who they love, because of getting a divorce or because of having a child out of marriage. This discrimination is permitted under federal law in schools that receive federal funding. When will your government follow through on your 2022 election commitment to protect our LGBTQ+ students and teachers?”
“In light of the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Bondi and the fear it caused, continuing this work is more important than ever. We had 12 schools participate last week at Cranbrook School. The schools that participated were across the independent, government, non-government and religious sectors, including WAYS, Cranbrook, Ascham, Kincoppal, Reddam, Scots, Waverley, St Clare's, Rose Bay, Moriah, Emanuel and Kambala. So there was an amazing range of schools. As one student said, 'It is so important to build connections across our different cultures and groups.' I'm so proud of how the students behaved, I'm so proud of how they are leading in these difficult times, and I'm really excited to be turning their ideas with them into real action across our community.”
“One of the initiatives I'm proudest to support in Wentworth, and am proud to have instigated, is our student led social cohesion roundtables. Building on roundtables we did with principals across our school sector, the first student led program was held in November, and we brought students back for a second session just last week, with even more schools taking part. I think that growth reflects how seriously our community values strengthening belonging. Run by Together for Humanity as well as the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies and me, these roundtables are led by students themselves. They provide a structured space for young people to engage honestly, disagree respectfully and develop practical solutions.”
“I think those have to be balanced against the needs of the royal commission to act really swiftly. I look forward to engaging with both the member for Berowra and the Attorney-General on this because the goal really is to enable the royal commission to do its incredibly important work and, at the same time, ensure that these protections are appropriate and will last through both this royal commission and subsequent royal commissions as well.”
“We have recent examples such as David McBride and Richard Boyle, two people who have fallen foul of whistleblower protection laws. I think it is really critical that these are improved and the Commonwealth considers what it is trying to do when it takes on people such as Richard Boyle and the chilling effect that will have on any whistleblowing in the ATO in the future. I do want to finally say that I thank the Attorney-General for her engagement on these issues, and I acknowledge that this bill is really needed and timely. I think it strengthens protection at a critical moment and helps ensure that the royal commission examining the offence of 14 December can operate smoothly and effectively. I note that the member for Berowra had some concerns in relation to the timing of the bill and opportunities for it to be reviewed.”
“I also want to acknowledge that, to be honest, there is much more work to be done in relation to whistleblower protections more broadly across the parliament. This is something the government has acknowledge they do want to tack action on but which we do not have clear timelines on yet. Having spoken and engaged with those who support whistleblowers, what is very clear to me is that becoming a whistleblower and standing up for what you see as public good really comes from, in so many cases, a deep desire for our country to work as well as possible. It comes from a real sense of civic duty, but being able to be protected is complex. Individuals, people who do not have a high degree of understanding in these areas, can relatively easily make mistakes which make them open to criminal prosecution.”
“That does not specifically address the royal commission context, and it remains largely untested. A criminal case for mistreatment following voluntary evidence provision would require an AFP investigation, as the Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the veterans' royal commission noted, 'There is no evidence that such prosecutions have occurred, but the absence of prosecutions does not eliminate fear.' If someone provides important evidence to assist our country in uncovering the truth, we should not leave them exposed. We should not punish those who want to help. I hope that these issues will be addressed in the broader reform package that the government is progressing.”
“If we want voluntary candour, we must ensure voluntary disclosures are adequately protected, and I think this is a really important point. We do want people to come forward in royal commissions. I think that's really, really critical. It is absolutely critical that these people have the same protections as those who are compelled to come forward. Finally, on workplace and civil consequences, I understand that this bill provides protections against criminal and certain civil liability. However, this does not fully address the position of individuals who come forward voluntarily and may face workplace repercussions such as bullying, demotion or other forms of retaliation. Their only avenue may be to pursue employment claims through the Fair Work Commission or other general processes.”
“For example, officials in the Department of Education or the Attorney-General's Department may wish to come forward with information about institutional responses to rising antisemitism or broader social cohesion challenges. Many who choose to speak up will do so voluntarily, not because they have been formally compelled. Those who are compelled benefit from clearer protections. Those who come forward voluntarily may not. The new Criminal Code defence is helpful, but it applies only to a limited number of general secrecy offences. There are more than 850 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation. The defence does not provide blanket immunity and does not resolve uncertainty across that broader landscape.”
