The Quiet Revolution

THE QUIET REVOLUTION S U P E R A N N U AT I O N F O R A L L W O R K E R S Tom McDonald and Cathy Brigden

1/

‘For the first time in my life … I can see that there are ways where ordinary people can have some of the advantages that come with wealth’.

(Mavis Robertson, 2003, from NLA interview) ‘I call it the quiet revolution. We revolutionised superannuation and created a new model that won the hearts and minds of workers’ (Tom McDonald, 2015).

‘Industry super funds allow working people to pool their savings so they can invest as if they are the wealthiest people on earth. They can invest for the long term. They can buy, not sell, when prices are low. They have access to the best advice – no deal is too big for them’ (Garry Weaven, 2008).

Published by CFMEU, June 2017 Further copies of this booklet can be obtained at: vic.cfmeu.org.au/shop/category/Other%20Merchandise

Tom McDonald

Cathy Brigden

About the Authors Tom McDonald AM was National Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union, now the CFMEU, an ACTU Vice President, and a founding Trustee of BUSS, now CBUS. Cathy Brigden is an associate professor in industrial relations at RMIT University.

Her research has focused on exploring the history of trade unions and their contemporary strategies, especially women in unions, and she is the co-author of Workers’ Capital: Industry funds and the fight for universal superannuation in Australia. A foundation member of the NTEU, Cathy was an honorary official in two of its merging unions, FAUSA and UACA, and a VTHC delegate for many years.

2/

Foreword by Michael O’Connor, National Secretary CFMEU The Australian trade union movement has a wonderful and proud record of achievement.

When we put together all the social and employment entitlements won by the trade union movement they enrich the quality of life of all working class families.

This inspirational publication tells the story of the struggle, sacrifices and courage displayed by workers in winning one of our most precious entitlements - superannuation.

The trade union movement successfully fought to make superannuation a right of all workers and not a privilege only for the elite.

In the sense of the relationship between Labor Governments and the trade union movement it was one of our greatest moments.

In the early 1980s universal superannuation was regarded as an impossible dream – today it is a reality.

But the forces opposed to universal superannuation were very powerful, some ideologically driven - and they still exist today.

Efforts by conservative governments to erode industry super funds are relentless and include watering down default super clauses in EBAs; refusal to increase the Superannuation Guarantee to recommended levels to ensure adequacy; changes to representation on super Boards and Committees … it goes on.

We must remain ever vigilant, we must remember how hard it was to achieve – and how easily it can be taken away.

We need to remind current and future generations of the hard-fought struggle, and the constant threats to industry super, which is why this booklet is so important, and why I am proud to endorse it.

The Union would like to record our thanks to Cathy Brigden for her work and to the ever inspiring Tom McDonald for his enormous contribution to the trade union movement and without whom we would not have this story to tell.

‘Workers Capital’ - The first major history of Australia’s unique and world-leading system of industry superannuation.

By Bernard Mees and Cathy Brigden

Superannuation was once a privilege granted only to company head office staff and career public servants. Now in Australia nearly all workers have access to employer-contributed superannuation, and it is a fundamental pillar of Australia’s retirement income system.

Workers’ Capital tells the story of the Australian superannuation revolution led by trade unions in the 1980s. From having one of

the worst retirement savings systems in the developed world, in three decades Australia had one of the best.

Drawing on interviews with the key players and extensive archival research, Workers’ Capital is the first systematic history of the unique Australian system of industry superannuation.

3/

A Super Revolution Prior to the 1970s, superannuation was only for the elite. Today it is an irreversible right of all workers.

To bring this about there had to be a revolution that replaced the old elitist scheme with a new system of superannuation for all workers.

The revolution had far reaching benefits for retirees and for the economy and jobs.

For retirees, it meant a decent retirement income instead of the aged pension which was no more than a survival retirement income.

In financial terms, the capital assets of superannuation grew from $50 billion in the 1980s to $2.1 trillion in 2016.

These assets have grown to such an extent that they are greater than both the Australian Gross Domestic Product and the entire capitalisation of all the companies listed on the Stock Exchange and their role in the financial economy will become even more important in the future. Industry Funds manage around 40% of these assets and over 5 million workers are members of industry funds. The funds are managed by Boards of Trustees that are made up of an equal numbers of trustees appointed by unions and employers.

The bad old days In the bad old days, banks and life insurance companies managed most company superannuation schemes and they treated super as a honey pot and made huge profits.

Up until the 1970s it was the employer’s prerogative to decide whether they provided superannuation for their employees, if so to whom, and they decided the conditions under which it was provided, funded and managed.

4/

The purpose of company schemes was to secure the long term employment and loyalty of their key employees by ensuring that the benefits of the scheme were only paid to employees who spent their whole or near whole life working for that employer.

For this reason, millions of workers could never benefit from being covered by company schemes. Some workers in company schemes never qualified for retirement benefits.

Company schemes had other major weaknesses: •

Where a fund member resigned or was sacked before they completed the qualifying period the benefits they accrued would be retained by the employer.

•

Where a company went bust, fund members usually lost their entitlements.

•

In company schemes the employer, or their agent, managed the investment of the fund - often investing on terms favourable to the company and at the expense of fund members.

