Posts

Labor’s Payday Super “Cash Flow Killer”

,

This legislation – The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 – is a direct assault on small and medium businesses. Forcing employers to pay superannuation within seven days of payday, instead of the current quarterly system, is stripping away the “cash flow buffer” that keeps businesses afloat.

Here is the reality of what these bills do:

  • If a business is even slightly late, they face brutal penalties: 25% for a first offense and 50% for subsequent ones.
  • To cover the immediate cost of bringing these payments forward, businesses (especially in retail, hospitality, and tourism) will be forced to cut staff levels. This means tens of thousands of young Australians will lose work during peak seasons like Christmas and Easter.
  • The government is also scrapping the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Instead of one bulk payment, small business owners will now be buried in paperwork, manually paying dozens of individual funds every single week or fortnight.

This isn’t about workers, it’s about funnelling more money faster into union-backed industry super funds. While small businesses collapse, these funds and large corporations get richer.

One Nation believes workers should be able to use their super for a home deposit — investing in their own future rather than being forced to rent from the very super funds getting fat off this legislation.

Ultimately, this is nothing but a revenue-raising exercise disguised as “virtue signalling.” It ignores the reality of record-high bankruptcies and unaffordable energy costs, choosing instead to “shaft” the very people, the workers and small business owners, it claims to protect.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 penalise employers who do not pay their employees’ superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as salary and wages. The payment must reach the employee’s super account within seven business days of the employee’s payday. Currently, payments are due 28 days after the quarter to which they relate. 

This is a major change in cash flow. It brings forward a significant expense for businesses, particularly small businesses, while only adding a small amount to their super across their working life—if they can get a job, of course. So many jobs these days require ABNs, in which case the person must pay their own super. It says in the legislation: 

The reforms intend to ‘strengthen Australia’s superannuation system’ by reducing the SG gap— 

which was estimated at $5 billion in 2022. Treasurer Chalmers wrongly says: 

While most employers do the right thing, some disreputable ones are exploiting their employees. 

Most of the shortfall is in small businesses and microbusinesses and includes solopreneurs not paying themselves super. The quality of data on this is surprisingly poor for something being used to justify this onerous bill. The government doesn’t want the facts to get in the way of their virtue-signalling and pork-barrelling of union backed industry super funds. That’s the target. That’s what the government wants to do here—look after their union bosses’ super industry funds. 

If the employer hasn’t paid the super 28 days after payday, they will receive a notice giving them 28 more days to pay. If they still fail to pay, there is a penalty of 25 per cent of the missing super. That’s for the first offence. There’s a 50 per cent penalty for a second offence and for subsequent offences. This will be a nightmare for small and medium businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and tourism, and it will be a gift for super funds, the unions and the Australian Taxation Office. 

Treasurer Chalmers has no clue how businesses—especially small businesses and microbusinesses—work. The current quarterly super system increases the ability of small and medium businesses to smooth their cash flow over what is, effectively, a four-month period. Businesses could set their staffing levels to the expected revenue for a three-month period. 

Let me give you an example. Retailers have mostly completed hiring their staff for over the Christmas period, even though Christmas spending doesn’t get going for another few weeks. They know they can afford the wages now but don’t need to pay super until the money comes in next month. What’s going to happen under this ignorant, anti-small-business legislation is that small and medium retailers will cut their staffing. They’ll reduce the number of their workers equal to the amount of the super contribution that they’re bringing forward. They’re taking the cost out of labour because there’s nowhere else to take it from. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. You certainly don’t understand rents or profits. 

Most small and medium businesses in this country are struggling as it is. Business bankruptcies are at a record high under this Labor government, and now more will go under. Large retailers—wait for it—will simply pass this cost on to everyday Australians through higher prices, so the people of Australia, and the workers in particular, are going to get shafted by this bill. Treasurer Chalmers and this Labor government have ensured that tens of thousands of, mostly, young Australians will not have a job this Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day or Black Friday and other retail highlights. 

It isn’t just retailers, though, who will lose. This bill will, in addition, harm markets, tourism and hospitality—all of which are weather dependent. These businesses will not be able to smooth out the ups and downs coming from good and bad weather—and there are ups and downs. That’s the way the earth operates; weather is variable. They will be forced to set staffing levels lower to ensure that they can cover the wages of staff and their super. I expect we will see a change to employment terms, with weather clauses being written into awards and further reductions in shifts to allow staff to be sent home if businesses are not busy. 

