Mr TUCKEY (10:10 AM) —This piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 , is relatively small, but it raises some very interesting issues, particularly in the circumstances of what was announced this morning. This is a bill for the purpose of changing some of the arrangements by which superannuation is calculated.

The amendments ensure that, notwithstanding the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards, employers will be able to continue to use the notional earnings basis of employees determined by reference to federal industrial awards. This will enable employers to continue to use the notional earning basis for the purpose of calculating their liability, if any, to pay superannuation guarantee charge. The amendments also make further minor amendments to the superannuation guarantee law, consequent upon the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards.

It has been the history of compulsory superannuation that originally it was inserted in awards, and we had industrial courts even instructing employers as to the union fund to which they would be obliged to contribute. It is a matter of record that the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, attended an ACTU conference and made a prediction—which has been further proved correct today—that unions would lose their industrial muscle in Australia, as they were losing it around the world. He said that, by this process of compulsory superannuation, he was going to give them financial muscle.

Compulsory superannuation has happened, but when it was happening at the instruction of an industrial court it was clearly unfair to the employer and the employee. I drew it to the attention of the parliament probably eight years ago that this process was forcing itinerant employees into a variety of funds that varied with their employment. For instance, they would have to go into an AWU fund while they were shearing, and then, when they took on truck driving at harvest time, they would have to go into the TWU one. We had this scattering of contributions of relatively small amounts being heavily eroded by administration costs and other matters.

Consequently, I drew to the parliament's attention, all those years ago, some exact examples of shearers whose actual amount of money that they had by way of credit in their superannuation fund was less than their employer contributions.

Mr Slipper —At the end of the day, they got nothing.

Mr TUCKEY —That is right. The earnings were such that they were not keeping pace with the fees, and the smaller these amounts were, the more frequently this occurred. Whilst nobody would object to schemes that created an opportunity for employees to have additional funds in their retirement, they would expect that they had the right to choose and to maximise those funds.

Other legislation has removed the power to dictate where an employee would have their superannuation even though they might then find themselves in a situation of that place, or a reciprocal place, being changed with their employment. That has ceased to be the case. Under this bill, employers, in calculating their liability to pay superannuation on behalf of their employees, can use the award rate of pay.

But isn't it amazing, in light of this legislation, that we have some rather exciting comparisons to make today. The Patrick people have given us some examples of the sort of superannuation that waterfront workers in their employ will receive as a result of their being retrenched last night. I thought it was pretty interesting.

Mr Martin Ferguson —It is not as good as yours.

Mr TUCKEY —Well, that was just the point that I was about to make. Martin, you should have taken the opportunity to be a wharfie rather than a member of parliament because here is what we are told—

Mr Martin Ferguson —Set up a trust like Senator Parer. Let me get your views on that.

Mr TUCKEY —If you want to invite me to comment on trusts, let me tell you about the first aspect of a trust in tax terms. All the tax advantages of a trust can be obtained in a partnership. So you had better start on them too. Let me remind you too, that if you—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! The member for O'Connor should not allow himself to be provoked.

Mr TUCKEY —Well, I am invited by the member to comment on trusts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do not accept his invitation.

Mr TUCKEY —And it was John Howard, sir—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Save it for the legislation.

Mr TUCKEY —Yes, well, can I just tell you that it was John Howard who made it the law that children under 18 who get trust distribution pay tax at 48c. I would like to go back to superannuation because I thought it was worth drawing to the attention of the House considering the substantial controversy that is raised over parliamentary superannuation—and, of course, quite clearly, the member is going to refuse to take his when he leaves this place! I understood that he was sent here to top up his superannuation like all his other union mates. That is the only reason they come here.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for O'Connor will stick to the business of the bill.

Mr TUCKEY —Well, it is all about superannuation, sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand what you are saying.

Mr TUCKEY —We are now well aware that Mr Campbell and others, very good members of the Senate, have to be sent home like Bruce Childs so that other union members can come in and have a superannuation top up. That is clearly the case and I am sure the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) understands that because, of course, he is one of those who worked it out.

I thought I would quote a few of these figures. Someone who is aged 59, a little younger than me, with 22 years service, would get, as a lump sum payout, $149,292 plus a redundancy payment—not available to members of parliament—of $107,000 and other entitlements of $15,800, which is very close, I would imagine, to a $300,000 package. That is substantially more than most members of parliament will get.

