Senator MURPHY(8.14 p.m.) —In regard to what has been proposed by Senator Harradine, we should always work on the basis—and I think it has been pointed out before—that the money we are dealing with is workers' money. It started off as being workers forgoing a wage increase to actually bring about the introduction of superannuation from a compulsory point of view.

Minister, I have a question with regard to the protection measures from the point of view of ensuring that employers actually do pay the money into an RSA. Whilst there appear to be some penalty provisions for breaches of the act, I am not sure how we would go about checking other than under part 10, where you talk about monitoring and investigating RSA providers whereby you make the power available for the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to appoint people to actually do that.

I would be interested to see what the government's view is on how the Insurance and Superannuation Commission is situated to do that in the first place, given its funding and given that it has had major problems in conducting its responsibilities even for superannuation funds, let alone for new products such as RSAs, which could be spread across a whole plethora of financial institutions. It is a huge job and I do not think the Insurance and Superannuation Commission would even be capable of doing it; it has not got the funding to do it, for a start.

That is why Senator Harradine's amendment is so important. What happens if penalties are to apply—and, if I understood it correctly, the penalty appears to apply to the provider? The provider could be, for instance, the National Australia Bank. In so far as any breach is concerned, it would have the financial wherewithal to string out for a long period any challenge about any wrongdoing on its part. So, if you take the step of making individuals responsible, as is the case with superannuation funds—in so far as trustees are concerned where they have that fiduciary obligation placed upon them—then I think it is a step that will ensure greater probity, if we are to end up with RSAs. Quite frankly, I think it is the most stupid thing the government has brought before this parliament to this point in time. The government is trying to introduce this and it talks about choice, et cetera when there is no choice. All you are talking about is giving more money to banks to rip off the poor old punters out there that they are currently ripping off.

Nevertheless, we are debating the legislation; I hope it gets defeated ultimately. I will come back to the question of monitoring. I have had experience with regard to employers even paying moneys into a fund. Even though they are obligated by the Industrial Relations Act under award provisions to pay into industry superannuation funds, there is often the case where they do not.

I am not quite sure whether I understand this legislation. You say there are obligations for them to present records, et cetera and requirements about whom they should present them to. How are you going to check whether employers, particularly with regard to itinerant workers, are actually paying the money in? It is a problem now, but at least there is a capacity in certain industries for unions representing workers, by checking on an employer in an industry, to seek information from a particular superannuation fund as to whether or not an employer is actually mak ing contributions on behalf of certain employees. I am not sure that this proposed legislation provides any mechanism for that.

I think it is very thin on the ground with regard to the monitoring and investigating processes. That is why it is important that we at least take another step in the right direction—if we are to have these stupid things—by supporting the amendment of Senator Harradine, which would at least put more obligation on the people who will be managing these pathetic savings accounts at the end of the day.