This Labor government has already had a lesson in unintended consequences with its greedy hike in tobacco tariffs leading literally to open warfare, firebombings and killings in the industry, and lower tax revenues. Everyone loses except the criminals. Treasurer Chalmers is in for another such lesson here. It will not be the government that’s harmed. It will be young Australians—and retailers—who will be harmed. Of course, Labor won’t care. They don’t govern for young Australians. If they did, then the Albanese government would not have flooded the country with new arrivals, driving up rental and home prices, lowering wages and reducing living standards. Did anyone mention unaffordable power? 

The winners from this bill will be the government’s mates. The unions’ super funds will get richer. The large corporations who can afford to carry staff for the few weeks will get richer. The big end of town gets richer, and Australians get poorer. I said last week that the Australian Labor Party spell ‘labor’ without a ‘U’, l-a-b-o-r, because the Labor Party do not care about ‘you’. They bypass the ‘you’. Young Australians are about to get another lesson on how little they matter to this government.  

Workers will be sacked, and businesses will close as a direct result of this policy. It’s clear. The revenue-raising figures and estimates in this bill make no allowance for expected employment downturns, which will come—the unintended consequence of this bill. It’s not, as proposed in the legislation, better for employees because they get their super money earlier, because the job market and the private sector will immediately shrink.  

After Treasurer Chalmers had his fantasy tax grab on unrealised capital gains trashed, he has evidently pivoted to recouping the money off the dying and struggling ecosystem of private industry, which has borne all the costs of unaffordable energy increases, foreign competition and Labor’s recent award changes. 

These bills are estimated to increase taxation payments to $589 million over the next three years. This is about a taxation increase, which ignores as usual the decrease in revenue from business collapses and staff sackings. There will be lower employment. 

Why is the government banking on this bill boosting their bottom line so much? Is this about superannuation or is it revenue raising—fining small businesses for laws the government knows they won’t be able to comply with on time? Maybe the government don’t know; that’s how out of touch they are. Despite this, this bill is disguised as being pro worker, when in fact compulsory super contributions are eating away at workers’ take-home pay and preventing them from saving for a home. The $4 trillion—that’s right; $4 trillion—in Australia’s super accounts is employees’ money. It’s the workers’ money. It’s come out of workers’ wages.  

One Nation will counter this Albanese government attack on our young with better policy. We will allow young Australians to use their super balance towards a deposit on a new home. That’s been a standing part of our policy for a year now. The higher the deposit, the lower the repayments. The more the young are advantaged there, the more realistic purchasing a house becomes. The investment from the person’s own super account into their home is secured with a loan, so their super grows as the value of their home grows. You’ll never see that policy coming from the ALP, the Australian Labor Party, because their policy is for the government to own your home, or a share of it, so they can dictate to you how to live and who you should live with. Think about it. This has all been documented.  

This measure adds to payroll complexity for large corporations, especially around employment mobility. Large corporations will not pay for this measure. The Australian public will, though, through higher prices or staff reductions. 

Industry has already asked for a one- to two-year delay to make the necessary software changes. That’s how extreme the measures are. Accounting software giant Xero provides the software that 1.8 million businesses use and has recommended a two-year window for implementation. Instead, this bill is going to be rushed through, with an implementation date of July. Imagine the cash-flow burden on a medium business with a thousand staff across different states, on different awards, all taking leave and changing super funds during this period.  

Treasurer Chalmers can’t imagine that. He has no business experience, and, quite honestly, he hasn’t a clue about the misery his policies are causing small and medium businesses in this country. That’s apparent with the decision in this bill to abolish the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Small businesses today can pay a lump sum of all their employees’ superannuation contributions to the clearing house along with their employees’ super details. The clearing house then makes the necessary payments to the employee’s individual super fund. This saves small businesses a truckload of paperwork by letting them make one bulk payment instead of dozens to every employee’s individual fund. That will be gone with this bill. Small businesses will have to take care of dozens of extra super payments, and they will be penalised 60 per cent if they are later than seven days from payday. 