•

In some situations the company pocketed the tax benefits of company schemes.

•

Fund members had to put into the fund 5% or so of their weekly wage.

•

Membership of company funds was by invitation only.

•

Some women were kept in separate funds.

•

Company funds were for salaried employees (not wage employees) or for permanent staff (not casual or temporary staff)

For these and other reasons, company schemes could never lead to universal superannuation.

coal and oil shale miners subsequently passed in 1941, followed by other states in the next few years.

In one infamous case, the 1977 Miller Rope, Twine and Textiles case, the managers who were the directors of the company fund altered the trust deed to their financial advantage so that when the company folded, there was no money left for most of the employees.

At the time this was legal, although morally questionable.

The Seamen’s Union along with the Waterside Workers Federation (WWF), which began its fight for industry pensions in the mid-1940s, would struggle for decades, marked by industrial action by members in the face of fierce opposition from employers and employer groups. It took until the 1960s to get employer agreement to set up retirement funds, with the WWF’s fund starting in 1967 and the seafarers from 1973.

Super – Union Business The revolt against elite superannuation began in the 1970s when several trade unions decided to make superannuation union business. Before that, the only industry scheme to pre-date these schemes was the Miners’, by then three decades old, and a newly created fund for wharfies.

In the late 1930s, the Miners Federation (now the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU) successfully fought for what was called an industry pension for coal miners. Pensions were a form of superannuation. Inspired, the Seamen’s Union also served a claim for an industry pension for seafarers. For the Miners, the industrial campaign was hard fought but success came relatively quickly, unlike the long drawn out experience of the Seamen’s Union.

Six Weeks’ Strike In 1938, a six week national strike, with support organised by coal mining communities and ongoing pressure on coal owners, the federal and state governments, led to the NSW government agreeing to a Royal Commission to investigate the claims and the costs. The union kept up the pressure and with the Royal Commission recommending in its favour, legislation for a pension for

Super as ‘union business’ Rethinking superannuation as ‘union business’ took hold in the 1970s, leading to the creation of industrybased superannuation schemes.

Three unions — the Pulp and Paper Workers, the Storemen and Packers and the Meatworkers — led the way. The Pulp and Paper Workers’ motivation was their members who saw co-workers being promoted to staff positions getting access to company superannuation schemes. For a number of the officials in those unions, personal experiences were the spur, whether denied benefits themselves or seeing family members shut out of schemes.

Each union set up its own scheme — Pulp and Paper Workers’ Superannuation Fund, the Storemen and Packers’ Labour Union Co-operative Retirement Fund (LUCRF), the Meat Industry Employees’ Provident Fund — and then negotiated with employers to sign up.

Industrial action was a key tactic for all of these unions in the face of often considerable employer opposition, with work bans, stopworks and strike action, with the meatworkers confronted by a lockout 5/

in their struggle. There were key breakthroughs but employer-byemployer negotiations meant that progress was often slow and limited in getting industry coverage.

Some lessons of the past There were two particular lessons learnt from earlier efforts. The first arose from attempts in the early 1950s to get award super. Two unions included an industrial pension in their award log of claims but employers opposed it being recognised as an industrial matter and able to be included in an award. The case was taken all the way to the High Court in 1952. The employers won and, as a result, pensions could not be included in awards. Unions had to rely on getting employers or governments to agree to establish funds.

The other lesson was that universal superannuation could not be achieved for millions of workers through collective bargaining supported by militant action alone. Not all unions had the capacity to fight workplaceby-workplace to secure employer agreement to participate in unioninitiated funds.

The answer was clear that only a united trade union movement could spearhead the struggle for universal superannuation. But it also later became clear that unions could not win the goal of universal superannuation alone.

Despite the successes of several unions in the 1970s, their achievements were limited in the context of the big picture. At best they were only able to achieve superannuation for workers in enterprises where workers were unionised and prepared to take industrial action.

6/

For workers in those industries who had many employers over their working life, they only had superannuation when they worked for employers covered by superannuation. This meant that when they were working for other employers they were not covered, and that they could never receive a good superannuation retirement income.

Failure of Governments Between the 1920s and the 1970s, governments made four attempts to establish a national scheme. They all failed. Two tried to replace the old age pension with a national superannuation or ‘insurance’ scheme, while another planned to add a national scheme alongside the old age pension.

The Whitlam Labor government made the last attempt to set up a national inquiry in 1974. By the time the Hancock inquiry handed down its report, Labor had been dismissed and the conservative Fraser Coalition government was in office and rejected the recommendations.

The four failed attempts all proved that universal superannuation could never be achieved by conservative governments because they were either opposed to the concept ideologically or saw it as an addition to the age pension, whereas Labor governments were in principle in support of the concept.

ACTU – Hawke Labor Government Declaration In 1983, a federal Labor government was elected, led by Bob Hawke, former Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) president, who became Prime Minister. This political change was a key element in advancing the superannuation debate in two ways.

The first was the enacting of the Prices and Incomes Accord, the key agreement

between the ACTU and Australian Labor Party (ALP) setting out industrial, economic and social policy for the incoming government. Included was a (brief but important) reference to superannuation.

The second was the National Economic Summit that brought together political parties, unions and employer groups.

