Senator COONEY (7:42 PM) —I want to take up the issue of choice which has been taken up again and again by those who have spoken before me and which will, I think, lead to a very interesting discussion in the committee stage. In that context, I would like to go to chapter 5 of the explanatory memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 , which talks about choice of superannuation funds. I do so because if we are going to debate this bill, as we certainly will, it would be very useful to know on what basis the government is insisting upon giving choice to the people involved. Paragraph 5.13 says:

The Government announced in the 1997-98 Budget, that it would introduce measures that provide employees with greater choice as to the superannuation fund or RSA to which their superannuation is paid. As a result of extensive consultation with superannuation funds, industry associations and employer and employee representatives, the government announced on 25 November 1997 a range of enhancements to the original Budget proposal. These enhancements are designed to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers while ensuring the key objective of providing choice of funds to employees is achieved.

I am not sure whether choice of funds is given the importance that it is in this explanatory memorandum because of employees' civil rights—therefore, since they have civil rights they ought to have choice—or whether they are given the choice because choice is an economic force which will increase the resources of a person if that force is allowed to operate properly.

I think that is a significant distinction to make because if employees are being given choice because of their civil rights then not a great deal of argument can be made about that because civil rights are self-evident truths. I know that the minister is a great reader of Thomas Jefferson's declaration of independence in 1776.

Senator Kemp —Quite right!

Senator COONEY —He established the proposition that the truths that we talk about, including civil rights and the rule of law, are self-evident truths. If, on the other hand, a person ought to have choice because of the economic principles involved, then that is a different matter. In those circumstances, the truths are not as self-evident. As I think any economist would agree, there has to be some evidence about that before we go ahead with the proposition. As has been pointed out by speakers before me, there is no evidence that has been brought forward, at least in this explanatory memorandum, which would support that proposition. Senator Sherry said during the meal adjournment that if I quoted the United Kingdom and Chile, those supporting this bill would know that they were cases in which the proposal put forward here did not succeed.

I think it is time that explanatory memorandums were more informative about evidence. I know that we have standing committees and legislation committees which bring forward a lot of evidence, but I think it would be useful for people writing explanatory memorandums to put in such evidence as they have to support the bill that is being explained by the explanatory memorandum. I say that for two reasons. First of all, I think it would clarify in the minds of the people who prepared the explanatory memorandum, and who no doubt had a significant part to play in the preparation of the bill, the parts of the particular bill that are not supported by evidence. It would also help people who do not attend upon the legislation committee understand what the government is putting forward.

A lot of explanatory memorandums are like opinions or advice from consultants, not from lawyers because lawyers are very serious about the advice and opinions that they give. At times an opinion or advice is just run off to suit the reader for whom it is meant. It is not a good thing to use a language that will be attractive and not have any real thought put into what is put. For example, paragraph 5.6 of the explanatory memorandum states:

The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings and placing downward pressure on fund administration charges.

That flows like poetry to our mind because we have heard so often the words competition and efficiency, downward pressure, savings and improved returns. They are the sorts of phrases that resonate around the country and come no doubt from particular economic schools that people might have attended.

When you read words like that, you are immediately on your guard that this is something that has not been thought out. It has been put down because someone has to prepare an explanatory memorandum. I imagine a lot of this stuff is on computers and that all you do is change the name of the act, press a button, there is a rumble in the system and out comes the explanatory memorandum. In my view, that is not good enough because it ignores the case that can be put against it, which has been so eloquently put by previous speakers.

There is nothing here about the effectiveness or otherwise of the retirement savings accounts, which I remember some time ago were spoken about by Senator Lundy. In one of her early contributions in this chamber I think she said that there were some real problems with retirement savings accounts, but none of that is set out in this explanatory memorandum. It is my plea that we generally try to improve the quality of explanatory memorandums. We cannot always rely on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to bring up issues. If this bill is based on the primacy of civil rights, that would be in accordance with the thoughts of the minister handling this bill at the moment, and that would be a good thing. It is my view that civil rights should receive a higher priority than they do in this parliament at times—not that they should command absolute heights but they should be given greater priority than they presently receive.

Madam Acting Deputy President, over the years you have given priority to civil rights, the rule of law in indigenous people's issues, gender equality and rights of people living under the threat of nuclear disaster. People such as you have given emphasis to civil rights over the years. This is one case where the government—at least in the terms it uses—seems to have given priority to civil rights. We will be able to find out when we come to the committee stage how the issue of choice operates in the context of this explanatory memorandum.

One of the rights that I think would help in this area is the right of funds to sue on behalf of employees whose employers have not made the contribution that they should have made. We could help in this area by giving funds greater rights to require contributions to be made.

Much has been said tonight about choice. It has been said that people must have knowledge of all the facts to be able to make a choice, and that is right. But I am not sure how people can have that knowledge. How can we know the results of investments made by funds? If people invest in shares, are the values going to go up or down? If they invest in the money market, how much is that going to return? If they invest in property, is the property going to keep its value? These are all questions that cannot be answered, and yet the explanatory memorandum is written as if those sorts of issues are beyond doubt. In that sense, this explanatory memorandum—and perhaps the thrust of the bill itself—introduces propositions that are not supported by reality. In other words, no matter how well educated and practised you are in the share market, nobody can guarantee how those things are going to go.

When you talk about choice in this context, you are talking about it in a way which is unreal and tends to give a wrong impression of what things are all about. I think that comes about because of the cavalier—and I use the word advisedly—way in which some of these explanatory memorandums are written.

Let me repeat the main points. This legislation would be praiseworthy if it were based substantially on the concept of human rights. However, I think such an exercise in this case has miscarried. In other words, any attempt in this bill to try to carry out the dictates of human rights has failed because it has not addressed the issues as they should be addressed. Also, there is not enough evidence to convince us that this bill is based on economic principles. Senator Sherry has produced evidence, as have others, to indicate that there is much to be doubted in the propositions that have been put forward.

This bill needs to be looked at further. It is not now in a proper state to be passed. A lot more discussion is needed. I think somebody with the generosity of heart of the minister in this case would understand the thrust with which we come at this bill and would go away and rewrite it. I do not suggest that he writes the explanatory memorandum himself—that would be imposing too much of a burden on him. But I would ask that he gets somebody who has a full understanding of this area—not someone who would go into a mantra mode of repeating the words that we have heard—to make a good and proper analysis of the issues involved.