Nonetheless, a lot of the blame for small-business hardship must be directed at the minister for climate change and sending Australia broke, Minister Chris Bowen. Unaffordable energy is driving the country to ruin. This legislation has come into this Senate at the same time as the government announcing it would require super funds to invest almost $2 trillion of Australia’s super money in the United States. That’s how much this Labor government cares about jobs for Australians. They are taking an amount equal to one-half of all the money in super funds in Australia at 30 June this year and sending it to America over a 10-year period. Prime Minister, superannuation is not your money! Yet the government is sending your super overseas to grow the American economy. 

Imagine how many breadwinner jobs could be created in Australia with the $2 trillion being invested right here in projects like the Capricornia project, an integrated rail, steel and concrete project, to provide Australia with security on steel, ceramics, fertiliser, explosives and pharmaceutical precursors—steel, the foundation of modern civilisation. Instead, young people will be competing with millions of new arrivals in a labour market that’s currently in a race to the bottom of wages, conditions and security—Prime Minister, in case you’re not aware of it despite so many people shouting it from the streets, stop mass migration—a trend this bill will make worse. 

The Albanese government is pursuing policies that ensure young Australians don’t have the abundance, wealth and income necessary to buy their own home in a country with more resources than any other country per capita. Instead, young people will have to rent from union super funds and predatory wealth funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. Putting a roof over a young couple’s heads is critical to starting a family. Measures like this, combined with over migration, mass migration and unaffordable energy, will continue to steal opportunity from our young people. Never has a generation been so lied to as the people aged today between 18 and 45. One Nation opposes this bill because One Nation supports employment, workers and small businesses. We support a fair go and fairness for all. 

/by

A Shock New Tax on YOUNG People

22 year olds today are going to be caught up in Labor’s new super tax supported by the greens.

Inflation means eventually almost everyone will be paying the doubled tax rate and unrealised gains tax means the government wants to come after money you haven’t even earned yet.

Index the threshold, abolish taxes on unrealized gains or better yet, throw out the whole bill and start again.

/3 Comments/by

Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals

,

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.

Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.

Transcript

Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.  

The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.  

To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt. 

This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU. 

My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice. 

My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.  

Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people. 

/by

Super Funds Being Used for Political Agendas and Social Engineering

,

I am alarmed with the direction superannuation in Australia has gone. With $3.5 trillion in super funds being influenced by unions, these funds are increasingly being used for social engineering and political purposes. Millions of dollars has been donated to the Labor Party to support their renewable energy agenda and other Labor policies.

Some funds have even leveraged their shareholdings to seek board positions at companies like Origin Energy, aiming to influence corporate decision-making. It’s startling to see super funds involved in social engineering rather than focusing solely on member benefits. The ALP-linked industry funds are now acting as fundraisers for the ALP, having contributed $13 million dollars of members’ money to the party in the lead-up to the last election.

An important question worth investigating is whether the mismanagement of these funds could be impacting wages and driving up the cost of living.

Transcript

Superannuation has become an institution in Australia, one that has not been reviewed for almost 15 years. The superannuation pot of gold is now valued at $3.5 trillion in an economy that is valued at only $2.6 trillion. While I say ‘pot of gold’, slush fund may be a better description—in the hands of some funds, anyway. Industry super funds are distorting the economy and using their huge wealth to invest politically rather than in the best interests of their members. The renewable energy monster currently devouring our economy and our beautiful countryside is substantially funded by industry super funds. These political investment decisions are made by boards that contain up to five members drawn from the union bosses that fund the service. Investment is made in a way that supports the Australian Labor Party’s political agendas. That is clear. 

Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, the man who had a fair bit to do with starting superannuation, has warned that super funds will start asking for board seats from companies in which they take a substantial position so they’re union controlled. Two investment funds tried to take over Origin Energy last year and led the company toward sounder investment strategies. Australian Super drastically increased a stake in the company to vote down the proposal. According to an article in the Financial Review: 

… super funds’ decarbonisation commitments could push them to put directors on boards, if their other attempts at engaging with companies to drive down their emissions failed.  

Really? Is this the job of superannuation funds now? Social engineering? 

