Mr TUCKEY (10:11 AM) —This is a series of amendments to a very important piece of legislation that was introduced as part of the government's election policy. But the issues, both current and past, need to be further addressed, and it is for this reason that I take part in this debate. Basically, these amendments set out to address issues that have arisen since the introduction of the original legislation and, most importantly, to consider the decisions of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, which handed down its report recently.

The number of amendments are fairly simple in many regards—exempt employers, employers who have reached their maximum benefit accrual and defined benefit schemes which are in surplus as of 1 July 2000 for the period of the scheme remain in surplus. These amendments ensure that the choice does not increase superannuation costs for employers, which is not the government's intention.

Quite clearly, it is important that we consider the employers. However, I make the point that, when my party went to the people, we made an offer to employees, not employers, that they would have a choice in where they had their superannuation matters considered. That particular issue is of great importance. It is too simple for an employer to say—on the basis of efficiency, on the basis of maintaining the lowest possible cost for the organisation—out of the back of his hand, `I don't have any blues with the BLF or the CFMEU. I'm going to stick with C+BUS.' That was never the intention of our policy. I am disappointed that, in arriving at a proposition for implementing our policy, the accent has shifted from employees' rights to employers' rights.

I am very sympathetic to employers but, on the other hand, unless employees are able to be removed from, for instance, state government awards that oblige their employers one by one to commit superannuation contributions to a variety of funds because of state award situations, or because the employer thinks it is much more simple and convenient to stay with a union fund, we perpetuate the situation which I raised in this parliament probably six years ago of small amounts going to different funds on behalf of the same individual and then being eroded by administration and other fees—into the negative on some occasions.

Quite clearly, employment in Australia and probably the world is going to become more itinerant, more of a casual nature. The concept of joining someone after school and being there at retirement is, unfortunately, no longer possible for a lot of employee. More and more, people will have to seek alternative employment with a range of employers just simply because of the way business will be done.

Superannuation arrangements for most people, therefore, should be something they personally negotiate with a supplier of those services—a fund manager, the AMPs and others of this world—and they should be able to have that fully portable from job to job. They should be able to enter employment with another employer and say, `Here is my policy.' This is possible today, but it is not exactly a right of the employee.

The fundamental issue is that employees should be able to go from employer to employer as they wish with the same piece of paper, with the same policy, and that employer should be able to make contributions accordingly. It means that, firstly, employees know where their money is—and I suggest to a great degree today that no-one knows where half their superannuation entitlement is—and, secondly, the money is accumulating at the best possible rate and they have some say over that. By this I mean that, if they get dissatisfied with the performance of the fund they have chosen, they have the right to move to another fund which is offering them a better deal with better returns for their retirement. Without doubt, the Commonwealth should have that as a substantial target as well. The more people can obtain from these superannuation arrangements on retirement, the less has to be provided by the taxpayer.

So I think this is a fundamental issue and it is addressed in the amendments. We have an amendment that seeks to make sure that choice does not increase superannuation costs for employers. Unfortunately, I think it has got to, but I am also of the view that it is all too simple for an employer, for industrial or other reasons, to find it convenient to have all their employers represented by a union scheme which may otherwise not be to the employees' benefit depending on their circumstances—it may have nothing to do with the financial returns. I find that is unsatisfactory. It was not resolved in the original legislation; it is not resolved in these amendments.

However, there are other amendments to the bill, and I think many of those are quite practical. As the bill is currently drafted, an employee could make an informal agreement with his or her employer and unilaterally make another choice within 12 months. This amendment ensures that an employer does not have to act on a nomination within 12 months of the previous choice, regardless of the mechanism through which that choice was made. I find that quite reasonable, notwithstanding my previous remarks.

We have another need to ensure that contributions made in accordance with certain Victorian state and individual agreements will satisfy the choice of fund requirements. Although Victoria has referred industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth, in the absence of this amendment certain Victorian agreements would not be held to satisfy the Commonwealth's choice requirements. That is a matter which I think is quite appropriate.

Where we still have problems, nevertheless, is in the inflexibility of how employers can make payments and if, for whatever reason, those employers are `late' in making contributions. The reasons for late payments are numerous, and they do not frequently arise from an employer who has deliberately intended to make a late payment or who in fact was just trying to save a bit of money by making a late payment. There are many other reasons that arise and, more particularly, they occur in the itinerant sector, such as the shearing industry in my electorate where employees move around and they are often hard to contact if they are employed for only a short period.