The ACTU extracted an agreement, included in the resulting communique that recognised in principle that workers should share in the benefits of increased productivity. It would be rethinking how workers could be rewarded for that productivity that would provide the key to award superannuation.

In 1983 the ACTU and the Federal Labor Government recognised that the age pension was heading into a crisis stage. A solution to this crisis seemed impossible for many reasons.

•

The employing class were united in fierce opposition to industry-based and universal superannuation;

•

The Coalition parties supported the employers and were also fiercely opposed to universal superannuation on ideological grounds;

•

The High Court had decided that super could not be included in awards;

•

Labor governments had not been able to successfully legislate to make superannuation a lawful right of all workers;

•

As explained earlier, superannuation for all could not be achieved by collective bargaining backed up by militant action;

•

Some unions favoured wage increase rather than superannuation;

Capital v Labour In the early 1980s two powerful and opposing forces had emerged.

The employing class who wanted to preserve the elite system of superannuation while the working class wanted superannuation for all.

In its 1986 decision, the National Wage Case full bench noted that the employing class were more united against universal superannuation than any other demand ever made by the trade union movement (National Wage Case, June 1986 print G3600).

Employers had decided to use their enormous financial, economic, legal and political power in an all-out effort to defeat the trade union movement. They owned and controlled the media which was a powerful weapon.

The trade union movement had been united by the ACTU and a strategy had been developed that would involve a national militant struggle to achieve superannuation. This was now an even broader campaign as public sector unions, many now key ACTU affiliates after their peak bodies merged in the late 1970s and early 1980s, brought decades of problems and experiences from dealing with state governments and semi-government bodies on superannuation boards.

Public sector unions had a big stake in the struggle in the private sector because the gains won in the private sector could flow onto the public sector superannuation schemes.

The ACTU had the Hawke-Keating Government as an active ally.

The trade union movement had justice and logic and necessity on their side. And they had the power of the organised working class.

7/

The challenge was to mobilise that power.

largely because of the huge funding costs.

Once super became a big public issue, the community would rally over time in support of universal superannuation and they did.

The ACTU’s funding strategy was to achieve its goal of 12% -15% phased in over a decade or more, starting at 3 per cent.

A Mountain to Climb

The strategy also recognised that super would need to be won in a number of industries before there was any possibility of it being included in awards or in government legislation.

History has made this point clear. The ACTU strategy was to wage an allout campaign to create an industry superannuation fund in the building industry, a large national industry.

Then flow it on to the closely connected civil, engineering and construction industries; then to those industries that manufactured, supplied and installed major construction components like lifts, escalators, furnaces, boilers, air conditioning units etc.

One of the biggest problems facing the ACTU was the state of the economy.

The Australian economy in the 1980s was in a serious economic crisis of a type never faced before called stagflation, where there was double digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. The economy had stagnated and interest rates were over 15%.

The big question was who would fund the cost of universal superannuation?

The economic situation provided ammunition to support the employers’ fear campaign and their claim that the financial cost of superannuation would undermine the economy, create high inflation, increase unemployment and bankrupt some employers.

The problem was threefold.

First, the employers would fiercely resist meeting the cost of superannuation and they would be supported by their political allies, the Coalition parties and conservative economists. Second, the workers would not agree to wage cuts to fund superannuation and third, the Hawke Labor Government, faced with the economic crisis, would not agree to fund super out of government revenue.

ACTU Strategy The ACTU goal of universal superannuation that would provide a good retirement income for workers could not be achieved in the short term, 8/

When superannuation had been widely established in those industries, the next step was to then seek to use the arbitration and award system to flow it on by awards to all employees throughout Australia and later on to have the Labor Government legislate to make superannuation an irreversible legal right of all workers.

Let us now tell the story of what actually happened.

Creating BUSS, now Cbus In the early 1980s, unexpectedly, the opportunity arose for the building industry to be the first major battle ground. The stakes were high – victory would prove that industry superannuation schemes could be established for the millions of short term and casual employed workers scattered throughout Australia.

The original Building Unions Superannuation Scheme (BUSS) came about because the Arbitration Commission in 1983 refused to include a wage increase negotiated by building unions with employers into the building awards. Building workers then demanded that the employers honour the agreement and pay the wage increase as an over award payment or they would take strike action.

In a critical sequence of decisions following this rejection, the opportunity was seized to push for superannuation as an alternative to securing the wage rise. Urged on by the ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty and industrial officer Garry Weaven and with the commitment of leaders such as the Building Workers Industrial Union (BWIU) Assistant Secretary, Tom McDonald, the building unions agreed to campaign to convert the wage increase into superannuation. This would prove a decisive advance and the key breakthrough in cementing super as ‘union business’.

Making superannuation work in the industry like the building industry was an enormous challenge; some said impossible. The problem was that the employer-designed schemes would not work in the building industry and in any case the workers would not have a bar of the employers’ schemes. This meant that a radically new system of superannuation had to be created based on what building workers wanted.

Garry Weaven and Tom McDonald largely had the task to make the plan work. They created a visionary strategy, even if it was not appreciated at the time just how significant it would be. ‘Making superannuation simple’ was the intent - for both workers and employers.

