Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer)(9.33 p.m.) —Senator Sherry has a fundamental position which we do not share. Senator Sherry seeks to effectively remove the ability of an employer to open an account on behalf of an employee. Senator Sherry has come at this in a variety of ways all through this evening.

Senator Sherry —You've got to keep trying.

Senator KEMP —As he says, he has to keep trying. We have had these arguments and we have gone over them at some length. The Senate has, by and large, had a consistent position through this bill. That position is based on a recognition that the government had an election promise. It is based on the commitment that a new superannuation type product is going to increase choice, and there is to be competitive neutrality between the types of superannuation products as far as practicable.

I think this is probably the fifth or sixth time Senator Sherry has come at this in an attempt to sustain the Labor Party position and in an attempt to defeat the fundamental underlying principles of the coalition policy which we received endorsement for at the election. It is simply not correct, Senator Sherry, that employers are required to obtain consent from an employee under section 153 or other provisions of the SI(S) Act. Your fundamental position was wrong, according to my advice.

Removing the employer ability to open accounts is also at odds with the SG regime. What you are doing, as you have tried to do all evening, is trying to distort the playing field, weighing it heavily in favour of the superannuation funds in order to achieve your goal to impose undue administrative burdens on employers.

Clause 53 is based on section 158 of the SI(S) Act. It provides employers with information on which to make a decision whether an RSA meets the needs of their employees. Section 158 of the SI(S) Act requires a public office superannuation fund to provide information to the employer before they become a standard employer sponsor of the fund—that is, open an account on behalf of their employees. This allows the employer to make a decision about the fund and whether it meets the needs of the employees.

The Labor Party is trying to remove the equivalent requirement from the RSA bill. Employers will not have the opportunity to make this decision, thereby opening an RSA or even providing the choice of an RSA, which the employer may not have made if they were provided with information before opening the account.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman) —The question is that clause 53 stand as printed.

Question resolved in the negative.