Senator HOGG (8:53 PM) —There are a number of matters I am very concerned about. If one were to follow what I had to say throughout the part of the hearing in which I was able to be involved—because at that stage I was filling in for Senator Sherry—it would be apparent that the thing that really caught my eye was the issue of literacy and numeracy.

I really want that issue addressed this evening, after having read an article—and I think this really sums it up—in the Age of 13 September last year, by Tim Colbatch, headed `Literacy remains elusive despite teaching efforts'. That article refers to the particular ABS survey that I cited in my speech during the second reading debate. That article goes to highlight my concern about `informed choice' where it states:

Suppose some interviewer hands you two diagrams, those circular ones sliced up like cakes, showing how much oil different industries used in 1970 and 1989. Could you explain from the diagrams how oil usage changed over that time?

The article continues:

If you can, take a bow—or more likely a curtsy, you're a rare Australian. A national survey released by the Bureau of Statistics on Monday found only one in six Australians generally understand documents of that sophistication.

That is something that needs to be answered, and I do not think the answer has been forthcoming—although I am sure that during the committee stage it will be.

If I expressed a concern and directed a specific question at most of the expert witnesses who appeared before the select committee, it was on the issue of literacy and numeracy. I hold the fear that very few people who are ordinary workers will have the capacity to interpret the key feature statements on which so much reliance will be placed when these people need to make an `informed' choice. That was the other word that kept ringing in my ears throughout the submissions I was privy to hear whilst serving on this particular committee—that it needed to be an `informed' choice.

Another issue needing to be addressed, Minister—through you, Madam Chair—is the fact that there is a high turnover rate in Australian industry. As a result of the high turnover rate, a one-off campaign of itself will not satisfy the need to educate people about the issue of choice of funds. In my view, with such a high frequency of turnover in industry, there is the need for an ongoing education campaign.

A further issue of concern, but one which did not necessarily gain a great deal of prominence in the actual hearings, was the treatment of casual employees in the education campaign, because some of them will be exposed to the issue of choice of fund. Those are two issues that I will be looking forward to hearing about from the minister. I would also like to be told how the government intends to deal with an ongoing education program, and how it will deal with the issue of the turnover of staff as well as casual staff.

I was also concerned in that it would have been interesting to hear from the government on another issue on which I focused in my speech during the second reading debate—that was, how choice of investment which is currently available has not been taken up at a rapid rate. If the government is hell bent on going down this path of choice of fund, it would seem that their getting choice of investment working first would go a long way to getting the issue of choice of fund much more readily understood.

The cases that I cited in my speech during the second reading showed that, with few exceptions, what we found during the hearing was that, where choice was made available for investment, it could be said that relatively few people took up that option to exercise choice of investment. So I think we really do need to get some understanding from the government as to why that is not a practical step as a first step, given—

Senator Kemp —It already happens; it happens now.

Senator HOGG —Yes, but what I am saying, Minister—through you, Madam Chair—is that, even with there now being that right, so few people use it. I even cited the case, Minister—I think it was Coca-Cola— where they had a very extensive education campaign; it even received a prize for skills in communication with the members of the superannuation fund. Even then, under the best of circumstances, there was a limited take-up rate of investment choice—and that was in the best of circumstances.

I think that the government should give us some indication as to why there is not a more phased approach, given that this is going to be the most significant choice that many people will be confronted with in their long careers in the work force. It is affecting the most important part of their life—their retirement and their retirement savings.

The other thing that I would like some indication from the government on is the actual nature of the education campaign itself. I raise in particular the need to target small employers and also the need to target those employers that I describe as community employers. In Melbourne we did have evidence from a mother who was a voluntary member of the kindergarten committee. She came and pleaded that they were not aware of even superannuation changes that had previously taken place with other legislation. They found themselves in breach of the law in some instances because they had not complied with the existing legislation.

I am not going to say it is a problem that is rampant throughout the community, but there are a number of community organisations now in that position, particularly the likes of parents and citizens organisations which do employ people in schools. The government education program should be targeted in a specific way at those people. I would be interested to hear the response from the minister as to how that is going to be done.

Also, in that specific area, I would be interested in the government's ongoing response to those types of community organisations because one finds that the executive or the management committee of those organisations tends to change on an annual basis. There is no ongoing continuity of management other than, say, the director of the creche or the kindergarten. One finds, of course, that that person is generally not the person responsible for the management of the affairs and the finances of the creche. Those are the things in particular. There are other issues that I am interested in and will raise throughout the committee stage. Seeing that people under this legislation are having to make an informed choice, I await with interest what the minister has to say on those issues.