Ms MACKLIN (11:46 PM) —I am very pleased to be here today to follow the comments made on the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 by the member for Wills, who has outlined the benefits that have come particularly to many women workers as a result of the efforts of the trade union movement and the Labor government as far as superannuation is concerned. This bill aims to remove superannuation from being an allowable award matter under the 1996 Workplace Relations Act. As the shadow minister said earlier, this is the government's own legislation. It is not a piece of legislation that we agreed to, it is not something that Labor would feel proud of at all; it is the government's own legislation. As the member for Brisbane said earlier this morning, the issue of superannuation being an allowable award matter was in fact debated and agreed upon when the government pushed the Workplace Relations Act through the Senate some years ago.

This government has the gall to argue that these changes which we are debating today are in the interests of workers. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the member for Wills has so ably set out. But it is the case that the proposed amendments, if they are passed, will impact on some workers more than others. The amendments do attack the rights of all workers to have superannuation in their awards, but they will particularly attack those who are low income workers working in casual or part-time jobs with little negotiating power with their employers.

I want to talk mostly about those casual and part-time workers, who in the main are women. It is still the case in Australia that men and women have very different income patterns and employment patterns. Women are still more likely to be more dependent on government pensions and benefits and still much less likely to have superannuation cover or any other source of income. In 1997, 73 per cent of women had a pension or benefit as their main source of income. In that year, of the people receiving superannuation payments, 76 per cent were male and only 24 per cent women. It could be expected that this will change as more and more women enter the work force and take up superannuation. But, as we all know, it is still the case that women are more likely to have broken periods of employment over their working lives, which reduces their earning capacity and therefore their capacity to generate superannuation savings.

If this government was actually serious about making sure that women in their retirement could look forward to a higher standard of living, the public policy that we would be debating today would be how to encourage and support through government legislation efforts by working women to save for their retirement. This bill will not result in that public policy outcome; it will do the reverse.

It is the case, as I have already said, that women are, and I think will continue to be, a large proportion of the part-time and casual work force, so we know that their opportunity and potential to save for retirement is reduced when compared with full-time, higher paid workers. Of course, we are not talking about a small number of people—about one in five Australian employees are employed as casual workers. It is the case that Australia has one of the highest rates of temporary employment in the OECD. Nearly 10 per cent of full-time employees are employed on a casual basis and 65 per cent of part-time employees are casual. Forty-one per cent of all women workers work on a part-time basis and women make up 75 per cent of the part-time work force. It is still the case that women's wages have a long way to go. Women are still earning just under 55 per cent of men's overaward payments, for example. It will be the case, if this legislation proceeds, that women will fare badly if superannuation is removed as an allowable matter under this act.

As previous speakers have said, the bill also takes away the capacity of the Industrial Relations Commission to deal with disputes that arise between workers and their employees in relation to superannuation. Those who are in more vulnerable positions in the work force, those part-time and casual workers, will as a result find it much more difficult to negotiate with their employers about their superannuation. As the member for Wills said, it does seem that this government is intent on destroying the superannuation system negotiated by the trade union movement and established by the Labor government in the late 1980s. It seems they want to return to a situation that existed before Labor introduced the retirement incomes policy, to a time when the majority of workers were not entitled to superannuation as an award right of their employment.

Women, of course, were very much affected by the lack of retirement income and Labor sought to turn that around. We had to take a very long-term view, given the earnings capacity and the savings capacity that women workers have, in seeking to improve the living standards of so many low income working women. It is only now that some low income women can actually, for the first time, look forward to a future retirement with some improvement—not a massive improvement—to their financial security in their retirement.

There are real concerns in addition for women if this bill goes through. If it is to be the case that women will not have the security of any superannuation income in their retirement, they will have to rely either on their families or on government pensions. Of course, that is in keeping with other changes that this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, has put forward. One of these, which has been commented on already by the member for Brisbane and the member for Wills, is the proposal by this minister to allow those employees earning between $450 and $900 a month to opt out of superannuation. I think that demonstrates what this government is all about.

If this opting out is put into practice, superannuation will be even less relevant to the large proportion of casual employees who work part time or those who do not work every week. I would have to say that it is becoming a typical example of the government's policy to remove any security for low income earners, who are most in need of even some limited superannuation savings for their retirement.

In some industries—for example, the retail and hospitality industries, where very many women are employed—this could apply to up to half of all the employees. Many of these people are employed not just on a part-time or casual basis but also by more than one employer and, of course, that is going to become a growing trend. If we pass the proposals set out in this legislation, it will become far more confusing for employers to make sure that these people do get some superannuation cover.

Going back to the opting out issue, because it is a very serious matter, if the government were to give people earning just over $450 a month—so people who are on very low incomes—the opportunity to take the cash instead of continuing to contribute to their superannuation savings, I do not think any of us should be surprised about what those employees would do. What would a low income woman do when faced with that choice? It is more than likely that she will take the cash for her family's immediate needs rather than allocate it to her own long-term retirement future.

But, as the member for Brisbane set out earlier, let us not forget that these superannuation contributions are made not only by employees but also by employers in lieu of wage increases. These are the two things that are important in this legislation. If women do decide to take the cash rather than their super, they will lose the employer contribution to their superannuation. I do not think too many women—particularly women on this sort of income of $450 a month—will be holding their breath waiting for this government to go down to the Industrial Relations Commission and put in an application for them to get a wage rise to compensate for them losing the employer contribution to their superannuation. I do not think that any woman worker in the hospitality or retail sector would be so naive as to think that this government would compensate them in this way.

This is another attack on those workers who are at most risk of exploitation and who, in many cases, will not have organised representation to make sure that their incomes are not eroded by employers who will be in a much stronger position to do away with superannuation coverage. Can you imagine it being left to individual, temporary, casual employees earning less than $450 a month to stick their neck out at the risk of losing their job? The idea of that happening in order to protect their superannuation coverage is just fanciful.

All that is contained in this legislation will in fact make sure that these women workers are left worse off as a result of this government's changes. They will not be able to look forward to some small improvement—let us not overstate it—in their retirement incomes, because they cannot save a massive amount given the incomes that they are on. The public policy question that Labor will address is to make sure that those women workers can look forward to some improvement in their financial security in their retirement. That is not what is being debated here, it is quite the reverse, and Labor will certainly oppose it.