Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, I think this is a key question. I just want to continue on from where Senator Whish-Wilson finished. You're aware of the history of the establishment of the superannuation industry in this country. It came about in the early 1980s, when the ACTU and the trade union movement became absolutely sick and tired of a proposition where only, or predominantly, white-collar workers had access to superannuation and blue-collar workers had limited or no access to superannuation.

I indicated earlier—not in this debate but in previous debates—that I was employed by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales as a maintenance fitter at Liddell power station, and my superannuation was the first superannuation I ever earned or achieved as a blue-collar worker in Australia. For about 10 years prior, I think, I worked in various industries and in various companies with no access to superannuation whatsoever. When I left the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, I was denied the Electricity Commission's contribution to my superannuation because I left that company. At that stage, I think the Electricity Commission's contribution to my superannuation was about $17,000, and that $17,000 from about 1981 would have been a significant amount in my and my family's superannuation now.

That was a regular situation that blue-collar workers found themselves in. It was called vesting. There was no vesting of the company's contribution to the worker if they left their existing employment, so they just lost their superannuation, other than the contribution that they themselves had made. So all I received when I left was the contribution I had made in addition to the Electricity Commission's contribution, which significantly disadvantaged me and disadvantaged my family. That was typical of how blue-collar workers were treated in relation to superannuation.

One of my first jobs as a union official for the then metal workers union was to go out and fight for superannuation entitlements and the vesting of superannuation for workers across the country. The coalition at that time opposed superannuation applying generally to workers. Their position has been ongoing as one of opposition to industry superannuation funds and opposition to increases for workers to make sure that they could retire with dignity.

My view is that this is another aspect of this government's ideological opposition to superannuation. This is an ideological opposition to industry superannuation funds that have, in most places, 50 per cent of representation from workers and 50 per cent of representation from employers. It's an industry that has delivered on average, over many, many years, about a 2½ per cent yield to workers through the superannuation on a regular basis. This is an industry—that is, the industry super funds—that regularly and consistently outperforms the private sector superannuation funds run predominantly by the banking industry.

As a result of the history of superannuation and the involvement of the trade union movement in providing that benefit to workers across the country, they had a say and a contribution to make to the superannuation industry. The Superannuation Complaints Tribunal was one of those contributions where the ACTU, the trade union movement and the employers were engaged in its establishment. Now, we see this being moved out from a tribunal—a government oversight body—to the private sector, which again is part of the ideological position that this government adopts consistently and unfailingly. We've seen the results of this transfer of public oversight and public bodies through the competition policy and privatisation taking place regularly under this government.

One of the areas that I think should be maintained, and the Labor Party believes should be maintained, given the history of superannuation, is the continuation of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. NXT came in here earlier and made some assertions how this would be more efficient and more effective. The minister has made similar assertions. But when you look around at the tragic contribution that company policy and privatisation has made in other industries and in other areas, then you see that it is not as ideologically pure and effective as some of the acolytes of privatisation and competition policy would have us believe. You've only got to look at the disastrous position in the VET training sector and at VET FEE-HELP to understand that the theory of academics and ideologues is not always represented in the practical outcomes of these changes.

Again, I take the view, and Labor takes the view, that it is the ideologues in the government and the ideologues in the private sector who want this tribunal to be put into a private-sector body that will not deliver. I just don't see the rhetoric that the minister has outlined being deliverable in that there is not going to be any consultation, by the looks of it, with the industry in terms of people who go onto this board. There will be no consultation with the ACTU, who were fundamentally responsible for creating the superannuation system, along with the Labor government at the time. These are some of the underpinning issues that we want to deal with. I want to ask the minister a couple of general questions on this. Can the minister confirm that the new dispute resolution caps—the limits on the value of disputes that can be heard by AFCA—are not specified in the legislation for non-superannuation disputes?