It was to be a multi-union scheme with 12 unions initially involved: the BWIU, Builders Labourers Federation, Painters and Decorators, the Carpenters and Joiners, Plumbers, Plasterers, Slaters & Tilers, Stonemasons, Operative Bricklayers, and three Victorian unions covering the Plasterers and Plaster Industry.

The other challenge was to make superannuation work in an administrative sense. This involved covering a hundred thousand or so workers and tens of thousands of employers, and the scheme had to be cost- efficient and worker-friendly.

The administrative challenge was enormous and some experts said it was unachievable.

The scheme had to be administratively cost- efficient for the participating employers and for the central fund. A simple formula was created to calculate the amount each employer paid for each worker into the central fund per month. The unions decided that the premiums paid by employers would be $11 per week of employment for each employee. In an easy calculation for both employers and workers, the $11 would be paid with part of the week at the start of employment counted as a full week but not counted at the point of termination. This scheme also allowed workers to calculate easily their retirement benefit at any time.

The worker’s retirement benefits would be made up of the employers’ payments into the fund plus the worker’s share of the earnings of the fund less administrative costs.

Out of the $11, $1 would fund life insurance and $1 for administration.

The premiums would remain fixed at that amount until a new agreement was negotiated years later.

9/

Another challenge was to enrol tens of thousands of employers, mainly small employers, scattered throughout Australia with each employer needing to sign a ‘deed of adherence’. The unions also had to enrol near on one hundred thousand workers, each having a separate file.

These problems were compounded by the fact that the industry had more than its share of shonky and fly-bynight and non-taxpaying employers.

This was further complicated by the fact many building workers were constantly moving from one employer to another as building projects were completed and new projects started; other building workers were in and out of the industry from time to time.

The plan had to be achieved within a limited period of time; otherwise building workers would lose patience and would demand a wage increase instead of superannuation.

The key was to make the scheme simple to manage.

As the BWIU’s Victorian branch journal Carpenter & Joiner explained: When the proposal was originally put forward, no one took it seriously because of the immense difficulty associated with introducing a superannuation scheme including the task of reaching an agreement with the Employers, setting up all of the necessary documentation, administrative system and having the scheme approved by the Taxation Commission seemed to be years away. But when the BWIU outlined in detail its proposal and a plan to achieve superannuation with a target date of July 1, 1984, everyone started to take the proposal seriously (Carpenter & Joiner, October 1984, p. 3).

10/

In February 1984, the Building Worker (the union’s paper) declared ‘Building Unions Say: Make ‘84 a “Super” Year’ and indeed that is what it became.

By December 1984, more than 800 employers had signed up and over 30 thousand workers became covered by the scheme. BWIU Victorian Secretary, Alf Zeeno, declared BUSS was ‘alive and growing, despite the efforts by some forces to kick it to death’ (Carpenter & Joiner, December 1984, p. 3).

There was initial opposition from the major employer groups. This led the unions to set up the fund initially just with union trustees before employers became reconciled to the idea of building industry superannuation.

Places on the board were then allocated to the two main industry employer groups.

Flow-on As expected, a flow-on to other workers in the construction industry and beyond was inevitable. Metal workers, electricians, ironworkers, general labourers etc. did not accept building workers working on the same sites as them having super whilst they did not.

The culture was “I will not be treated differently to my workmates”.

Companies who manufactured and installed components on civil engineering or engineering construction projects could not get away with paying superannuation to their employees on site but not to their employees who mainly worked in factories.

Once more, these workers were unionised and had the support of their unions.

The BUSS model was replicated with two more multi-union schemes being

established. Three months or so after BUSS’s creation, unions in the construction industry set up the Allied Unions Superannuation Trust (AUST) to cover members of the AMWU, Firemen and Engine Drivers Federation of Australia, the Ironworkers, Electrical Trades Union, Furnishing Trades Union and the Australian Workers Union.

With BUSS and AUST sharing the same design, it created consistency for the wider building and construction industry. This consolidated the BUSS model. The Metal Trades unions followed with the Metal (and then Manufacturing) Unions Superannuation Trust (MUST). Under the new NSW leadership of Harry Quinn, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) set up TWU Super.

Revolutionary New System When the ACTU and Building Industry Unions created BUSS, they created a new system of superannuation based on labour values whereas elite super was based on corporate values. Ten years later, BUSS merged with AUST to form Cbus. The graph demonstrates the extent of the issues involved in the struggle to create BUSS. Struggles in the field continued, with unions and members having to fight for super, with those with less bargaining power or who were un-unionised increasingly disadvantaged.

These developments showed that the ACTU strategy was working.

Employer schemes

BUSS designed scheme

Vesting (entitlements)

limited

total

Portability

nil

total

Membership

limited

for all

Employee payments

compulsory

voluntary

Management

employer

joint employer/union

Investment (decisions)

employer

joint employer/union

Life Insurance

rarely

everyone

Security of entitlement

limited

total

Eligibility

limited

for all

Benefits

varied

uniform

Performance

average

good

Compliance

voluntary

enforced

Agent fees

yes

no

Bankruptcy

loss of benefits

full protection

Reporting

limited

regularly

Profit (management)

service for profit

all profits to members 11/

Award Superannuation By 1985 the struggle over super was being fought out on many fronts. It was a hot issue everywhere.