“We do not know what future royal commissions may examine or what future circumstances may arise. Our intelligence agencies perform extraordinary work protecting Australians, but legislation should be robust enough to operate effectively in all scenarios, including in instances where the agency's own actions or performance may be under scrutiny. Access to relevant information should not depend on discretionary cooperation. It should be guaranteed by law. Secondly, in terms of the focus on intelligence and law enforcement information, this bill primarily addresses intelligence and law enforcement information. There are protections for individuals who are compelled to provide information, but many who provide crucial evidence do so voluntarily.”
“I do not want to stand in the way of reforms that are necessary to ensure that this commission can operate effectively. However, we should also recognise that this may not and should not be the final word on secrecy reform. The government is undertaking broader work in reviewing secrecy provisions, and I encourage it to consider whether additional reforms may be required for future royal commissions. The new protections rely on a royal commission entering into arrangements with intelligence or law enforcement agencies. I do not expect this to present difficulties with the royal commission that is currently underway. However, legislation must be future proofed. We must ensure that intelligence agencies are not, even inadvertently, equipped with a veto power to choose not to provide information to a royal commission.”
“In particular, it enables arrangements to be entered into between a royal commission and intelligence or law enforcement agencies so that protected information can be disclosed without breaching secrecy offences. The bill also introduces a new defence within the criminal code framework for disclosures made in accordance with such arrangements. This is intended to provide greater certainty that individuals cooperating in good faith with the royal commission will not commit an offence under general secrecy provisions. These changes are important and welcome. While I support the intention of the bill, there are several matters that warrant attention. I recognise the need for expedition, given the royal commission is already underway and an interim report is due shortly.”
“Given the seriousness of the issues at stake, including the terrorist attack on 14 December, we must remove barriers that could prevent critical information from being disclosed. After hearing these concerns from experts and stakeholders, and after reviewing the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the 2023 secrecy review, I raised these matters directly with the Attorney-General. I am grateful for her engagement and responsiveness to these issues, and I know she engaged with others as well. This bill amends the Royal Commission Act 1902 and related legislation to strengthen protections for individuals who provide information to royal commissions. It clarifies the interaction between secrecy provisions and disclosures made to the royal commission.”
“If individuals believe that they may be exposed to sanctioned prosecution, career damage or retaliation, they may remain silent, and that risk is unacceptable. If we are asking intelligence officials, law enforcement officers, public servants and others to assist at a royal commission—particularly one examining national security, social cohesion and, potentially, institutional failings—then we must ensure they are properly protected while sharing relevant information. This is not only important for the protection of these individuals; it is fundamental to the effectiveness of the royal commission itself. The commission can only make sound findings and recommendations if it has access to complete and candid evidence.”
“It highlighted that secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation were complex, fragmented and potentially inhibiting participation. The commission noted that uncertainty around secrecy offences could deter individuals from coming forward, even where protections technically existed. The Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the royal commission acknowledged that, while prosecutions for secrecy breaches in this context may not have occurred, the perceived risk alone could have a chilling effect. It also recognised that civil remedies and workplace protections for those cooperating with royal commissions may warrant further consideration. Even where legal protections technically exist, the lived reality is different.”
“I am glad that the royal commission is now underway, and I'm especially glad that the government is acting to strengthen protections so it can do its work effectively. This reform does not arise in isolation. There have been multiple reviews highlighting shortcomings in protections for participants in royal commissions, including the 2023 Review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department, which examined protections for individuals providing information to royal commissions. That review recommended that the Royal Commissions Act be amended to 'clarify the application of secrecy offences to individuals providing information to royal commissions'. Importantly, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide also identified serious concerns in this area.”
“I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. On 14 December, my community experienced a loss and trauma that will stay with us for, I think, as long as we live. The antisemitic terrorist attack that day was not only an act of violence; it was an attack on social cohesion, on trust and on the sense of safety that every Australian should feel in their own country, and it was an attack on the Jewish community. In the days that followed, I called for a royal commission. We must understand what led to the attack. We must examine the broader rise of antisemitism and erosion of social cohesion, and any institutional and systemic failures that have contributed to the awful act of hatred that we saw.”
