Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Is it not amazing that here we are discussing this legislation—one minute to midnight, so to speak, in relation to this amendment—and the government finally offers a meeting to Senator Fielding to discuss this issue? This was in fact canvassed by Senator Fielding in March this year—some three months ago—during the Fair Work Bill discussions. These issues were canvassed then. We as a coalition moved amendments then. Three months have elapsed, with no need to consider or treat this issue with the seriousness that now, all of a sudden, Senator Arbib tells us it deserves—only because they are desperate for a Senate vote today. What happened in the three months in between? Senator Fielding’s concerns were completely ignored and completely forgotten, and the issues that were raised three months ago were treated with contempt. And now, desperate for a vote, the government says, ‘We’ll finally open the door of Ms Gillard.’ It simply is not good enough.

A very, very reasonable question has been posed by Senator Fielding: why shouldn’t the AIRC go through such a process? Indeed, why won’t the government actually support our amendment which would allow the employer to have a bit of an individual say in superannuation funds as well? I think I know the reason in relation to the AIRC possibly not putting up these super funds for, if you like, public tender in each award. I think the AIRC would say, ‘We are not qualified to make those judgments. Our expertise is in matters of industrial relations, not in matters of superannuation investment funds and dividends, who gets what, what the fees are, what the management fees are et cetera.’ I think that is why the AIRC may well be reluctant. And, potentially, I can understand that. But I would have thought—and I do not know why I am doing the minister’s work for him here—that the AIRC could potentially, with the support of the government, outsource the issue of analysing superannuation fund tenders for the default award provisions. And, as a result, this proposal by Senator Fielding clearly could be implemented if Labor wanted to.

But I come back to the proposition that I have put here now on a number of occasions. It is amazing, isn’t it? If it is a deal with the restaurant and caterers, you do a special deal with Labor and you get a special outcome. Labor do not want a fair, open and transparent system in relation to the issues that I raised before in another discrete debate in this raft of amendments about allowing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to determine the factors that might apply to a particular industry for the no-detriment rule or for award modernisation. It is the same here: Labor do not want an open, transparent system for the default superannuation fund. Why? It is so the big unions can do big deals with big superannuation funds—rub shoulders; do the deals. That is what Sussex Street, New South Wales Labor, represented here by Senator Arbib, are all about. This is, unfortunately, Sydney, New South Wales Labor coming to Canberra to wreak the same sort of havoc on the nation as they have wreaked on New South Wales.

If the government were genuinely concerned about the best superannuation outcome for workers rather than doing the deals and the handshakes and then counting your fingers afterwards, and if Labor were genuinely concerned about the workers, why wouldn’t they allow the opposition amendment? I say this to Senator Fielding: there is nothing inconsistent between our amendment and what Senator Fielding is suggesting, and that is allowing the employer to choose a superannuation fund in the event the employee has not chosen one; and, if neither the employee nor the employer has chosen, you have a default fund and you go through the appropriate tender process. It just seems to me that, with the rise of companies that are based on all sorts of—let us use a neutral term—‘ethical’ grounds, be it environmental concerns or religious concerns et cetera, the question is: why wouldn’t you give those companies the right to invest their superannuation dollars in superannuation companies that have a similar ethic to that business? Why would you deny them that right in a country such as Australia, unless you were into the big deals—the big unions doing big deals with big superannuation companies? That is why the Labor Party are so determined not to allow choice in this vital area. Senator Fielding, I agree with you. I think that your idea has a lot to commend it. I simply say that the offer to discuss it should be of no comfort to you, because by the time you get to discuss it with Ms Gillard, if you ever do have a discussion with Ms Gillard about this—and I hope you never had that kiss, by the way—it will be after we have voted on this bill and then it will all be too late. That is why, the government having had more than three months to allow you the opportunity to discuss it, the promise from the table this morning by Senator Arbib is a very hollow one. I commend the opposition amendment to the Senate.