The battle had been all but won in the building, engineering and civil engineering industries. In some other key industries, industry superannuation schemes had been established in defiance of employers, with a few exceptions Some experts were predicting that the building and construction industry would collapse. Others were predicting a new era of universal super.

Some considered these developments were a form of creeping socialism.

Others saw it as a just cause.

Emotions were running high. Fear and frustration and confusion existed amongst the opponents to super.

Others saw it as the beginning of superannuation for all.

The life insurance and finance industry were up in arms although one company, Colonial Mutual Insurance, split away to support super.

Employers were beginning to fight amongst themselves and splits were developing between employer organisations.

The time had arrived to implement the next stage of the ACTU strategy – award super.

3% superannuation The ACTU and the Hawke Labor Government negotiated 3% superannuation as part of the renegotiated Accord, known as Accord Mark II. Using this agreement, in late 1985, as part of its National Wage Case submission, the ACTU lodged an application to have a 3% 12/

superannuation scheme included in all awards.

Superannuation then became an award matter for the Commission and a High Court matter.

Industrial action was underway in a number of industries and major strikes had developed in the transport and paint industry. The paint industry strike over LUCRF (the Storemen and Packers’ Superannuation Scheme) had flow on effects and led to stand downs in the vehicle industry.  It was all too much for John Howard, the then Parliamentary Opposition leader, and he declared: That superannuation deal, which represents all that is rotten with industrial relations in Australia, shows the government and the trade union movement in Australia not only playing the employers of Australia for mugs but it is also playing the Arbitration Commission for mugs (Hansard, 27 November 1985).

Before the National Wage Case hearings really got underway, the employers applied to the High Court to have the application dismissed on the grounds that superannuation was not an industrial matter and therefore could not be dealt with by the Industrial Relations Commission.

The application failed as the High Court decisively declared super to be an industrial matter, reversing their 1952 decision. This was an important victory for the ACTU. Unfortunately the economy was still in crisis and the employers were able to argue that the economy could not afford to pay millions of workers superannuation.

They also set out to use the fear campaign to frighten the daylights out of workers and the general public. This type of fear campaign was nothing new.

On the positive side, the ACTU was aware that the Commission was under enormous pressure to do something to end the union movement’s campaign of industrial action.

This concern could work to the advantage of the ACTU. In the meantime the ACTU’s campaign was rolling along. The BUSS scheme had been successful beyond expectation.

Industry superannuation schemes had been set up and were running in several key industries.

The National Wage Case proceeded into 1986.

To counter the inflation argument, the ACTU argued that a 3% award superannuation payment should be funded out of increased productivity.

The ACTU argued that profit margins would not be affected if the cost of the 3% scheme was funded out of increased productivity because it would not affect existing profits and therefore there would be no justification to employers increasing prices and fuelling inflation.

Furthermore the 3% would not be paid as wages and therefore it would not increase workers’ spending power, demand for goods and services or their price.

The ACTU was able to use as part of its case a declaration that it had extracted out of the tripartite Economic Summit (1983). The declaration declared workers were entitled to share in the benefits of increased productivity.

The ACTU was also able to argue that

the 3% would be invested in shares and in the economy and this would result in the economy being stimulated, creating contracts for employers and jobs for workers. The ACTU’s application was strongly supported by the HawkeKeating Labor Government.

Opposition to the ACTU claim, however, did not just come from the employers and conservative parties.

Some progressive academics like Eva Cox and progressive organisations like Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) were opposed to superannuation. They favoured increasing the age and disability pensions to improve overall retirement incomes and regarded superannuation as failing the low paid and women.

In its historic decision in 1986, the Commission granted the 3% superannuation claim, endorsing in principle award superannuation. This was a victory for the trade union movement but at the same time the decision attached many strings that would limit and some cases halt the movement for universal super.

The Commission had made it clear that, had the ACTU applied for a 3% award increase in wages, it would have been rejected as had the building industry wage increase (referred to earlier) because of the economic situation.

The attitude of the ACTU was: “If we can’t get it in wages we plan to get it in super.”

Who has power to decide?

The Commission decided that superannuation could only be included in awards where there was an agreement between the employers and unions concerned and only on the condition that that agreement had not been imposed upon the employers as a result of industrial action.

13/

Bernie Fraser and Garry Weaven

Sally McManus, Tom & Audrey McDonald, Bill Kelty, Michael O’Connor (at back) – Melbourne launch of “Dare to Dream” (Photo courtesy of Mark Phillips)

Louise Davidson and Mavis Robertson AM

Miner’s Federation Float

17/

18/

19/

This meant that the employer decided whether they negotiated to provide superannuation. It also meant that if they refused workers could not do anything about it.

In addition, employer organisations could put pressure on individual employers not to negotiate but unions and workers could not put pressure on them to negotiate.

The Commission’s objective was to slow down, and in some cases halt or limit the spread of superannuation, create a new model of superannuation that had to be agreed to by employers and it would replace the BUSS model of superannuation.

The ACTU could not accept this situation because super could not be made to work in casual industries if some employers provided superannuation and others did not (for explanation see earlier on why this is so). The ACTU campaign rolled on.