“As well as the strategic, defence and economic opportunities, I think it also represents an opportunity for our peoples to become closer and for there to be greater exchange—language exchange and people exchange—with more Indonesians in Australia and vice versa. I hope this is the start of a closer relationship with Indonesia, one that is incredibly important both to Australia and to Indonesia. This is a really positive investment in that relationship, and I couldn't be happier that it has been made. In the face of global challenges, our respective strengths mean that working together makes us stronger than the sum of our parts. I congratulate the government on this treaty. I thank the member for Solomon for bringing this motion, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.”
“Australian businesses, particularly in agriculture, resources, education, financial services and clean energy, have so much to offer the booming Indonesian market and vice versa. I welcome the news that this treaty will facilitate closer cooperation between the Australian government and Indonesia's sovereign wealth fund to boost trade and investment links between our two countries. I will continue to press the government to ensure the promise of deeper economic engagement in Indonesia is matched by real action under its 2040 Invested strategy—cutting red tape, funding trade facilitation and investing in the people-to-people links that help drive more business. The Jakarta treaty 2026 is a significant achievement for both nations.”
“The development of joint defence training facilities in Indonesia is a great step towards ensuring our militaries can coordinate and support one another on the ground, not just on paper. The expanded Junior Leaders' Forum Military Education Exchange will build connections between our forces, and the new embedded position of a senior Indonesian military officer in the Australian Defence Force will strengthen our partnership right up the chain of command. This treaty also helps to unlock the enormous economic opportunities of mutual interaction between Australia and Indonesia. Indonesia's economic trajectory is remarkable. It is projected to be one of the world's top five economies by the middle of this century. Its middle class is growing rapidly. Its digital economy is one of the most dynamic in the world.”
“It is one of our closest neighbours, yet the relationship honestly just has not had the investment that it should have from this side. I'm glad to see that the Jakarta Treaty changes that. It recognises the central role Indonesia plays in our region's peace and security, now more than ever. It goes well beyond the frameworks of the past and reflects a genuine, comprehensive strategic partnership, one that can build on trust, not just transactions. This trust has been carefully cultivated at the highest level of both governments and must now be nurtured at every level: people to people, business to business, community to community. I want to acknowledge what this treaty represents for our shared security.”
“Indonesia is an incredible and brilliant example of this. But the Indo-Pacific region is also being rapidly reshaped by economic competition, the shifting attention of great powers, and geopolitical and security challenges. This creates uncertainty that is unlikely to resolve in the near future. In this context, strong partnerships with our neighbours, particularly a neighbour such as Indonesia––one of the most strategic players in Asia and likely to only increase in that significance––it's not optional; this is essential. Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country, home to nearly 280 million people. It is the largest economy in South East Asia, a democracy of remarkable diversity and a leader in ASEAN, in the Indo-Pacific and on the global scale.”
“I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Solomon, and I thank him for bringing this issue to the attention of the chamber. The signing of the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Security, known as the Jakarta Treaty, is an important moment. It is a signal, not just of the pragmatism about where Australia sits in the world but an important sign of who we are as a nation and the role that we aspire to play in our region. It reflects a maturing relationship between Australia and Indonesia, based on mutual respect, increased trust and a shared understanding that our security and our futures are inextricably linked. The Jakarta Treaty comes not a moment too soon. Many countries in our region are developing quickly, growing economically and playing a more active role in our global order more than ever before.”
“I also want to acknowledge that last week I went to Clovelly Beach to support Wesley Mission's and Lifeline's 24-hour run-swim-run challenge, Lifeguards for Life. Lifeguards from across Sydney participated to raise vital funds for Lifeline Sydney and Sutherland's telephone counselling service. It wasn't a great day on Friday, I have to tell you, if you were out there in Sydney; there was a big surf, but they dived into the ocean and were incredible in their endurance. Thank you to all the lifeguards who participated and thank you to everyone in the community who sponsored them. It was a really important event and one that I hope to start again next year.”
