Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This was under the Rudd government, mate. This was done under the Rudd government. Cabinet had little to do with it. Let me be clear: the individual involved has no experience in the superannuation sector. None. Absolutely none. This is the banks trying to do two things. They want to weaken the board structures to put on more of their mates, under the guise of independence. Let me tell you why it so irks me, Senator Muir. Let me really tell you, because you, under this system, could almost certainly never qualify to be a director of a superannuation fund, no matter how well you had performed as a director. I object that truck drivers are being told that they are not good enough to be on the board of the super fund that has so successfully managed their superannuation fund. I have got friends who are directors and who are former truck drivers, and you want to throw them off because the big end of town do not like the fact that truck drivers want to represent their members' interests. This is an amendment that will throw truck drivers, timber workers and metal workers off boards. People who have been elected by their unions as representatives are going to be tossed off their boards. I am all for professionalising the industry. I am all for the training. I have supported, and we have advocated for, training for those representatives of the fund that I am still a member of and have funds in, and I trust the board of my fund. But I really object to the big end of town and their mouthpieces over on the other side, and people like Jeremy Cooper—who is nothing but a mouthpiece for the other side of the chamber—saying that a truck driver is not good enough to be on the board of a superannuation fund. Those truck drivers have done a bloody good job in representing the members' interests. They have delivered a cheaper fund, better investment decisions, no trailing commissions, and they have absolutely represented their members. They have absolutely represented their members' interests, including mine. I have still got money in my fund, and I am proud to say I have got money in my fund, because they do a bloody good job. I cannot believe that someone with your pedigree, your background and your genuine care in this area would fall for an argument that says that a truck driver or a timber worker is not good enough to serve on these boards—because that is what your amendment does. They will not tell you that, but that is what it does. You are going to say, 'You and you, you're not on the fund anymore.' That is truck drivers, timber workers, metalworkers. Do you know who is going to replace them? It will be a bunch of suits who do not have the culture, who do not have the understanding, who do not have the care for the members of these funds. They are not there to represent the absolute interests. They come from the end of town that supports trailing commissions. You will be putting people who have always traditionally supported trailing commissions onto an industry fund.

I accept the banks, thankfully, because of the great work that you and others in this chamber have done in exposing the shonks and the actual, real impact. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are lost to members because of trailing commissions and all the other deals and the lifestyle of the bank funds. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that should be in timber workers' pockets and in truck drivers' pockets is lost because of the structures that you now want to introduce to begin this process.

This chamber has rejected this over 20 years because the argument has not been made that there is something going wrong. If the definition of something going wrong is that I have got a better performance than bank funds, that I have a cheaper cost base than bank funds, let it all go wrong, because what I am proudest of is my time when I worked as a superannuation officer for the truck drivers fund. I am proudest of defending that structure for the last 20 years in this chamber.

This is not the first time I have stood on this issue. I apologise, as I say: I am sounding like a really old senator. But those who are owned by and are mouthpieces for the banks in this country, who sit on that side of the chamber, are not genuinely interested in the interests of timber workers and transport workers. They are not. They actually want to deliver to their mates at the big end of town. Do not forget what this bill actually started as: it was to take the default fund out so members of a site could actually negotiate with their employer and say, 'We’re in the TWU superannuation fund,' or 'We're in the Cbus fund,' or 'We're in this fund.' They want to take away the right for them to do that. As far as I know, you have all sensibly, hopefully, continued to say, 'There is not a chance in the world. We are not opening it up for the big end of town to start offering inducements,' and, believe me, they are very clever at how they do it.

So I am hoping that one is off the table. But this one is about saying truck drivers and timber workers are not good enough to be on this fund. They have not done the job, and we are going to get rid of them so that a few suits from the big end of town can start to wheedle their way in here. They do not understand the culture. They are not interested in the culture. They will be the mates of the big end of town.

It is really important that the structure of the super funds continue to maximise the benefits for the members. If there are people sitting outside this chamber who are telling you, Senator Muir, that it is okay to vote for this, they are not representing the unions—