Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow my Queensland Senate colleagues from the Labor Party in debates such as this. I have to say, Senator Ketter, you tell a good story. You sound like a banker, you look like a banker and some of your arguments could almost be convincing for someone who didn't understand them. I have to say your colleague from Queensland wasn't quite so urbane. I think I would have purchased a litre of snake oil from him. I think he could sell anything to you if you just go for flowery words. Unfortunately, in both cases, you need to develop some facts about these matters.

I do agree with Senator Ketter in one aspect—that is, there must be transparency and accountability. There's got to be. I heard Senator Watt say that it was important that the representation of workers and employers was maintained. Hang on. We're not talking about a parliament. We're not talking about a football match. We're not talking about a workers' representative and an employers' representative. We're actually talking about people's savings and what the superannuation company can do with those savings. It's not a question of representing one side or the other. It's a question of getting the best financial return.

I'm sorry Senator Cameron is leaving, because I was going to make a very favourable and complimentary comment about Senator Cameron. I hate to admit it in this chamber, because it will be on the record for all time, but I quite like Senator Cameron. If you take him out of this atmosphere and out of the hothouse atmosphere of the Senate committee process, he's a lovely fellow, good to be with. But I'm not quite sure what Senator Cameron's qualifications were for the position he held as a director for a superannuation company. I think I'm right—and, fortunately, he's gone—that I've heard somewhere in this chamber over the years that I've been here that Senator Cameron was a director of a superannuation company. Now, as I say, I like Senator Cameron; he's a great debater. But I had a look on Wikipedia just to get some background to Senator Cameron to see why he would be a director on a superannuation fund that was trying to maximise the return for those who invested in that superannuation fund. Wikipedia says that Senator Cameron:

… left school at 15 to take up an apprenticeship as a fitter at a local chain-making factory. Shortly after completing his apprenticeship the factory closed …

I don't know if there's any connection between Senator Cameron becoming a tradesman and the factory closing, but that's what Wikipedia says! Mr Cameron, as he then was:

… emigrated to Australia in 1973 … He initially worked at the Garden Island Dockyard in Sydney, before moving to the Liddell Power Station in Muswellbrook—

in the Hunter Valley—

… where he worked as a maintenance fitter. After seven years working at the power station Cameron was elected as the Hunter Valley/New England regional organiser for the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union …

He later became assistant national secretary, was then national secretary of the AMWU for several years and then was elected to the Senate in 2007. I was around at the time. I used to like George Campbell, but I remember how Senator Cameron stabbed poor old George Campbell in the back and came into the Senate.

In that background of Senator Cameron, I'm asking: if that is a union director of a trillion-dollar superannuation fund, what business expertise or financial expertise does he bring as a board member to that particular facility? If I have wronged Senator Cameron—if he wasn't a director—I'll apologise, but I'm pretty certain that's right. I think it became public at one stage. He was on $120,000 a year. I think it only became public because there was a bit of a fight on whether the director's fees, $120,000, belonged to him or belonged to the union that he was representing. I just wonder about someone with that background. I'm sure he was a wonderful fitter and I'm sure he was a wonderful organiser for the union. But does that make him the right sort of person to be a director of a trillion-dollar superannuation fund? Perhaps someone could explain that to me.

Senator Watt spoke a lot about representing the workers and representing the employers. Well, as I say, this isn't the parliament; this isn't a debating society. It's not where you represent someone. What you're there to do as a director is to make sure that the contributions to the fund made by workers get the very, very best return. That's not a question of representing workers or representing employers. It's a question of using every available skill to get the best return for the people whose funds you have control over. I think Labor speakers have this all wrong. It's not a question of representing workers and employers; it's about getting the best result and about accountability and transparency. That accountability and transparency needs to be there and obvious. Senator Watt was saying, 'The union representatives represent all the workers, and so they're there to look after the workers' money.' Can I just alert anyone who might be listening to this debate to the fact that the unions don't actually represent the workers; they represent 10 per cent of the workers. If you've got a union representative on the superannuation company board, supposedly representing the workers because he's a unionist, well, I'm sorry, he's not representing the workers; he's representing 10 per cent of the workers—which means he certainly doesn't represent the 90 per cent of workers who choose not to join a union.

So I think the Labor Party have got this all wrong. It's about the best return for the contributor's money. I would hope that, for whichever superannuation fund I or my wife have, there are directors who know something about high finance, something about international finance, something about exchange rates and something about floating dollars—something really top class. There are many, many people around Australia—very, very good financiers—who understand what money is all about. They should be there—I think that in the retail funds they are there—to get the best return for the contributors to the superannuation fund. They're not there to represent 10 per cent of the workers. They're not there to represent the employers. They're there to get a good deal for those who put their money into the superannuation fund.

I think the Labor speakers on this are simply mouthing the words they've been told to mouth by the unions and the members of the union leadership groups, the union bureaucracy, who, because of their position, happen to be directors of these superannuation companies. They would be drawing in—I don't know—$100,000 or $200,000. It'll all be on the record somewhere, but I do know that $130,000 was spoken about, and that's not a bad return for four or five meetings a year.