Industry super funds may force targeted companies to employ union members or agree to union sweetheart deals. They may force target companies to follow the woke globalist Labor Party agenda, such as DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. Although, industry super fund CBUS has gone one further and added a B for ‘belonging’, designed apparently to welcome employees who are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Despite two LBGTQIA+ turning into an alphabet soup of debasement, REST are proud to be an ally of Pride Month and all that goes with it. Super funds can afford this non-commercial activity because they have a river of gold and cash flowing into their coffers every year from members who falsely think their super fees are being spent in their own interests. Silly them. In fact, super funds sent $13 million to the ALP in the lead-up to the last election; CBUS alone was $1.5 million of that, more than a tenth. 

Direct payment is not the only way super funds are fed back to the unions. Then on to the ALP. Industry funds pay unions to run training programs with very generous payments. It’s not quite a protection racket, but it’s along the same lines. Board members on super funds also receive very generous salaries, which are then sent back to the union and form part of the $17 million paid by unions to the ALP. CBUS, for instance, pays its board members $457,000 per annum each year, which makes REST look positively reasonable at only $165,000. This explains why, during COVID, when the Morrison government made a very sensible suggestion to allow everyday Australians a chance to use just a little of their super to get through COVID, the ALP lost its mind. Their super fund donors were unimpressed with having to give up what turned out to be $80 billion of their 3.5 trillion back to the people who gave it to them. Apparently, pride parades and social engineering don’t fund themselves. 

The misuse of funds by superannuation companies raises a serious question: is superannuation reducing wages? meaning there is no direct financial benefit to the worker making the contribution. This is theft. The Grattan Institute has produced data to show that it is, in fact, the worker who pays for this so-called employer contribution in reduced wages and reduced employment opportunities. It’s time for a detailed inquiry into this boondoggle to ensure workers are not losing from this system. 

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:58] 

(The President—Senator Lines) 

/1 Comment/by

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority Faces Scrutiny

,

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), an independent industry-funded agency, handles complaints concerning financial losses due to actions by banks, insurance companies, or superannuation funds. While AFCA has a reputation for avoiding complaints rather than addressing them, their recent accomplishment of collecting $300 million for members of the public affected by financial misbehaviour is a good result.

My questioning of AFCA didn’t start smoothly, as CEO David Locke seemed unaware that the AFCA website explicitly asks that individuals with concerns about a code of practice to submit them via the form provided, as part of their role overseeing the Banking Code of Practice review body, the BCCC.

It took until around the 2 minutes 52 seconds mark to receive a response to what, I thought, was a straightforward opening question. Subsequently, I pursued questions regarding AFCA’s success rates. A significant portion of their response was taken on notice, so I look forward to receiving their answers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Your website invites consumers to lodge a complaint regarding the operation of a code of practice. How many such complaints have you received on the Banking Code of Practice?

Mr Locke: We receive complaints where a consumer has a contract with the bank and they have suffered financial loss. Then they can bring a complaint through to AFCA. So the matter is really if, for example, the bank has failed to comply with its legal obligations or they’ve suffered loss through some misconduct or inappropriate action on the part of the bank. We have to determine what’s fair, and, in looking at that, we have to have regard to the banking code. That’s how the banking code comes into effect. We had 56,000 complaints about banks and other credit lenders last year. In terms of a freestanding complaint about the banking code, though, that would normally go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee, which is a separate body, and their role is to enforce the banking code. The banking code is relevant to us in our jurisdiction and we do look at it, but, if it’s just about a financial firm breaching the banking code obligations on its own, then that would be a matter that would go through to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: So you would only field the complaint if it was a breach of the banking code?

Dr Smith: We can take complaints about breaches of the banking code if the consumer can show that there has been a financial loss suffered as a result of that breach or indeed that they have suffered non-financial loss as a result of that particular breach. For example, a breach of the provision under the banking code related to guarantees and whether or not the guarantor was fully informed of their rights before they entered into that guarantee might be a matter that we would take as a complaint.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if someone was just concerned about a potential change or a possible change in the banking code, which is coming up, they would not be lodging a complaint with you?

Dr Smith: The conduct needs to have occurred. But, in terms of future issues, there has obviously been a recent review of that code and no doubt that person could also voice those concerns to the Banking Code Compliance Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you had any communication with the Australian Banking Association regarding their review of the banking code?

