FRAN KELLY:
The toxic culture in Parliament House was brought back into sharp focus yesterday with 19 claims of sexual assault and other misconduct revealed that have been referred to police since the Brittany Higgins rape allegation surfaced in February. Twelve of the matters have been identified by the AFP has sensitive investigations, meaning they could involve MPs or MPs’ staff. The referrals come as the Prime Minister has received a report into ways to improve workplace conditions, including recommendations for mandatory training and an independent complaints mechanism.
On another front, the Morrison government is facing an uphill battle to pass its major superannuation reforms. Jane Hume is the Minister for Superannuation and Women’s Economic Security. She joins us in our Parliament House studios. Minister, welcome back to Breakfast.
JANE HUME:
Good morning, Fran.
FRAN KELLY:
We’ll talk superannuation in a moment. But first to this disclosure from the Federal Police yesterday of 19 complaints of misconduct including sexual assault being referred to them. Does that number alarm you? Just how unsafe is Parliament House for women?
JANE HUME:
Well, I don’t think Parliament House is unsafe for women at all. I think that –
FRAN KELLY:
At all?
JANE HUME:
It’s a demonstration that the letter that Commissioner Reece Kershaw sent to each MP urging them to come forward with any allegations of misconduct that they are aware of, that that’s working. I think that that’s a good thing. But, of course, it is concerning that so many have come forward. At least we’ve got the processes underway now to ensure that there is an independent complaints, you know, establishment set up so that people can come forward if they do have concerns. And I think that’s a really important thing.
FRAN KELLY:
Well, not quite. But I’ll come to that in a moment. Twelve of the matters are regarded as sensitive, which means they could involve MPs or their staff. If a formal criminal investigation is launched into an MP as a result of this, an MP is accused of sexual assault, should – in your view should that person remain in their job while police conduct their inquiries or should they be out of parliament until and if they are cleared?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think there should always be a presumption of innocence. That’s obviously one of the foundation stones of our legal system. You know, that said, I think it’s important to take these things very seriously, and it’s very hard to make judgments on the basis of hypotheticals.
FRAN KELLY:
Okay. So you don’t think we should put any red lines in now ahead of this process?
JANE HUME:
I think it’s most important that we maintain people’s confidentiality, that we maintain people’s trust in the reporting and complaints system and that we maintain a presumption of innocence.
FRAN KELLY:
This has all happened since Brittany Higgins came forward with her allegation of a rape in the office of a cabinet minister. Do we all owe a big vote of thanks to Brittany Higgins?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think that everybody has recognised that Brittany Higgins was exceptionally brave in coming forward and telling her story. And her story has made a difference to this place, to, you know, Parliament House, and also to workplaces all around the country. I think there is a new sense of urgency. There is a new sense of empowerment for women to be able to tell their own stories. We saw that with the March for Justice. We’ve seen it with other stories coming forward. So I think Brittany Higgins has really changed the narrative.
FRAN KELLY:
Can I go to the sense of urgency, because the Foster report into how to improve parliament has a workplace has been handed the Prime Minister. That was revealed. There’s a recommendation for a new complaints mechanism. There isn’t one yet. There’s a new education program for staff to understand – that’s a recommendation – to understand their workplace obligations. Speaking frankly, these are two pretty obvious recommendations or outcomes. Given we first learned back in February that a young woman as a victim of alleged rape in the ministerial wing, why hasn’t the government got cracking on these improvements already? We’ve got a hotline, but nothing else has changed, has it?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think the hotline has proved, you know, it’s actually working quite well. Could it be better? Absolutely, and that’s exactly what Ms Foster has recommended. And that report will go to cabinet. Cabinet will consider it and then it will be shared with the other parties and be implemented appropriately.
FRAN KELLY:
Okay. But when you said at the start we have an independent complaints mechanism, we don’t yet, do we?
JANE HUME:
Well, we do. There are mechanisms in Parliament House already and in other workplaces, obviously –
FRAN KELLY:
But these have been found not to be independent. That’s the point of the Foster report, isn’t it?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think that they can be improved, and that’s the point of the Foster report. And, you know, her recommendations have been taken very seriously. The Prime Minister has said that they are very sensible and that they’ll – the entire report will go to cabinet. Cabinet will respond and the report will be shared with other parties and we’ll respond appropriately after that.
FRAN KELLY:
Just to be clear, though, Minister, there’s not currently an independent complaints mechanism. Isn’t that the whole point of this, though? That ministers have control over the hiring and firing basically of their staff currently and the only place to go is through the Finance Department? I mean, that’s the point of the issue, isn’t it?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think that her recommendation, in particular to establish a fully independent complaints mechanism, a fully confidential complaints mechanism, which is desperately needed in here, is exactly the right way to go. But I can guarantee you that mechanisms have improved dramatically just since the beginning of this year, that people are far more confident about speaking up, whether it be directly to their employer or through the Department of Finance.
FRAN KELLY:
Okay. Another report into the Brittany Higgins allegation, and the only one to be released publicly, is the one by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, John Kunkel, into whether the Prime Minister’s Office leaked negative information about Brittany Higgins’ partner, David Sharaz, to try and undermine her case. She has said this has happened. She made this allegation publicly. John Kunkel didn’t exactly clear the office of wrongdoing; he just found that he couldn’t find strong enough evidence to prove the claim. Now, PM staff either backgrounded or they didn’t. Have the staff denied it? Is that your understanding?
