Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

There are flaws in this bill and the current minister is repeating the errors of the previous finance minister. He is failing to consult. He is failing to negotiate and find a pathway forward. It is true that after 1 July the balance of power in the Senate will shift. The Greens will have power. I would think the Greens, who on a number of occasions have stood up for the financial rights of members of our military, will stand up to this minister and say, 'No, the ACTU president should not have more power than the minister for finance.' As I said, and as is outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the CEO is not subject to ministerial direction in the performance of his statutory functions but in essence will be there to serve the needs of the President of the ACTU, given the balance of the power and the make-up of the board and given the fact that only the President of the ACTU can dismiss members. The member for Fadden has moved amendments that move the balance of power of the ACTU in this board—

Government members interjecting—

Members opposite interject and say, 'They're only trustees,' but trustees set direction; otherwise, there would not be much point in having trustees. Indeed, there would not be much point in having a board if it was not establishing the policy matrix by which the administration of the funds occurs.

I also refer to the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Throsby, who for the better part of seven minutes did nothing but waffle on about tones of speech as though he were some great oracle in relation to this industry. I am sad to inform the member for Throsby that he is a long way from being such an oracle. In the tone of his discussion he displayed a relative lack of understanding of the needs of the security of the financial investments of members of our Australian Defence Force. I, like the member for Fadden and other members in the coalition, have taken time to speak to organisations like DFWA and, more importantly, individual members of the Defence Force, retired and serving. Their greatest concern is that this government will again, like it has in the past, destroy the superannuation benefits of those, both serving and retired, in our military system. So there are great concerns.

The government has failed to explain, through a failure to sit down and discuss, why when the union movement represents only 41 per cent of the Public Service it should have the majority control. Defence has 100 per cent of its members represented by only the two nominated directors; the ACTU will have three nominated directors for 41 per cent of its contributors. I would have thought that would have said something: if 59 per cent of the people choose not to be in the union movement then perhaps it might be wiser to have more independently nominated directors put forward by the minister and the Chief of the Defence Force. After all, whilst the Chief of the Defence Force and others are in the military, they are also public servants.

I cannot support this bill, and I cannot support it for the exact reasons I outlined on 2 July in this House, not only in my main speech but also during consideration in detail. Again, this minister, like the previous minister, has failed to adequately consult. Through maintaining their position on the bill, they have not secured the confidence of the Defence personnel whose funds they seek to represent, because those people are concerned that the government will be putting the ACTU in with an absolute, uncontrollable balance of power to administer their funds. Given the government's previous track record going back to the Whitlam era, I can understand their fears. So I will not be supporting this bill.

Even though the government may use its numbers to push the bill through, I would have thought some of the Independents in here would have sat down and thought wisely of the ramifications of the bill in its current form and made the minister stand to account. Then again, perhaps they are more interested in their carbon tax or their poker machines levy. Perhaps they give greater precedence to those things than to the welfare of former and current serving members of the military of this country.

See this speech in context