Mr Locke: Yes. We were consulted in a fashion by the Australian Banking Association in the course of their review. They commissioned an independent review of the banking code, which was carried out, and then they undertook an informal consultation process with a number of bodies, including us. Following that, they approached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for approval to change the banking code. This is a code that has been approved by ASIC, so any changes need to be approved by ASIC. ASIC decided to undertake its own consultation, and we participated in that and made a submission to it as well. So we’ve engaged with the ABA and we’ve engaged with ASIC with regard to the ABA’s review.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I get a copy of your comments to the ABA and ASIC, please.

Mr Locke: Certainly. We’ll take that on notice. We have made a public submission, and it’s available on our website, but we can certainly send the link through to your office.

Senator ROBERTS: From the data on your website, for the year 2023, the number of complaints resolved in favour of the complainant was only 31 per cent, with 69 per cent in favour of the bank or financial institution. However, only five per cent of complaints reached the decision stage. Some were rectified early on and some were refused process. Of the complaints over banking disputes—just banking—how many complaints were received, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant and how many were withdrawn for 2023?

Mr Locke: I can provide all those details on notice, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.

Mr Locke: What I can tell you is the way our process works. A consumer will have gone through an independent dispute resolution process with the bank and then come through to AFCA. AFCA sends it back to the bank for them to have one last opportunity to resolve the matter before we otherwise start working on it. What we’re finding is that about 65 per cent of the time the banks resolve the matter at that point.

Senator ROBERTS: Once you step in?

Mr Locke: Yes. Obviously we would prefer for that to have been done and for people not to have to come to AFCA, but we’re finding that 65 per cent of the time there. What we then find is that we are able to resolve the majority of cases through our case-working process—through mediation, through recommendations and through negotiation. Only about five per cent of matters actually go through to decision. What you will see is that the matters that resolve when we go back to the bank or the matters that resolve through our processes—that is a situation where the consumer is effectively happy with the agreement that they’ve reached with the bank. So you would expect that the small number that go through to determinations are probably the ones where it’s more contentious, more of a binary decision. You would expect that, where the consumer had a better claim, the banks would have resolved the cases earlier in the process. But I can set all of that out on notice so you’ve got that.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you also break down the information into value groups so that I can see the success rate at progressively higher amounts of claim. My feedback is that AFCA are great at getting back $1,000 but not so good at getting back $100,000. The banks’ clutches are maybe a bit stronger.

Mr Locke: I’ll certainly provide you with whatever we have in terms of the breakdown. Last year our work secured $304 million in compensation and refunds for consumers and small-business owners, but we can give you the amounts that relate to that. I don’t think it is the case that it’s just lower value amounts that have been settling. We do settle a number of matters where the settlement is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We’ll provide you with some information on that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m hearing settlements are a fraction of the claim but the complainant accepts something rather than nothing. On notice, of all complaints settled on behalf of the complainant, what was the value of claim verses the settlement accepted or awarded?

Mr Locke: I don’t think we would have that information, but I can certainly let you have the information that we have available.

Mr Untersteiner: The challenge with that is: if something is settled between the parties before it goes to determination, there’s no obligation for them to disclose to us what the settlement was, so we typically won’t have visibility. We have some visibility, and, on notice, we can share with you what we do have, but it will be a small cut of the overall data.

Mr Locke: There are three cohorts that I talked about. The first cohort, when we go back to the financial firm, is given an opportunity to resolve. We don’t normally know what the resolution of that matter is. We just know the consumer’s happy and doesn’t want us to do anything further. That is what we call IDR data, internal dispute resolution data. The firms have, since January, had to report that through to ASIC, so ASIC would have some of that data. The data that we will have are those cases that don’t resolve and that are then resolved through our caseworking process or the matters that go through to decision, which you have mentioned. With regard to that, I can certainly provide that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, if you could do that. When AFCA were set up, you were allowed to go back to 2012 to take on older cases. On notice, of all banking cases referred to you for the period 2012 to 2018 for an amount over $200,000, how many were resolved in favour of the complainant, and what was awarded as opposed to what was claimed?

Mr Locke: I will take that on notice. I think, in total in that look-back jurisdiction, if I recall right we had just under 1,500 cases. A majority of those did relate to banking and credit matters. We will certainly take that on notice and provide you with what information we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Finally, for that group of claims, are there any claims still outstanding from 2012 to 2018?

Mr Locke: No. They’ve all been dealt with.