Splits within employer ranks led to more and more employers agreeing to superannuation because they realised it was inevitable.

The first unions to benefit from the Commission’s decision to get super in their awards were the TWU with its new scheme and the WWF with its existing scheme.

As far as the building unions were concerned, they negotiated an agreement with employers to pass on the 3% to building workers to increase the $11 to $24.50.

While the creation of BUS had encouraged other unions to set up funds, the 1986 decision led to more funds being established: HESTA, JUST & JEST (now Media Super), REST, CARE, TISS & FIRST (which merged with the Pulp and Paper Workers fund to 20/

form FIRST SUPER), VISTA (now part of MTAA), HOST & PLUS (now HOSTPLUS).

Following the Commission’s decision, the ACTU came under pressure from both Ralph Willis, the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, who were themselves under enormous pressure from employers to end the industrial campaign.

It was claimed that more than 55,000 working days had been lost across 17 different industries (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 October 1986 p.1). The rank and file however remained committed and industrial action continued.

By the end of 1986 Superannuation clauses covered biscuit, paper, steel, petro-chemical, paint and airline workers, and the first big breakthrough for women occurred in the textile, clothing and footwear industry. Over 100,000 low paid women workers would get superannuation from mid1987.

When the Commission decided in early in 1987 that they were prepared to arbitrate where there was no agreement, superannuation spread more quickly through federal awards.

Inroads into state awards took longer.

By then, the ACTU campaign was making great progress.

Doubling Superannuation Entitlements The next stage in the ACTU strategy was to apply to the Commission to have 3% super increased to 6%.

When the Commission rejected the application in 1991, the ACTU faced a crisis because the Commission’s decision meant that if they were not prepared to increase the 3% in

stages until it got to at least 12% and preferably 15%, the 3% award system of superannuation would wither on the vine.

The ACTU changed its strategy and decided to negotiate with the HawkeKeating Labour Government to phase in 9% super over a number of years.

The ACTU had to compromise to achieve an agreement with the government.

The agreement originally reached between Bill Kelty and Paul Keating had the government agreeing to legislate for 9% phased-in super and the ACTU reducing their wage demand for 2%.

The trade union movement and the Hawke Labor Government ratified the agreement.

The federal government committed to progressively raising it to 9% by 2000 in its August 1991 budget. Negotiations with the Democrats secured their critical support in the Senate and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge came into effect as of 1 July 1992.

The future of universal superannuation was now secure.

After the election of the Rudd Labor government in 2007, union attention turned to the need to increase the Super Guarantee from 9% to 12%. In the build-up to the negotiations in 2011, the trade union movement launched its ‘Stand Up for Super’ campaign.

With former AWU leader, Bill Shorten, then the Minister for Superannuation, the trade union movement reached an agreement with the Gillard Labor Government to phase in 12% super by 2019 and to also grant a special benefit that would help top up low income workers’ superannuation retirement benefits, the Low Income Superannuation Contribution (LISC).

Most of these workers were women,

whose benefits were less than men’s.

This is due to women moving in and out of the workforce for child caring and other situations, and because they still do not get equal pay for work of equal value.

When the Abbott Coalition Government won the election in 2013, it discontinued the phasing in process, freezing super at 9.5%, and planned to abolish LISC in 2016.

National Movement The Industry Fund movement along with the trade union movement were able to mobilise enough opposition in the Senate to defeat several attempts by the Coalition Government to undermine super (details in section ‘Liberal Governments’ Ongoing Agenda’) From 1990 industry funds became a national movement that spoke with one voice and became a powerful collective. It began with a decision to organise an annual conference of major superannuation funds (CMSF) first held in Wollongong 1990 which attracted hundreds of delegates.

Other organisations were then set up to protect and advance the interests of workers’ superannuation under the leadership of Mavis Robertson and Garry Weaven. These were Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST), Industry Funds Australia (IFA), Industry Funds Services (IFS), and Women in Super (WIS). The Industry Funds under the leadership of Bernie Fraser, former head of the Reserve Bank, established a people’s bank now called Members Equity (ME Bank).

When the Industry Funds were consolidated, they developed common policies; set up collective property trusts; campaigned collectively to defeat Coalition governments’ 21/

attempts to undermine the industry superannuation ‘profit to members’ schemes, and pressurised Labor governments to improve workers’ superannuation entitlements.

The Industry Funds’ strategy was to advertise as a movement rather than compete with one another and share the cost of advertising. So they acted in solidarity and collectively for the common good of everyone.

Women in Leadership Women made an outstanding contribution to the creation and development of industry superannuation making it what it is today. This has been particularly important given the disadvantage experienced by working women.

Women were historically disadvantaged in their access to super, due to discriminatory employer schemes as well as other employment policies. They continue to be disadvantaged when it comes to super retirement benefits as they are still generally paid less than men are in most industries. The gender gap that affects women’s wages affects their superannuation. Women make up over half of the workforce but nearly half work part-time. Of those who do work full-time, they earn 19% less than men. Women also get less super because they have more time out of the paid workforce looking after children and family members, on average five years of their working lives.

