Mr ROSS CAMERON (11:06 AM) —I rise to support the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 . This is a good reform, a good and much needed innovation. This bill will wind back yet another large body of detail and prescription which has been built up in the award system over many years. This is another natural evolutionary step in the simplification of Australia's industrial environment which must remain a key objective of any government concerned about creating employment.

The Treasurer recently set out what he regarded as the four key aspects of Australian cultural, institutional and regulatory arrangements which needed to be changed if we wanted to make a substantial impact on the problem of unemployment. The first of those was to produce the climate for a growing, strong, domestic economy. Australia currently leads the world in its level of economic growth, exceeding even the Treasurer's own—at the time—allegedly optimistic expectations. This government has satisfied the first of those four criteria.

A second is to produce an incentive based, widespread, low rate tax system which delivers greater equity, greater simplicity and greater efficiency in the way tax is levied in this country. We are courageously taking on that task and we can only hope that our colleagues in the other place take up the challenge. The third thing we must do to improve the employment prospects of young Australians is improve the interaction between Australia's tax and welfare systems to remove the disincentives to work, while at the same time ensuring those genuinely in need are provided for. But the fourth critical element in this task is how we produce a modern industrial relations environment in this country. We have to wind back the years of accretions and calcification in the relations between management and workers, in particular the growth of unnecessary duplication in regulation. It is at this fourth point which this bill is squarely directed.

The bill removes superannuation as a matter which can be the subject of an industrial dispute. In that sense, it limits the role of the Industrial Relations Commission. The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, has argued that that removal represents a diminution in the rights of Australian workers. Deputy Speaker, I am here to tell you that that is not in fact the case. On the contrary, this bill will actually enhance the prospects of Australian workers and I am happy to explain why that is the case.

Superannuation, particularly occupational superannuation, was rightly regarded as a good and positive step for Australian workers. During the mid-1980s, it was increasingly included in various industrial awards for different industries. It was somewhat disorganised and inconsistent, and it was done in an often overly complex way. There were many anomalies which created confusion in the minds of employers and that produced a level of inefficiency. Nonetheless, there was a general recognition that occupational superannuation was a positive thing for Australian workers and that it ought to be the subject of industrial awards.

In 1992, the former government—not this government—introduced the Superannuation Guarantee Act. What that act did, by legislative prescription, was to set the benchmark for employer obligations in relation to workplace superannuation. This government has continued that regime and has recognised the extent to which that has taken its place in the psyche of the Australian workplace, that it is a good thing for national savings and that it ought to be encouraged. The difficulty is that you then had these two discrete and in many respects competing, very often inconsistent sets of regulations governing the treatment of superannuation in the Australian workplace. It is that double regulation, that double layer of complexity, which this bill addresses. We are seeking to restore the simple principle that the legislation of this House ought to govern the superannuation obligations of Australian employers. That is the purpose of the bill. That is what it will achieve.

The member for Brisbane put the proposition that this is going to reduce worker entitlements and is a rolling back of worker rights. That presupposes that the superannuation provisions contained in Australian awards actually act to the benefit of Australian workers. I think that is a proposition which we can fairly easily and simply dispel. The principal role of superannuation provisions in Australian awards is to limit choice because the Industrial Relations Commission, in its cosy relationship with the ACTU, has consistently acted in awards to limit the availability of choice of fund to Australian workers. Its rulings have consistently said that workers can only have access to one fund; if there is an industry based fund, that that is the only fund which ought to be offered to workers by employers, and if there is an employer operated fund in an industry, that that is the only fund which ought to be offered to workers.

That is the subject of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , which was re-introduced into the House yesterday, and on which both the member for Wills—I note he is in the chamber—and I had the opportunity to speak. I roundly endorsed the introduction of that choice of fund legislation as a strengthening of the hand of the Australian worker.

