Senator LUNDY (7:58 PM) —I, too, would like to add my thoughts and comments on this issue. Having had the experience of being one of the earlier participants in a particular industry fund, I come from a perspective of first-hand experience about what participation in an industry superannuation fund means as a blue-collar worker.

One of Labor's great achievements has been the establishment of such funds for transient workers, workers in blue-collar industries and workers who previously had no access to superannuation generally and the dignity that it can potentially bring in one's retirement. So it has been with great dismay and concern that we have traversed a fairly rocky terrain in respect of this government's attempts to manipulate change and thwart the principles that were put in place by Labor during our period of government. Indeed, these principles were supported generally by the current government—the then opposition. It was agreed that the role of industry super funds and superannuation generally would be supported in a bipartisan way.

However, since the coalition took government we have seen the structural dismantling of that superannuation retirement base for all Australians that Labor was certainly leading towards. We have had experiences with the superannuation tax. We have seen the government co-contribution for superannuation completely scuttled in return—at the time it was politically sold as some sort of recompense—for a family tax package. Ironically, those families fortunate enough to fit within the narrow confines of that family tax rebate and to benefit from it have seen it eaten away by the increases to child care due to the $821 million cut to the child-care sector.

Let us look at the government's superannuation policies in the wider context and at how other policy decisions have been made in relation to retirement incomes and costs to families. We have seen policies that have stifled job growth. We have seen industrial relations policies that have hampered opportunity, particularly for blue-collar workers and those in transient industries such as the building and construction industry. This collection of policies has actively targeted and actively disadvantaged those areas.

It points to a government that has a short-term approach. It is not a government that subscribes to long-term visions about where retirement incomes are going to come from. It is a government that uses these pressures to try to thwart and narrowly confine debate about taxation reform. It is a government that is prepared to compromise what was a sound and progressive program of enhancing retirement incomes for all Australians and turn it into a quick buy, a reallocation of only some of the money—not even all of it—from the potential co-contribution to a family tax rebate. This sort of petty politicking and lack of vision is something that effectively has become synonymous with the John Howard led coalition government.

One of the great ironies in this debate can be highlighted by conveying to you an experience I had as an organiser for the Building Workers Industrial Union at the time that the superannuation debate was still raging within the industrial relations forums. Indeed, it was the Liberal Party at that time, and its voice in industry through employer associations, that argued so actively against the introduction of industry style funds because of the administrative burden that it imposed upon employers in those industries. It should be understood that in the building industry a large number of small subcontractors barely have the time to get their taxation records and their wage books up to scratch, because of the pressures of their work, let alone deal with the administration of a superannuation fund.

From recollection, the opposition at the time argued vehemently against this notion of industry super, specifically because of what they called red tape and administrative burden. In fact, at the time, this argument was largely fought out in an industrial forum. As a union organiser, I can remember having many debates with employers about the value of having an industry fund which could support and help small employers—it did not matter what job they were working on because they only had to get to know the processes associated with one fund.

There are a lot of issues relating to that but one, of course, was the recognition that small businesses in the building industry—I know this example can translate to many different industries—imposed quite a significant burden. It was a burden that was taken seriously by the Labor government at the time. Certainly it was taken seriously by the industry fund and by employer organisations, which embarked upon lengthy education programs and information seminars to try to bring the skills and knowledge of those particular subcontractors up to scratch.

A lot of investment was put in place for that and I believe over time its value was certainly recognised by those employers. I cannot begin to describe the benefit and the positive impact that it had on the workers in that industry. For the first time, employees, who perhaps had had numerous employers in a given year or in any given period of that cyclical boom of the construction industry, consistently had contributions going into one fund. The debate that occurred out there where it happens—on the sites and in the site sheds—ultimately led to a fund that that industry and those workers can be particularly proud of.

So we get to the debate about a choice of fund. That history, that education and that knowledge that has been built up, and the contributions that have been building up and going towards the retirements of all of those workers, are now under question by this government. With this bill, the government is proposing to undermine the system that was put in place. It is proposing to undermine it through the choice model. The government, with its lack of vision and lack of acknowledgment of the industries working in this area—as in the particular example I used—has decided that no longer is red tape an issue and that no longer is the ability of these small companies to administer their affairs an issue. Suddenly, a greater issue is to create confusion and a situation that will make it more difficult for smaller employers to participate in employer contribution schemes for superannuation.

