Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:02): by leave—I would like to speak to this report and welcome the member for Bennelong who has now become the chair of the economics committee. I look forward to a productive and solid working relationship with him. While his predecessor, the member for Higgins, and I may have had differences of opinions on a whole variety of issues, I believe that one of the good longstanding recommendations that the member for Higgins put forward is to bring the review of APRA's work into the purview of the committee. I think it does important work and reflects the significance of APRA within the broader financial services industry. APRA has been around since 1998 and has a wide breadth of power to regulate banks, credit unions, life and general insurance, and also, obviously, the growth of our superannuation sector—a sector that has a national savings pool of $1.9 trillion that is growing at 10 per cent a year. It is very significant and demands a lot of attention. While our dealings with the previous chair John Laker were limited, largely because he was coming to the end of his time, and the committee had only just commenced its work in reviewing APRA's role, I have to say—and I note the expression given by the chair of the helpful nature of Wayne Byres—Chairman Byres is someone who, in his short time in the role, has impressed me deeply with his very straightforward but considered views. We look forward to seeing his continued role in APRA and the way that it will evolve accordingly. In terms of this report, it covered a lot of things that the chair touched on—not just superannuation but the impact of Basel III; changes in property lending; the capital requirements that are a subject of considerable debate within the banking sector; and the FSI recommendations. Having said that and having looked at the breadth of the work that we covered off in this last report, the last hearing, I have to say, was completely overwhelmed by indulging in a bit of a coalition obsession with superannuation governance. The chair touched on this briefly but, when you look at the report and how much time was dedicated to it at the hearing and in the report, it is completely disproportionate. When you consider, for example, what this government has done in terms of superannuation and the coalition historically and its position on superannuation—the fact that it opposed it from the outset, that it wanted to always keep it as something that was more within the realms of high-income earners rather than having a broad application to the entire workforce—and some of the things they have done in recent times in terms of the abolition of low-income superannuation contribution affecting nearly four million people and, for example, the fact that they have cruelled or put the handbrake on increasing the superannuation guarantee contribution, which would have added to the pool of savings at hand, you would see that these steps have not helped the superannuation industry. They have probably had longer-term detriment. What was the big focus of coalition members of this committee? The big focus was an ideological pursuit of whether union representatives should be sitting on the boards of superannuation funds and then trying to have a bigger argument about industry super funds versus retail funds. I cannot fathom why there would be so much focus on this when there have been bigger issues that warrant attention. If there is a concern about governance, it does not seem to fit some of the moves that have been undertaken by the coalition in recent times—most notably, the repeated calls when it comes to governance of the type of quality of information and advice provided in financial planning. We have had repeated calls for a royal commission into the practices of some in this space that have been rejected by the coalition. So, if they are not interested in pursuing proper governance practices within the broader sector as we and others have demanded—in particular, some of the colleague of the parliamentary secretary at the table—it beggars belief that we would waste the bulk the committee's time pursuing an ideological obsession about whether there should be union representatives on super boards having an impact on the quality of investment decisions that cover their members. Let me be clear: I have no problem whatsoever in looking at improved governance arrangements that result in better investment outcomes; but in the way that it has been managed here, and in this process within the committee, I am genuinely concerned about it wasting the committee's time and wasting the time of APRA, when we do have other significant issues at play. For example, there is great concern, as I expressed earlier, about what impact the change in capital requirements on banks might have. Obviously, banks have a very big concern about that, but we should be following that matter further and with greater attention. The other area that is gaining accelerated attention is the whole issue of macroprudential tools being used to calm down the residential real estate investment market. When you consider that nearly 12 months ago the RBA was pouring cold water on the notion of macroprudential tools being used in this way, and now we have the Council of Financial Regulators, the RBA and APRA actively considering what macroprudential tools they will use after what appears to be a growing impatience with industry-led responses to this issue, this is certainly something that warrants further attention and demands further detail from the regulators about where they see things headed. We cannot afford to have a narrowcast ideological focus on some matters to the extent that they obliterate or diminish proper focus on other key issues that have a greater economic impact. I look forward to the meeting with APRA this Friday, 20 March, and I think that a number of us will certainly pursue some of those broader issues that impact on the financial sector in terms of not just capital requirements and macroprudential tools but also a whole range of other issues that go beyond the pursuit of ideology and the pursuit of proper policy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Does the member for Bennelong wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?