“I was delighted on the weekend to march in the Mardi Gras parade, one of the highlights of my year. I acknowledge several outstanding Wentworth organisations that work tirelessly to ensure that our LGBTQIA+ community feels safe, supported and celebrated, particularly Qtopia, the world's largest dedicated queer museum; Trans Housing Hub, who provide safe housing to support trans and gender diverse people; the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation, who support those living with HIV; Emerald City Kickball, a community of LGBTQIA+ Australians and others connecting through kickball and other team sports; and Sydney Frontrunners, a community for LGBTQIA+ friends who are interested in running and walking. It was such a privilege to walk alongside you all. It was a privilege to see the 78ers out there today. It was a wonderful night for all Australians.”
“It's precisely because these powers are so extraordinary and because ordinary citizens have so little visibility of ASIO's work that I believe the powers should be subject to regular review by parliament. Really, what I'm urging the government to do is to retain a sunset provision—I think that is a really important part of this bill—and to accept, in particular, the amendments by the member for Curtin. Thank you.”
“The antisemitic terrorist attack on Bondi Beach tragically reminded us that radicalisation and extremism remain pervasive threats in our society. Bondi showed us that we cannot take for granted for a moment the safety of our community from terrorism. We need to do everything we can to stamp out terrorism and radicalisation while also preserving our social cohesion and civil liberties. This is a difficult balance to strike and something that we must regularly re-examine to ensure that we're getting the balance right. By the nature of their work, ASIO operates in such a way that most Australians have little idea of what's going on behind the scenes to keep them safe, but the Australian people do deserve to have the confidence that the powers we equip the security agencies with are not being set on default mode.”
“I acknowledge the advice from ASIO and others that people are being radicalised younger than ever before—I recognise that threat—and that minors represent a substantial proportion of their case load, but the Law Council has raised that the ability to compulsorily question minors has the potential to significantly trespass on the human rights of a child. ASIO and the Department of Home Affairs have, themselves, accepted that there are less intrusive ways to collect intelligence from minors and that, by the time the minor's activities reach a threshold to warrant compulsory questioning, the matter is better dealt with by the police. Of course, the ideal scenario is that the young person would have been successfully deradicalised long before this point is reached, but that is a topic for another time.”
“I support the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, which would retain the sunset provision and make a review every three years by the PJCIS a mandatory rather than an optional safeguard of the legislation. Until such a time as the PJCIS has an Independent member, it is particularly important that the committee can be counted on to review significant legislation such as this bill as a matter of requirement, rather than according to the preference of the government of the day. I also am concerned by the bill's failure to wind back the provision for ASIO to compulsorily question minors and support the amendments proposed by the member for Warringah to sunset the minor-questioning provision. Again, these are sunsets which I think are appropriate.”
“Compulsory questioning is something that I don't take lightly. Under these powers, ASIO has the ability to force someone to answer questions at risk of penalty, including if they're a minor. I take very seriously the submission of the Law Council of Australia regarding this legislation, which noted among other things that compulsory questioning was never intended to be made permanent and that a regular review is a critical protection. The passage of time alone should not transform an extraordinary power into an ordinary one. The sunset clause has functioned, I believe, very effectively until now as a safeguard against misuse, and I haven't yet been proposed a credible case to change this in this bill.”
“ASIO's compulsory questioning powers are extremely important, and I should note that there is no suggestion that these powers have been used improperly or excessively in the more than 20 years that they have been in place. But it is not something we should take for granted. I honestly don't believe we should take a set-and-forget approach to the significant powers with which we entrust our national security agencies. These powers are extraordinary and should remain so. I urge the government to consider not making these powers permanent. I support the renewal of these powers, and more so than ever given the devastating terrorist attack in my own community. But, given how broad and powerful these powers are, I urge the government not to remove the sunset clause but to retain the sunset clause.”
“In light of the extraordinary nature of these powers, and to ensure that they were only used judiciously and sparingly, the parliament legislated a sunset period so the powers would be subject to regular review. Since that time, parliament has reviewed and extended the powers every three years. This bill proposes to go further now, removing the sunset provision entirely, and so making these powers permanent. It also expands the scope of adult questioning warrants to cover new grounds, including sabotage and threats to Australia's territorial or border integrity—a significant widening beyond the original focus on acts of espionage and terrorism. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation plays a very important role in upholding Australia's national security in identifying and disrupting threats and keeping Australians safe.”