These two bills are really companion bills—they go side by side. The effect of both of them is to strengthen the rights, the opportunities and the freedom of choice of the Australian workers, while reducing this layer upon layer of regulation and complexity which is making the Australian workplace inefficient and which, in total, is reducing opportunities for new employment which job seekers around the country might have access to.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the government's policy of removing this duality, this double layer of regulation, was contained in the government's original legislation introduced in this place—the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1996. The provision was actually retained, however, by amendment because the Democrats in the other place felt, until the choice of fund legislation had been introduced, that the duality of regulation should continue. It was one of the subjects of that monumental negotiation which took place between the then leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot, and the then Minister for Industrial Relations in this place. At that time, Senator Kernot agreed that the Democrats would `be prepared to support consequential amendments to the Workplace Relations Act to repeal award coverage of superannuation' if appropriate choice of fund legislation could be introduced into the parliament.

So here we stand, a day after that choice of fund legislation was introduced and debated in this place, and I note with interest that the member for Dickson is not one of the speakers on the list for debate on this bill. I note, having given a personal, rock solid undertaking that the Democrats would support the repeal of superannuation from award arrangements if choice of fund legislation was introduced, that the member for Dickson has declined to speak on the bill. And well she may. What an invidious position she is in, having recognised the essential logic and commonsense of repealing the use of awards to regulate superannuation if choice of fund legislation could be introduced.

I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for his continuing commonsense, evolutionary approach to the improvement of efficiency in the Australian workplace. This bill is part of that evolutionary approach.

The member for Brisbane suggested that, in relation to efficiency, red tape and the complexity of the current arrangements, no evidence was put before the Senate inquiry into choice of fund. I have before me some of the testimony that was given to that committee, and it does not support the proposition advanced by the member for Brisbane. Tony Aveling, the then Chief Executive of the Australian Bankers Association, noted:

Lack of member choice is an important reason why competition and efficiency in this marketplace are not as strong as they should be. Allowing member choice of fund will increase competition between funds, it should enhance efficiency, and it will put downward pressure on costs and encourage rationalisation of the industry. This is important when saving for retirement, as a reduction in cost translates into higher returns, the benefits of which should compound.

I note that they compound to the benefit of the Australian worker. While the member for Brisbane is alleging this cacophony of silence in the other place on the question of efficiency, here we have a lucid, simple, direct statement by Mr Tony Aveling on the inefficiency and complexity of the marketplace at the moment because of the lack of discipline which comes from member choice. This reform, with its companion piece of legislation reintroduced yesterday, will drive down costs in this sector. It will lead to greater efficiency, and it will flow into a reduction of red tape.

I note that Senator Allison in the other place likewise endorsed this principle of member choice. I go back to the role of the Industrial Relations Commission, which this bill is addressing. The role of the AIRC, overwhelmingly, was to limit worker choice to the industry funds. It is on that point that Senator Allison made some remarks when the choice of fund legislation was on the table in the other place. Senator Allison said:

Of course, there are duds. Workers do need to be able to exit industry funds that are not performing. Further, industry funds are not sufficiently portable. There remains the problem that moving from one industry to another too often results in moving from one industry fund to another.

Now that this government has delivered on its undertaking to introduce that breath of fresh air in choice of fund, I look with some encouragement to the Democrats in the other place to come to the party and agree to the natural corollary of that bill, which is the repeal of superannuation as an allowable award matter.

The member for Brisbane also suggested the bill would place in jeopardy—for all of those workers who, in their pioneering way, had negotiated it—the three per cent superannuation contribution. In fact, that is not the case. The Superannuation Guarantee Act 1992 specifically enshrined that three per cent employer contribution as an employer obligation. It was not circumvented by the Superannuation Guarantee Act. In fact, it was enshrined in legislation that employers would have to make that three per cent contribution to ensure that worker rights were not diminished. Under the superannuation guarantee provisions, the level of employer contribution has continued to increase—more than doubled from the original three per cent—to the benefit of Australian workers. The suggestion that this bill will somehow wipe away the industrial gains of previous decades is simply incorrect.