JANE HUME:
I’m not privy to the details of the Kunkel report other than what’s been reported in the media and report at Senate estimates yesterday. But I think we have to take people at face value, take them at their word. If there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, if there is no reports of wrongdoing it’s very hard to point a finger.
FRAN KELLY:
If they had been backgrounding, would that have been wrongdoing in your view?
JANE HUME:
I think that the Prime Minister has already made that very clear, that he would be extremely disappointed if he found out that any of his staff were backgrounding journalists.
FRAN KELLY:
There is one other report still to come, and that’s the investigation by the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department into who knew what and when about the allegations of rape within the Prime Minister’s Office – who knew what and when in the Prime Minister’s Office. Yesterday the prime minister’s Secretary, Phil Gaetjens, would not even confirm to Estimates how many staff he’s interviewed in the Prime Minister’s Office. How on earth is that secret information, and should this report be made public when it’s finished, as the others have?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think that we should wait until the report is completed and reported to the Prime Minister and then an assessment should be made at that point?
FRAN KELLY:
Why? Why can’t we say now it should be made public? If the others are made public, why wouldn’t this one be?
JANE HUME:
It’s not completed yes, so I doubt it would be made public before it’s completed.
FRAN KELLY:
No, I’m not saying now; I’m saying when it’s completed should it be made public?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think that maybe the outcomes of the report should be assessed and – before it’s made public. But we know that we’ll respond appropriately when we get the report.
FRAN KELLY:
Okay. Can we go to the Superannuation Reform Bill, Your Future, Your Super. It’s before the parliament. You’re the minister responsible for superannuation. You need support from the crossbench to get this through. Two major concerns have emerged – the directions power and something called stapling. If we talk about the directions power, it’s described by the – as described, the Treasurer would have the power to veto investments by super funds that he doesn’t approve of. The industry calls this an investment kill switch. Jacqui Lambie calls this total over‑reach. The former Liberal MP Craig Kelly says it’s contrary to Liberal Party values. Why should government be telling super funds how to spend their money?
JANE HUME:
Well, first of all I think we should take a step back. Your Future, Your Super reforms are more important now than they’ve ever been. The industry is now $3.1 trillion in size. So, these reforms are all about having your fund follow you from job to job, making it easier to choose a better fund, holding funds to account for their underperformance and increasing transparency and accountability. What we have done around increasing transparency and accountability is ensure that we’ve clarified trustees’ duties, adding the word “financial” into the beneficiary’s best interests and making sure it’s their best financial interests is part of that. The Productivity Commission recommended that we clarify that duty.
So, this means that, you know, trustees have to maintain records and then focus their minds clearly on maintaining, you know, documenting, their reasons for their decisions, whether they be investment decisions or whether they be expenditure decisions. Let’s remember that superannuation funds are trusts; they can’t raise money any other way. They can’t, you know, take on debt, they can’t raise equity. The only money they’ve got to spend is members’ money, so they have to focus their minds as to how they’re spending members’ money.
But we also know that’s going to be grey areas occasionally where expenditure, you know, typically doesn’t necessarily reflect a good use of members’ money. And that’s where that regulation‑making power comes in. It was a recommendation by APRA that they said that they were concerned that there might be some of those grey areas that would be hard to enforce. So, you know, for instance, let’s say that there’s an industry junket for board members to travel overseas or, you know, sponsoring little leagues, how is that a clear benefit to members? So APRA’s requirement to clarify that, you know, for enforcement is where that directions power comes from. It is a measure of last resort. Let me make that clear.
FRAN KELLY:
Yes, but it’s a measure of last resort in the hands of the federal Treasurer, of a politician. I mean, if it’s a grey area then it means it’s open for interpretation. Who’s to say the Treasurer’s interpretation and investment values are in line with those of the super fund and its members?
JANE HUME:
Well, I think we should also be very clear – it’s actually in the hands of the parliament. I mean, the parliament ultimately decides with any regulation, you know, because it’s disallowable in the House of Parliament. So, it’s not a measure that allows the responsible minister to just wake up one morning and with an agenda and strike out a specific fund’s investment. It’s a lever that will allow government to clarify trustees’ duties to invest and spend a super fund’s – all super funds members’ money in their best financial interest.
FRAN KELLY:
It seems to be the sticking point in this bill. A number of crossbenchers have said they will not support it. A number of senators, too. Do you think you’ll get the support and, if you don’t, will you pull the bill or will you pull this element of the bill?
JANE HUME:
Well, we’ve been speaking to all the crossbenchers, as we do with every superannuation bill. And, you know, let’s be clear – you know, every superannuation bill that this government has proposed has been contested. It’s always contested. But we’ve made some really significant reforms, and people now have superannuation funds with some of the lowest fees they’ve ever had before. We’re getting rid of those duplicate accounts, we’re encouraging underperformers in the industry to –
FRAN KELLY:
Yes, so my question is, if these elements are so important, will you withdraw the directions power from within it in order to get the rest of the package through?
JANE HUME:
Well, we’ll continue talking to the crossbench about their concerns and hopefully clarify some of their concerns. And, you know, we do that with all bills. We don’t do it in the media.
FRAN KELLY:
Jane Hume, thank you very much for joining us.
JANE HUME:
Great to be with you, Fran.