I made a calculation because I am one of these people who is subject to compulsory superannuation. The member for Batman suggested that person would get less than I would. When I retire from this place in, say, six years time, I will have contributed close to $400,000 of my own money to my superannuation fund at an 11 per cent rate with a simple compound interest of five per cent, which is well and truly below the opportunity rate that money would have attracted during my period here when the Labor Party took interest rates up to 22 per cent. I certainly could have got 15 or 16 per cent.

So the reality is that, if I survive on the pension rate available to me for the first 10 years after I retire, I will not get a penny of superannuation. Those are the circumstances of long-serving members in this place. I have just given you the circumstances of a `long-serving member' who is going to get superannuation of $150,000 for making no contributions whatsoever. He is going to get a redundancy payment of $107,000. For what? For turning up to work and working 14 hours per week. Pretty good trick. Those are the circumstances of someone with 22 years service, which is fairly significant. It is certainly less than I will have contributed in the example that I just gave the House.

Let us look at somebody who is 35 years of age with eight years of service. Eight years is a very significant number in parliamentary history because very few federal members of parliament survive longer than eight years. I well remember the class of 1980 that came in with me. It included a large number of new Labor members. I struck them all one day when they were having a dinner. I said, `What is this dinner all about' and they said, `We are celebrating the fact that we have just gone past eight years of service, and that is a milestone.' I might add that most of them were not back after nine. That is the example I want to give you because—

Mr Slipper —But you came back.

Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I am a long-serving member. I have taken two per cent of Labor's vote from them at every election and they are not smart enough to know why. They are not smart enough to know why. I can talk to their members. I do not bully them at the factory gate; I do not have to do that. They vote for me—

Mr Martin Ferguson —You hit them with an iron bar, don't you?

Mr TUCKEY —They are very approving of that, and that is where you are silly again. It is all your voters that congratulate me in those matters.

Mr Martin Ferguson —They like being hit with an iron bar, do they?

Mr TUCKEY —The interesting fact is—

Mr Martin Ferguson —Tell them what you said last night about the iron bar.

Mr TUCKEY —You know what I said and if you want the same, you can have it. You would be the same.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Order! The member for O'Connor will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Put it on the record.

Mr TUCKEY —I would have liked to have had you in my bar when you were about 15 or 16. You would have wondered what struck you. You need some heavies like Robert Ray.

Mr Martin Ferguson —Threaten them like you threatened me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for O'Connor will turn to the subject of the bill and the member for Batman will be silent.

Mr TUCKEY —You need heavies like Robert Ray running secrets on women.

Mr Martin Ferguson —He has threatened me with his iron bar.

Mr TUCKEY —I have not. That is just the sort of myth that you perpetuate.

Mr Martin Ferguson —He threatened me last night. It's on the record too.

Mr TUCKEY —Fibs are something that are the stock in trade of the member for Batman.

I want to go back to this person with eight years service. There is huge criticism of people who come in here and give huge hours in the service of Australia as members of parliament. That criticism is made about people from both sides of the House. I have never ever allowed anybody to criticise any member of this House for being lazy. We hear the words, `They are lazy. They spend all their time in the bar.' We know that is not true. All members of parliament work very hard. They work long hours and frequently seven days a week.

But this example is for someone on a five-day working week and, as has been mentioned, in many cases working only for 14 hours per week. He is 35 years of age and with eight years service. The redundancy payment—which is a form of superannuation, let's face it, and which is non-contributory—is $65,900. That is more than $8,000 a year. Then we have superannuation of $47,465—which is also non-contributory—and other entitlements of $14,300. That can only be described as extremely generous.

It is an interesting point that the ABC has been very carefully selecting its radio talkback people this morning. I heard them all. One of them, encouraged by this lady, Cathy Van Extel, said that farmers should not be involved in any of these matters, they should be looking after their drought affected properties.

I put it to you that if you are a farmer and the price of wool has dropped $1 a kilo, as it has in the last fortnight, and you have severe drought conditions, then the cost of exporting that wool should interest you. When the freight rate between California and Tokyo is half the rate that is charged for the same distance between Melbourne and Tokyo, in other words, about $500 or $600 a container, and when there are the reduced handling costs, surely you would be interested in how your goods were exported. The freight rate is nearly equivalent to the value of your goods. The reality is that this debate today is a lot more about what is fair in the Australian community.

