APRA warned on secrecy provisions and MTAA Super

A senior Liberal Senator believes the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) cannot avoid answering questions about its handling of MTAA Super based on the secrecy provisions of its governing legislation.

Tasmanian Liberal Senator, David Bushby, has confirmed to Money Management that after failing to extract answers from APRA during Budget Estimates earlier this year he had sought advice from the Clerk of the Senate about the regulator’s reference to the secrecy provisions in sidestepping answers to his MTAA related questions.

In a column to be published in next week’s edition of Money Management, Bushby said he was concerned that APRA “appears not to understand the public benefits of accountability of regulators such as itself, to Parliament, which provides a vital oversight role of such organisations in a well functioning democracy.

“It is also labouring under the misapprehension that it could be in breach of its Act if it provides the Senate with answers to some of the questions that I placed on notice. The fact is, that answering such questions would not be a breach of its Act,” Senator Bushby said.

“The Clerk of the Senate has provided advice that states that any APRA evidence to the Parliament has the protection of Parliamentary privilege. Furthermore, the Clerk advised that: "It is well established that a general secrecy provision [which the APRA statute has] does not prevent the provision of information to a House or committee of the Parliament in the absence of an express statement to the contrary. In other words, the inquiry powers of the Houses are not affected by secrecy provisions”.

Senator Bushby said he believed APRA needed to go back to its code of conduct and reassess its accountability statements.