We have a great challenge as we face the next century. We have to be tough enough to take on the vested interests who seek to preserve a narrow special interest at the expense of the national interest and, in particular, at the expense of Australian workers. I want to remind the parliament of the fundamental conflict which exists in the culture of the ACTU, which holds itself out as being the advocate of the interests of workers. In case after case, the interests of the ACTU and the interests of Australian workers do not overlap but are very specifically and directly in conflict. We see the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, time after time, siding with the workers against the union bosses.

The member for Brisbane suggested that these measures would have no impact on the level of national savings. He suggested that they would tend to reduce national savings, but that is not what the evidence before the Senate committee indicated. The evidence before the Senate committee indicated that the introduction of member choice would make workers more aware of their future obligations in providing for their own retirement. He said that evidence before the committee suggested that this would be likely to lift the level of national savings by lifting the level of private savings.

The member for Brisbane quoted the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. That was not the only evidence of the Association of Superannuation Funds. Rosemary Vilgan, the federal president of the association said, in relation to the government's choice provisions:

. . . ownership by the members of this superannuation benefit, we believe, is likely to increase. That is, their sense of belonging and their understanding of their superannuation benefit is likely to increase. We believe there will be benefits from competition in the industry and also that there are people in funds now which are not suitable for them, and those people should be allowed to leave those funds.

They are not allowed to leave them now because their awards direct them and dictate to them that they have to stay in the fund they are in. The introduction of member choice and the removal of superannuation as an allowable award matter are the measures that will allow members that freedom of movement which they do not currently enjoy. It was on this same subject of lifting national savings that John Maroney, who is from the Investment and Financial Services Association, said:

. . . the introduction of choice could have beneficial effects beyond compulsory minimum superannuation guarantee contributions and lead to greater voluntary contributions once people have a greater understanding of how much they really need to put away to save for an adequate level of retirement income.

So what you are hearing from the Investment and Financial Services Association is that they welcome these changes. They welcome the removal of superannuation from the award system because they recognise that the principal impact of regulation of superannuation under Australian awards is to limit member choice. That is the principal impact. By removing the power of the Industrial Relations Commission to regulate these matters, we are removing the persistent tendency of the commission to limit member choice.

As I said yesterday, this does not pose, and should not pose, some kind of intrinsic threat to the industry based super funds. If those funds are working well, they will continue to attract the support and patronage of Australian workers. But if they are not working well, the workers must have the freedom to move. That is what these two measures together will achieve. This bill does nothing to reduce workers' rights in relation to the amount of the superannuation contribution that employers must make. That will continue to be governed by the superannuation guarantee provisions. So workers need have no apprehension or fear in that regard.

In summary, what the bill does is take another step towards creating a modern, efficient and equitable industrial environment in this country. As we look around the region and see a country like Japan, which is now in depression and its fifth consecutive quarter of negative growth, we ask: why is it that such a powerful economy is in depression? The reason is that Japan has lacked the political will to take on the vested interests of inefficiency. It has lacked the political will to provide leadership where it has been needed to make the Japanese economy internationally competitive.

In sector after sector in the areas of tax and industrial relations and, generally, in creating economic growth, this government is providing leadership. This government is doing the things that need to be done. This government is doing the things that, in a generation's time, people will look back and say, `Thank goodness we didn't listen to the bosses of the ACTU who prescribed Labor culture in this place. Thank goodness we listened to the workers instead of the institutional interests of the Industrial Relations Commission and the ACTU. Thank goodness we were prepared to instil a culture of private savings in a country which has lacked it. Thank goodness we were prepared to resist the allegations of bad faith and the conspiratorial mutterings of the opposition and do the simple, practical, commonsense, evolutionary things that needed to be done.' With those remarks, I warmly endorse the bill to the House. (Time expired)