It has been held up for years that parliamentary superannuation and other entitlements are extremely generous. I have just drawn to the attention of the House how much more generous they would be if each and every one of us had managed to approach John Coombs, while he was at his wine growing place on a weekend, and get him drunk enough to give us a ticket to membership of the MUA.

You wonder how long this has been going on. My mother used to tell a joke about the fellow who walked into a Fremantle hotel. He was having a drink when he was approached to buy a ticket in a raffle. He said, `Yes, I am interested. How much?' The price of the ticket was £10. That was when wages were about £5 a week; it was a fortune. He said, `Gosh, that is an extremely expensive raffle ticket. What are the prizes?'

The chap replied, `First prize is lifetime membership of the wharfies union.' The bloke said, `That's a pretty valuable prize. I am interested in that. What is the second prize?' The bloke said, `That is lifetime membership to the tallyclerks union,' which was another wharf associated union in those days. He then said, `That's pretty good. Are there any other prizes?', and the fellow said, `Yes, there is a third one, but it is only £10,000!' That was the attitude in the community in those days.

That was my mother's joke; she has been deceased for many years now. People understood then that those fellows, through their industrial action, were getting an unfair share of the economic cake and that others were paying for it—and they do pay for it. They pay for it in many ways, including superannuation, because if it is non-contributory then of course the employer pays it; the employer adds it to the charges that they levy on these things and that flows on to the general community.

Australia has always been a substantial importer of whitegoods and all of these sorts of commodities that go to building one's house or furnishing it, and the reality is that every time a container comes in we are paying double the freight rate on an international comparison. Why? Because the most competitive of the shipping companies will refuse point blank to come to Australia. They just refuse point blank.

I have given the House an example on another occasion where a factory in Western Australia closed down when there were huge export opportunities available to it through its own subsidiary companies overseas. Because it could not get the shipping companies that serviced it—at highly competitive freight rates—to come to Fremantle to pick up the same product, they were unable to compete. And you talk about people losing jobs.

The issue today is that 1,400 people have been sacked. Nobody thought that was a problem when all those pilots resigned when Mr Abeles and Mr Court were there. You see we are back to superannuation—

Mr Martin Ferguson —I rise to speak on a point of order. The issue goes to the bill before the House which concerns the issue of superannuation. There is a separate debate in the House of Representatives today on the question of waterfront reform. I would ask that you call the member for O'Connor to order on the question of relevance.

Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to that.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) —I will consider the point of order.

Mr TUCKEY —Yes. I would like to speak to it. The matter is about superannuation and award provisions applicable to superannuation. I am talking about award conditions. I have not diverted from the bill because one is entitled to quote examples.

Mr Martin Ferguson —I took a point of order.

Mr TUCKEY —You can take a point of order whenever you like but you had better make it relevant.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ruling is quite correct. The reality is that that is what this bill deals with and it is my responsibility to give examples to the House on these matters. If the bill had been dealing with some other aspect, the member for Batman might just be correct but that is what the bill tells us. I read at the beginning the general outline.

Mr Slipper —He is trying to shut you up.

Mr TUCKEY —He is a bit embarrassed of course. They are backing a loser but furthermore they are backing a group of people who, as I said, in terms of their superannuation entitlement are substantially better off than any other workers and they have loaded it on the rest of the workers. That is the reality. Anybody who gets ahead of the system in the Australian economy ends up driving other people below the poverty line.

Mr Slipper —What do the battlers think about it all?

Mr TUCKEY —The people under the poverty line understand. We had this discussion about a port in my electorate—the port of Geraldton. A journalist rang me up and said, `What about the 20 jobs involved?' I said, `Well, what about the million unemployed? What is the social issue?' But thank you. I will not get you concerned again, Madam Chair.

Mr Martin Ferguson —I have a point of order. I am asking you to ask the member for O'Connor to sit down.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Batman has a point of order.

Mr Martin Ferguson —I refer to the bill before the House. The intent of the bill is to take out of the Workplace Relations Act responsibility for handling industrial relations. It is a very specific proposal. I suggest that you re-examine your previous ruling as to whether or not the member is speaking to the bill and whether or not he is out of order.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have done so. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for O'Connor.

Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am concluding my remarks. The member for Batman is, as we agreed, getting very nervous about this situation. He does not like these examples going on the record. In closing I would remind you that the short title of the bill is `Workplace Relations Amendments (Superannuation) Bill' and I do not believe I diverted from issues relating to that short title throughout my speech. Thank you for your support.