“This is why I take very seriously the opportunity to examine this bill. This bill proposes to considerably expand the compulsory questioning powers contained in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and to make these powers permanent rather than subject to sunset every three years. The compulsory questioning framework was introduced in 2003 following the September 11 attacks, when many countries, including Australia, were faced with a new reality. We felt the imperative to ensure that our national security agencies had the tools they needed to collect intelligence to pre-empt and disrupt plans of terrorism. The compulsory questioning powers became an important part of our ability to do that.”
“I rise today to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Australia's intelligence agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, play a critical role in keeping the Australian community safe from harm. ASIO's ability to undertake its important work, including through the use of tools such as compulsory questioning, is essential to its ability to identify and pre-empt threats. But the powers that they have are significant, and I believe they should be subject to close and regular scrutiny to ensure that ASIO is undertaking its work in line with the expectations and needs of the day. As a parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that the powers with which we equip our security agencies are proportionate and necessary.”
“But that is literally the modus operandi of this government. I support the intent of this bill, and my feedback has been that the Assistant Treasurer has done a great job of engaging with industry and really being incredibly consultative. That doesn't surprise me at all, because I think that's been his approach across many different areas. But I do think there is a danger here, and I do think it's important to make sure that this bill does actually strengthen consumer outcomes and we don't lessen competition. We need to be very careful that this bill actually lives up to its title, which is improving choice in superannuation.”
“We are trying to protect consumers, but, if it ends up that we are just entrenching providers that do not really have to show their worth to consumers and that are not subject to strong competition, we will be doing a disservice to all the people who invest across our country in these superannuation funds. That is the piece that I think it is really critical for the government to be monitoring as it brings in these sorts of changes. Finally, I urge the government to deal in good faith with the Senate inquiry process and commit to waiting for this review to take place before pushing this legislation through the Senate. I would actually say it would be great if the Senate inquiry could be done before this legislation is once again pushed through the House, because it is hard to vote on legislation without having the full information.”
“So the super funds are investing in the ones they're used to, but they're not actually investing in the new innovation in the VC and PE area. I think this should be concerning us because who is funding innovation? I think these sorts of industries are perfect assets for super funds in the sense that they are long duration and need patient capital but also have the opportunity, with good ones, to earn really extraordinary returns. So they should be the place, but they're not currently. It's why I've been pushing—and I really respect and appreciate the Treasurer being open to looking at Your Future, Your Super and ASIC and at expanding ASIC's review of RG 97 to include funding for innovation. But I do think this is the stuff that we need to beware of in some of this.”
“That impact, through different pieces of legislation, can be more or less positive both for the members and for the funds. I want to draw your attention to a particular example: super funds' investment in innovation. You would think that, with the high level of superannuation funds and pension funds available, Australian super funds would be investing in innovation in Australia, particularly given that VC funds and PE funds have been shown to significantly outperform the ASX and more traditional listed areas. However, what we have seen is that super funds have reduced their exposure to innovation and particularly VC and PE over recent years. Members of the industry—the VC-PE sector—have told me that, in the last five years, the major super funds have not invested in a new VC fund over that period of time.”
“We have some of the biggest pension funds in the world in this small country of ours while only having 27-odd million people. But the issue really is that we need those funds to be as competitive as possible with each other if they are going to be using that $4 trillion worth of Australian assets. That is over 100 per cent of our GDP, so what that money is doing really matters if that money is going to be used for, firstly, the greatest benefit of the members and, secondly, making sure that it is actually serving the country as well. The sole object of superannuation is, frankly, to earn returns for members, and I'm never going to violate that principle, but I do recognise that, with that big asset pool, in some ways a super fund has an enormous impact on our economy.”
“I am concerned that the cumulative impact of superannuation policy, including the performance test, which the Treasurer has recently agreed to review and which I think is really important to review—not to remove the performance test but to minimise the unintended consequences of reducing competition and innovation, which I do believe the performance test does at the moment—has created less competitive pressures on funds to outperform and to deliver for their clients. This has a cost, albeit hidden, and I'm concerned that this legislation may add to that cost. I do want to argue that this should worry us all. Australia has an extraordinary amount of our resources in superannuation—$4 trillion. It's absolutely remarkable. We have one of the biggest pension pots in the world in that cumulative fund.”