Senator ROBERTS: Great. Thank you. The next question is about your administration. Are you still closing your office at 2 pm on Wednesdays so the staff can go home in the name of productivity?

Mr Locke: We don’t close the office, but we do give staff—it’s effectively a bit like compressed hours—three hours to spend on wellbeing or to use for their time. This was an initiative we trialled during COVID, when we were seeing a lot of burnout and stress amongst our people. We discussed it with our people. We didn’t change any of our productivity measures, so the same amount of work had to be completed within the five-day week as was completed with this three-hour period. What we actually found was that productivity increased, and we’ve found that’s continued to be the case. We actually have higher levels of productivity now than at any time in the operation of the organisation, by caseworker. We found giving people that small amount of flexibility has actually made sound business sense. The initial intent behind it was about wellbeing, particularly when we were seeing a lot of and stress and challenges during lockdowns. Of course the majority of our staff are Melbourne, and they had prolonged lockdowns at that time. But what we’ve actually seen is that productivity has increased and continued to increase. So that is something that we do, but we don’t close the phones. It is an optional thing. Many staff work during that period but use it just for quiet time without interruption, but some staff use it to pick up the kids or to look after older relatives or to arrange appointments. As I said, the same amount of work has to be done during the working week.

Mr Untersteiner: I’ll just add that we did measure and we saw our attrition rates drop, we saw absenteeism drop, we saw productivity go up, we saw cost per complaint go down and we’ve seen employee engagement go up. Just from a general business initiative and a cost perspective, it’s been cost positive.

Chair: I need to share the call, Senator Roberts. Do you have another question?

Senator ROBERTS: I can put two on notice, but I’ve got one final question. Are financial institutions afraid of AFCA, or do they see you as another pesky bureaucracy that needs to be surmounted or brushed aside?

Mr Locke: Well, I hope—

Senator ROBERTS: I know you said 65 per cent of complaints are resolved.

Mr Locke: I can’t speak on behalf of—there are 44,000 members. About three-quarters of those are people who have ACRs, and the remainder are different firms with Australian financial services licences. I don’t think there’s any unified view with regard to that. What I hope, Senator, is that financial firms recognise that we play an important role. We do our utmost to act independently and fairly to determine intractable matters that otherwise people would presumably be coming to their elected representatives for or going to the media about. We seek to give people closure on matters, whether that goes in their favour or not. We act in accordance with the rules, and we apply our fairness jurisdiction in accordance with the way that we articulate there. I don’t seek for anybody to be afraid of us. I hope that industry see us as playing a constructive and useful role and recognise our legitimacy, but I hope that they also recognise that we will call matters as we see them and we will treat all parties fairly and independently. That’s our role as an alternative to the court system.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take on notice if there’s any sign, evidence or statistic that reflects that the financial institutions respect what you’re doing.

Mr Locke: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a difficult one.

Mr Locke: It’s a difficult one for us to answer really.

Senator ROBERTS: It is; I accept that.

Mr Locke: We hope that parliamentarians, financial firms and people who act on behalf of consumers, whether that’s law firms or consumer bodies, respect the role that we play and believe that we do that to our utmost ability.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/by

RBA props up banks with $100 Billion

The Reserve Bank of Australia has just given $100 billion to prop up the banks but why is the government ignoring spending that would increase our productive capacity like road, coal power stations and dams?

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] All right, the RBA this week cut the interest rate down to you know, virtually nothing. 0.1% interest rates. So I mean, it’ll help people buy or stay in their homes, but there is a cost of course, self-funded retirees as we’ve talked about on the programme, who rely on investment income, and seeing their returns fall to basically nothing.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s right. And then so, these people providing for their so-called own retirement is just hot air, because the legs had been cut out from under them now. We’re now at the point where retirees are having to spend their capital, because the return on their nest egg is almost non-existent and heading negative. And what’s disturbing is that, you know, this is going to create a lot of pressure for people at a time when people don’t need it. And by printing another a hundred billion, and giving it to the banks, they’re going to prop up the banks to do more mortgage lending. This government, the state and federal are completely ignoring the need to invest in productive capacity. We need to invest in power stations, dams, roads, ports bridges. The Iron Boomerang Scheme, the Bradfield Scheme. These and many other prime investments, opportunities in our country

[Marcus Paul] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are being neglected. And we need to get into building the productive capacity of our country.

/by