Once super was won in the building industry and super had become an award right, superannuation for most working women had become possible.

Women and the industry funds needed to work together to deal with those female employment patterns that were caused by factors outside of the control 22/

of the funds but which needed to be addressed by the funds. Redressing the gender bias was a pressing issue that began motivating women.

The door was open for women to take a leadership role in super, and they did.

It would not have been easy because in the 1980s the mentality of the movement was that the world of union leadership was a man‘s world, as was illustrated by the fact that it wasn’t until 1985 that a woman, Jennie George, was elected onto the ACTU Executive.

The birth of many industry funds in the 1980s created a new situation because industry funds had to be separate legal identities to unions. Each had to have its own independent leadership. These new leadership positions needed people with leadership, administrative and financial skills, and women started to put up their hands to fill them.

One of these was Mavis Robertson.

Initially, a founding trustee for FEDFA on the AUST board, she became the National Coordinator for Industry Superannuation at the ACTU and fund secretary of BUSS and AUST, with the support of Garry Weaven, as well as Tom McDonald. Leading the merger talks between BUSS and AUST, Mavis then became the Cbus CEO, and the number one woman in the industry fund movement.

Working under the leadership of Garry Weaven, she played an outstanding role in the ongoing success of Cbus from its very challenging early years of development. This was quite an achievement bearing in mind the male nature of the industry’s workforce.

Mavis and Garry became a great team.

Mavis Robertson was a pioneer in building a national movement of industry funds with a new culture.

Her initiatives helped build strong relationships with community organisations. Mavis was the forerunner of many of these changes and left an enormous legacy to workers through her contribution.

After Mavis retired as the CEO of Cbus, she continued to be very active in the industry. She worked tirelessly with Fiona Reynolds, CEO of AIST (Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees), which was another of her ideas along with CMSF (Conference of Major Superannuation Funds), to develop a team of strong lobbyists and educational programs for Trustees and fund staff.

Another pioneer was Helen Hewett, who succeeded Mavis as CEO of Cbus.

Helen worked with Mavis in the achievements mentioned earlier. The Australian described Helen as “One of the most powerful women in property” (23 March 2003).

Helen Hewett, as Cbus CEO, made her own mark on superannuation reforms, including increased death and total and permanent disability (TPD) cover and improved definitions; the concept of Superstream, which has led to increased efficiency and reduced cost of collecting contributions and processing rollovers, and the creation of the successful mental health program, Superfriend.

Other women became CEOs, chairs, trustees, departmental heads, compliance enforcers, spokespersons and held a number of other key leadership positions in the industry fund movement. These include AnneMarie Corboy, Ann Byrne, Fiona Reynolds, Angela Emslie and Susan Ryan.

Women played a leadership role in the

trade union movement as well as the superannuation industry and included Elana Rubin, Cate Woods, Ged Kearney and many others.

Women have been instrumental in delivering crucial reforms to the Australian superannuation industry, which resulted in improved benefits for all fund members and their families.

Anne-Marie Corboy, CEO of HESTA Super introduced the first socially responsible investment choice strategy and she made a significant contribution to AIST and Women in Super. Ann Byrne, CEO of STA Super (which included MUST) and later CEO of ASCI (Australia’s peak governance body in superannuation), oversaw massive improvements in governance, transparency and accountability of companies invested with workers’ capital.

From a few to many Back in 1991 there were only a handful of women delegates to CMSF. Men dominated the superannuation industry and everything that happened in it, until Mavis Robertson had the idea of getting the women together for breakfast.

When only a handful of women came, and two were Mavis and Helen Hewett, they agreed that they would meet again the following month and each would bring another woman who worked in the industry to the breakfast. The breakfasts became a great success and continued month after month and in 1994 ‘Women in Super’ (WIS) was officially formed.

WIS is now a national advocacy and networking group of over 1,000 women nationally, with a management committee in every state. Its mission is for Australia superannuation system to 23/

be without gender bias. A system that provides decent retirement income and security for women through equity and ensuring every woman has access to super benefits, which sadly some women still do not have. WIS helps educate and support women working in the industry and in particular encourage younger women to step up and break the ceiling that precludes them for holding senior leadership positions and becoming directors on Trustee boards.

The superannuation industry continues to be male-dominated. Women have succeeded in leading and managing funds and in having their voices heard as trustees.

However, everyone needs to be vigilant to sustain this representation as women still only make up a bit more than a quarter of trustees on most industry funds, and some funds have none or very few women trustees.

The Propaganda War Memorable advertising campaigns made industry superannuation a recognisable ‘brand’ in the broader community. Using Bernie Fraser — the previous governor of the Reserve Bank who was blessed with a distinctive voice — in an advertising campaign designed to appeal to employers to shift to industry funds, had a bigger impact than could have been anticipated.

The ‘Bernie ad’ with its last line, ‘It’s the super of the future’, led him to become a cult figure when the comedian, Sandman, impersonated him.

The next advertising campaign, ‘Compare the Pair’, also proved to be a master stroke. With the tagline ‘Not all super funds are the same’, what caught people’s attention was the image of the escalator showing the upward benefit 24/

for one worker in an industry super fund compared to being in a retail fund.

Added to this was the calculator which indicated the earnings difference.

