Senator WONG (3:24 PM) —We saw again today a repeat of yesterday's performance by the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer when she was asked yet again to disclose to the Senate the number of Australians who have taken up this so-called great reform that gives one the ability to open superannuation accounts on behalf of one's children. The question was asked some four times—twice yesterday and twice today—but the minister has refused to provide any information to the Senate about the numbers of accounts that have been opened in this category. It does seem strange that this initiative, which the Prime Minister has described as trailblazing, is something that the minister is so reticent to talk about. It is a reform that Senator Coonan herself said that she would do all that she could to talk about, but that does not appear to extend to providing answers to the Senate in question time about the numbers of Australians who have taken up this initiative. This trailblazing initiative, this trailblazing reform, trumpeted by the government as being one of the answers to the complex issue of ensuring that Australians do have lifetime savings and do have a plan for their retirement, has really been nothing more than a flop. Unless the minister can provide us with an indication that there has been an enormous take-up of this reform, we say that so far it has been nothing less than a spectacular failure.

There are many reasons you could pose for the failure of Australians to take up the option of a children's superannuation account. The first is an obvious tax incentive issue: there is little tax incentive as contributions have to be made with after-tax income. But the second and probably more important matter at this point is that people are, and continue to be, justly concerned that fees and charges will continue to eat into the savings that they make for their children and may well leave the children upon their retirement age with very little. It is this second barrier of fees and charges that highlights the Liberal government's failure to deal properly with the issue of fees and charges. This failure continues despite the fact that a number of reports recently have highlighted—as if it did not already need to be highlighted—the importance of dealing with unreasonable fees and charges in this industry.

Only recently—last month, I think—a report was released by the nation's prudential regulator, APRA, which was a pretty strong indictment of some aspects of the superannuation industry and the fees they charge. Despite the fact that those on the other side trumpet this issue of choice and argue that it does not matter that some funds charge exorbitant fees—fees that are manifestly beyond what the market rate should really be—because they are well performing, this fallacy has been destroyed by the APRA report. The APRA report quite clearly said that there appears to be no relationship between high administration costs and high returns. So there goes that fallacy that has been articulated on the other side: `It is okay, we don't have to regulate, we don't have to protect consumers and their retirement savings because, if the funds are charging more, they are getting higher returns.'

APRA has indicated that that is simply not the case. Despite that, you still hear from the other side this view that the big end of town is allowed to charge whatever fees it wants in relation to people's superannuation accounts. The government says that they do not need to be regulated and that they will just be returned in the returns to the superannuation account, despite the fact that APRA has indicated that is not the case.

A one per cent fee, which is a not unusual fee in the retail sector, does not sound like a lot, but over a lifetime that can translate to over $100,000. Australians should know that this government is basically saying to a certain aspect of the industry, `We don't mind if you charge up to $100,000 to manage this person's account. We don't care if that unreasonably eats into their retirement income. We're not going to regulate it; we're going to let the market determine what will occur.' This government has refused to address the issue of fees and charges, and that is a critical issue if we are to have a proper savings plan, if we are actually going to make national superannuation work. Instead, the government will leave it to the market and benefit a particular end of town. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.