Senate debates

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Bills

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2012; In Committee

9:46 pm

Photo of Mathias CormannMathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I just have a few questions for the minister and they go specifically to the issue that I raised in my second reading speech in relation to the default superannuation arrangements under modern awards. What I would like to know from the minister is why they are not prepared to fix up once and for all the anticompetitive, closed-shop arrangements under which Fair Work Australia selects default funds under modern awards through a widely discredited process. Even the Labor Party was embarrassed about it in the lead-up to the last election to the point where they had to be shamed into promising that if they were re-elected they would to fix it. Even the Labor Party had to recognise in the lead-up to the last election that what they did in relation to the selection of default funds under modern awards was fundamentally wrong and that they sold out the public interest at the expense of very specific vested interests—

Senator Back interjecting—

Very specific vested interests, Senator Back, of the union-dominated industry funds. Of course we do know how very close to the minister's heart the protection of these vested interests of the union movement are in the financial services and superannuation portfolio. In fact, for a minister who is supposedly in the financial services space asserting that he wanted to remove conflicts from the financial services space, he is the most conflicted Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation that we have had in the Commonwealth for a very, very long time.

This was a nice cosy arrangement that the Labor Party enshrined in this Fair Work Act for union-dominated industry funds. They said that they were going to get Fair Work Australia to determine who could be identified, who could be selected as a default fund under various modern awards, and then of course nobody else would be allowed to have a part of that business. That locks up straightaway a guaranteed share of the market for union-dominated industry funds. Why do you think that is?

Comments

No comments