Senate debates

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009; Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009

In Committee

10:36 am

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

I confess I rise with some hesitation because I said I was giving the last amendment to Senator Fisher with the hope that we might actually win a vote in the Senate—and we have. So I would be delighted if Senator Fisher could provide ongoing assistance to me! I thank the Senate for the last vote. We are now at opposition amendment (6) dealing with the default superannuation request. On behalf of the opposition, I move opposition amendment (6) on sheet 5817:

(6)    Schedule 5, page 66 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 6—Superannuation

Fair Work Act 2009

20  At the end of paragraph 139(1)(i)

Add “but ensuring that employers can nominate any complying superannuation fund as the default fund”.

Workplace Relations Act 1996

21  At the end of paragraph 576J(1)(i)

Add “but ensuring that employers can nominate any complying superannuation fund as the default fund”.

In moving that amendment, we are in fact covering a discussion and debate that we had when the Fair Work Bill was considered by this place. It is the coalition’s very strong view that there needs to be some consideration of this yet again, in fairness to workers, employers and the superannuation industry.

This amendment will retain superannuation as a matter that can be included within a modern award but it will provide discretion for an employer to nominate an alternative complying superannuation fund as the default. This does not impinge upon existing freedom of choice obligations. The amendment changes both the provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Fair Work Act 2009.

The amendment will work in the following way. First of all, the employee of course should have a say. Then there would be, as Labor has it, the default system of having a particular fund. But we say that between those two positions there should be the opportunity for an employer to nominate an alternative default super fund—for example, if you want a green friendly, a religious friendly or whatever friendly super fund; or indeed if you want a state based super fund as an alternative to the existing fund or funds as nominated by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the award modernisation process. An employee could choose to use the employer’s nominated fund or of course any other fund using their choice of fund entitlement. It would be fair to say, and I am sure all senators have had representations from the superannuation industry outlining and confirming this in great detail, that there are concerns that there are now substantial monopolies being created in the superannuation sector under award modernisation.

For example, a monopoly has been awarded in relation to award covered employees in the following industries: textiles, clothing and footwear; hair and beauty—something that Senator Arbib and I of course are keenly interested in, and Senator Marshall, not to leave him out of the picture—general retail; fast food and higher education. Many of these industries are major employers of award covered employees. In other industries competition is restricted to a limited number of industry funds. Award modernisation will effectively lock all other superannuation funds out of a large segment of the market. There is no real rationale expressed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to indicate why it supports the particular fund that is nominated in a particular award. There is no robust mechanism where the Australian Industrial Relations Commission says, ‘We have checked out all the super funds and we believe this is the best one for the workers and the industry.’ It is just a deal done in relation to the award that then puts it in there and gets the tick from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

We believe the employee should have a say. In the event that the employee does not nominate then it is up to the employer, should they wish, to nominate a super fund. And in the event that the employer does not wish to nominate a super fund either then we say that, yes, it makes sense to have the default fund in the award. We have no difficulty with injecting this degree of competition—and what is more it will ensure that the award nomination funds remain competitive and responsive to their members if they know that individual employers and individual employees can nominate other superannuation funds. My time speaking here today is short so I will contain my remarks there in relation to this matter. But I do refer honourable senators to the more extensive debate that we had during the Fair Work Bill discussion. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Comments

No comments