The government argues that its choice model is a question of competition. It is not a question of competition; it is not a question of efficiencies. If it were, the government would look at industry best practice. If it were, the government would look at what industry has chosen through natural evolution as the type of scheme that is best suited and it would take some stock in that, learn from that and appreciate that what is not needed out there in the small business sector is a complicated myriad of opportunities and approaches, all of which require, I presume, for many of these small businesses the hiring of yet another consultant, so many more hours with their accountant or perhaps even some legal advice in relation to the application of this new law. So not only are their administrative procedures potentially spread across four or five different superannuation schemes, funds, RSAs or whatever but, in making their assessment to check their legality in applying these new laws, small businesses will have to hire the services of advisers—professionals, I am sure. That will be very necessary given the complicated state of this legislation.

So where is this government doing industry a favour in this respect? You are not doing small business any favours. They are not impressed by your arguments of choice and competition. They are only thinking about that extra bill from their accountant, their bank manager or their lawyer. And they are thinking about those extra hours spent in the office rather than out there scrounging and searching for more work—putting in their tenders and bids. That is where they need to spend their time at the moment.

Let us look at it from the point of view of the worker. Choice of fund—consumer heaven. I can just see all those building workers out there taking home a pile of propaganda from a bank or industry fund and comparing it—making a detailed comparative analysis of each of the four options that are before them. They have all that time on their hands in their busy lives to make those comparisons. This government is taking these steps to undermine superannuation for workers. I do not know too many blue-collar workers who have the sort of money to purchase advice from accountants or financial advisers. Many have, but many have not. It is those who have not who are going to be unnecessarily bombarded with extra costs associated with making their analysis. They may be under pressure from their employer to go in one direction or another, given the burden that the employer has in administering perhaps four different funds from their business.

Another point worth dwelling on is how the government intends to ensure the soundness of each of these options. As with any increased choice or wider variety, for effectiveness and for the quality required there must be, commonsense tells me, a greater imposition of regulation, compliance procedures and penalties for those who do not comply. So here we hit this contradiction. On the one hand you have the government saying that this choice policy is about consumer opportunity. On the other hand—and we know this from overseas examples—this form of deregulation opens the doors to players who are not always up to scratch. So another layer of analysis is required by the worker and indeed the employer, for which they will have to purchase advice to make sure that they do not breach their liabilities.

It also places an additional burden on the government. Deregulation must be accompanied by specifications about compliance to a far higher degree than before—otherwise they are opening the door to failure and to providers of these services who will not comply with the regulations. Experience with this government has shown us that they are very keen to deconstruct those authorities that have been put in place to monitor and regulate the quality of the services, schemes, funds, et cetera put in place. You cannot have it both ways. Providing greater choice means that you, as a government, need to reinvest in monitoring regulations, tracking compliance actively—not passively—and ensuring that accurate and effective disincentives in the form of penalties are put in place. But we see little of this. Instead we see rhetoric based on consumer choice; rhetoric that flies in the face of all of the messages and symbols we heard from you in opposition when you argued that measures such as this were a burden on small business.

Labor, on the other hand, is committed to the role of superannuation in Australian society. In every debate in this chamber about superannuation, we have reinforced our message that there is a place for a definitive, forward looking, effective and fully funded program of ideas and legislation that will lead to superannuation being an effective source of retirement income for Australians. The price for the backtracking and undermining by this government of that vision for superannuation for this country will be paid by generations who are still in the work force. The baby boomer generation was always going to be under pressure, caught in the space between having the time and the opportunity to build up their superannuation funds and the pressures on government provided pensions. Labor was addressing this problem. Our policies meant that for generations after that there was opportunity for all of us to have a dignified retirement. This opportunity has now been undermined, and with each year that the coalition remains in power this opportunity will be further reduced.

Labor has a series of amendments in relation to this matter of choice. Just as we have attempted to amend previous legislation, we will continue to try to limit the damage being inflicted by this government. Labor's amendments will make this bill much fairer and will make it easier to understand. Our amendments will also still allow employees to have the opportunity to choose a superannuation fund—not to have one forced on them by an employer. If there is one thing that my experience in the building industry showed me, it is that you need the time and you need the opportunity to explain to people how it all works. A decent education program, not shrouded in rhetoric, not shrouded in tax buy-offs and short-term policies that have little to do with retirement incomes and everything to do with confusing the taxation debate, is the way that we will progress superannuation and its changing form in the workplaces of this country.

Labor's amendments limit the damage of this bill but they will not stop the structural undermining of the superannuation program put in place by Labor. As I said, it will be the generations to come that will suffer. (Time expired)