Mr WILTON (10:30 PM) —The government's activities in the area of superannuation merit both scrutiny and condemnation. As members on both sides would know, the government has introduced a right to choose legislation which gives employers the right to choose the fund for their employees' contribution; that is, it is employer driven. The government is also attempting to legislate to remove superannuation as one of the 20 allowable award matters. Both of these legislative measures have rightly faced opposition in the Senate and from workers across Australia.

An award simplification case to be heard by a full bench of the AIRC next Wednesday following an application by the government to stealthfully introduce the employer choice of superannuation fund notion through the award system—in this case, into two key building and construction industry awards—also merits some scrutiny and condemnation. Thinking Australians should be, and I know would be, concerned at this backdoor approach because it is indicative of a contempt of this parliament, particularly of the minor parties in the Senate. Thinking Australians should be concerned because, if the government is successful in its application, workers will lose their entitlements. Before I outline what those lost entitlements entail, I will quote the Prime Minister at a 17 August 1995 doorstop interview. In attempting to defend the coalition from understandable charges that a worker's superannuation entitlements would diminish under a coalition government, he said:

I give an absolute guarantee that people will not be worse off superannuation-wise under us. Absolute, full stop, end of story.

There is no doubt that superannuation entitlements will diminish if this government's application is successful before the full bench next Wednesday. What underpins this application is the fact that the payment of benefits of a worker will be made yearly—that is, every 28 July—rather than monthly, as in preceding times. This will reduce the compound interest earned by members. The Australian Institute of Actuaries has cited figures from a survey which suggest that a person could be about $16,000 per year worse off—that is, two age pension entitlements per year—as a result of that change alone.

Paying benefits yearly and not monthly furthermore makes it difficult for funds such as C+BUS to offer insurance cover which, of course, is contribution based. This change will furthermore result in collection problems. It is likely that there will be added cost associated with debt collection due to the high turnover of employers and a greater number of business bankruptcies. One can cite Woodlawn, Patrick and the Cobar miners to name but three.

These award changes that were proposed by the government and will be heard stealthfully before the commission next Wednesday also mean that employees will join several funds as they change jobs. This lack of portability suggests that workers will pay several administration fees, adding to their own personal superannuation costs. The new clause proposed by the government on Wednesday for insertion into these awards excludes any reference to personal contributions made by employees.

The existing award clause encourages employers to facilitate the payment of personal contributions. This is especially important because employees need to save 15 per cent per annum over the duration of an average 40-year working lifespan in order to fund an adequate retirement. This is a further manifestation of the fact that this is a government which understands very little about superannuation. What little it understands it does not like. True to form, this is a weak and sneaky act from a weak and sneaky Prime Minister. It is a despicable attempt, furthermore, to bypass the parliament and attack workers' superannuation entitlements. It is a government which stands condemned for its attack on superannuation and certainly workers who, for a short period, this Prime Minister falsely tried to claim as his own.