A recent example brought to my attention involved short-term employment. The employer had a contract with a person and did not deem that he required a superannuation contribution. The employee, as we will call this person, or the subcontractor, did not make any request for superannuation, did not provide a number and did not do anything to suggest he wanted a superannuation contribution.

Eighteen months later, this fellow's accountant rang the employer and said, `I'm now doing this fellow's tax return'—obviously late—`could you please tell me what superannuation contributions were made during that period?' The employer did not make them. He is not objecting to making them now, but he is going to be charged double because of an issue of confusion. I think that is silly and I think it is time some flexibility was available there. There is no dispute; there was a misunderstanding on an issue. In fact, I think the employee did not believe at the time he had a right to get a contribution until he was lodging a tax return and the accountant said that he probably did. Fair enough, there is no dispute about that, except the employer is a bit upset with the fact that, because this has all arisen so late, he is going to be treated as though he were almost a criminal; and I think that is silly.

The other issue in this regard which is not addressed by these amendments is, in my mind, also of concern. This arises from a personal experience, unfortunately, for our family. My younger brother died a year or so ago and I am the trustee for his estate. I had to communicate with an insurance company for the purpose of getting for his estate certain funds arising from the superannuation contributions and death cover that his employer had.

Originally, I thought the amount of money was about $800, but I have since been advised that it is substantially more. Along comes a form of some pages and included in it was a request that I get statutory declarations from his three children who are dispersed around Western Australia. When I looked at the form, I thought to myself, `Okay, I'm a member of parliament, I've got some skills and understanding of filling in forms, but how would, for instance, a wife, having lost her husband, deal with this matter?' I thought the requirements associated with that form were complex and the sort of information required was excessive and, if they had to consult somebody else to do it, it would have been quite expensive. I just happened to get the feeling that, whilst the amount was only $800, a lot of people would find it would not pay them to get that money.

I think the government needs to look at the requirements. You cannot just have someone write in and say, `I am the wife or children of the late Bill Smith and therefore send me the money.' Quite clearly, the funds have a higher responsibility than that. But I got the funny feeling that these forms are at a point where, on smaller amounts, many people would say that it is simply not worth it, and the fund profits. That is something that should be looked at. Ordinary people should not have to go to advisers or people who would, as we well know, charge them 500 bucks to walk through the door when, in fact, the amount to be settled could be less than $1,000. It is a matter that I wanted to raise in the context of this debate.

I have already made the point that people should have single policies. It is interesting that another amendment in this legislation addresses the circumstances where there are compulsory local government schemes to ensure that an employer did not have to make payments to two schemes, that is, the state local government scheme and a private scheme or another business scheme that an employee might be involved in. That is commonsense and it was never the intention that it should happen.

But it also reminds me of my experience in local government where, as President of the Country Shires Association in Western Australia, I was actively involved in the creation of the local government scheme in WA. Previously there had not been one; and local government is an area where employment and promotion, in particular, is something that is achieved by changing jobs—you just keep applying for a higher job in another local authority—and that is accepted and understood within the industry. That had created great difficulties for people in terms of long service leave and superannuation. We were supportive of a portable scheme for both.

Representatives of the local government employees were involved in the considerations and negotiations, and I said to them at the time: `Why do you want a government scheme? Why don't you ask for a scheme that at least includes the right to have your own cover with AMP or someone else, and when you shift jobs you simply negotiate the contributions that your new employer might make to that scheme.' They all said, `Oh no, no. That would not be secure enough for us. The government has got to be involved.'

They took that option and their superannuation scheme got dragged into WA Inc. At one stage they looked like having no money left at all. It was pretty blooming horrible. I used to chide a few with whom we had a very cooperative arrangement that that was what they wanted and that is what they got. It has recovered and I think they are now performing quite well. But it goes to show that what appeared to be the most secure line is not necessarily always the case. An employee who had made their own choice might have been better off.

They are the major matters I wish to address today. There are other amendments there that I think are eminently sensible. I support them all and I hope that, over time, the government can further revisit compulsory superannuation and address some of the other issues I have raised, particularly flexibility, where some determination could be made for an employer not returning the funds on time who has a genuine excuse and, more importantly, to ensure that employees are not necessarily subjected to the needs of employers when it comes to choice. I think it is undoubtedly a very good policy that employees should have choice, particularly to avoid the situation that arises with multiple cover because of change of job, and the erosion of those funds when they are small amounts in a variety of funds instead of a larger amount in a single fund.