Drawing attention to the performance of superannuation funds was the focus of leading financial commentator Alan Kohler’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald (23 August 2003) - “Socialists beat capitalists - by about $100 bn”: There‘s an awkward secret at the centre of Australia’s superannuation scheme.

The socialists are winning. Looked at another way, the failure of Australian banks and private master trusts to beat the union linked industry funds on investment performance is close to being a national scandal. Those people are being herded into retail funds by their employers are losing a fortune … Amazingly in both the year and the five years to June 30 the top performing super funds in Australia are all industry funds.

The periodical reviews of the performance of superannuation funds always had industry funds amongst the top performers.

Helping the industry fund performance was the fact they did not pay agents fees, had very low administrative costs, paid modest trustee fees and did not factor in profits as a cost factor.

They had economies of scale because they advertised industry funds collectively rather than as individual funds and they invested as groups of industry funds. Their investment strategies were popular. They were environmentally friendly and socially beneficial and their CEOs, senior management and staff were committed and capable people.

Industry funds were the Phar Lap of superannuation.

Superannuation, jobs and the economy Universal superannuation transformed the Australian economy, created millions of jobs and much needed infrastructure. Its investments in 2020 are expected to succeed $6 trillion.

Had the Coalition governments, enemies of universal superannuation who claimed to be the great managers of the economy, had their way, this progress had never have happened.

Their predictions that universal superannuation could bring their economy to its knees proved to be nonsense. What fools they proved to be.

We only have to think about what the economy would be like today without these vast financial resources. We only have to think about what workers’ retirement income would be if they were solely reliant on the aged pension funded out of government revenue at the expense of health, education and other vital government services.

My country Millions of Australian workers in industry funds can proudly tell their children and grand- children that they, in partnership with other Australian workers, own great chunks of Australia.

There is about $300 billion of workers’ super money invested in Australia via industry funds. Workers now own many buildings and infrastructure throughout Australia. They own art collections and factories. In Melbourne and Sydney, there are office blocks and apartments, like 1 Bligh St, Sydney. In Western Australia, they include the Law Courts and Ord River Hydro Electric Scheme. They also own port facilities (Port Kembla and Botany Bay), part own airports, rail systems, holiday resorts, and shopping centres and much more.

As a result, these chunks of Australia are not owned by capitalists of big business or overseas investors but are owned by workers and the profits of these investments go to workers not to the wealthy.

Industry funds have ensured that lots of Australia remains in the hands of Australians, not overseas interests.

Interesting investments

Regent Theatre A green ban imposed by the building unions saved the Regent Theatre from demolition. The theatre closed down, was idle for decades and in a state of decay and disrepair. In the 1980s, BUSS provided $25 million to finance the restoration of this historic building to its former glory plus a modern stage and other positive new features.

As Tom McDonald recalls ‘The Opening Night was a great occasion for Melbourne. Collins Street was closed off. Outside the Theatre and band performed for hundreds of spectators and search lights swept the sky. The guests received red carpet treatment on arrival. The crowd watched as the high flyers arrived in their elegant finery.

They would have noticed that some guests wore clothes no better than their Sunday suits.’

As The Age newspaper reported, “it was also a night for the workers, who dressed up for the occasion but made no pretence to own a dinner suit. Maybe the men wore ordinary suits and the women ordinary dresses or slacks as a badge of honour.”

The Age also recognised the contribution of BUSS: “It took a money deal that placed the superannuation

25/

savings of building workers at the disposal of this vision. It took the skill of a small army of architects, carpenters, plasterers, upholsterers, riggers and fabricators of every detail. It was this congruence of inspiration, persuasion and left field finance that the guest list reflected.”

Australian Art Today Cbus has a wonderful collection of Aboriginal and emerging Australian artists work worth over $20 million. At the time of the purchase, some workers questioned the investment.

Cbus members may wonder how the fund came to have a prestigious art collection.

This investment in Australian art came about after two men came to the ACTU one day in the late 1980s, “on a mission to convince [BUSS] to invest in Australian art“. Dr Joseph Brown AO OBE, and Professor Bernard Smith, who were prominent figures in the Australian art world, met with Mavis Robertson. Their mission was to keep Australian art in Australia, due to their worries that with the combination of the economic situation and Australian art being under-valued, important works were being bought by overseas collectors. In a farsighted decision, the board agreed and in 1990 invested $2 million to start the collection.

The collection, now comprising 310 works of Aboriginal, colonial and contemporary art can be seen at regional galleries, and there is an online catalogue (see www.cbusartcollection.com.au).

Medical Research Industry funds contribute to many important social and health campaign/ fund raisers, in particular breast cancer and prostate cancer.

The most well-known is the Mother’s Day Classic, created after Mavis Robertson saw a huge fun run in New York and thought it could be a good way to raise funds for breast cancer research. She got Louise Davidson, who had lost her mother to breast cancer, on board and the first run was in 1998 in Melbourne and Sydney. Since then, it has spread across Australia, with the support of Women in Super and committed volunteers, with more than $27 million raised. In 2015, the ‘Mavis Mile’ was added to celebrate Mavis’s contribution, with Mavis-inspired ‘motivational messages’ posted along the final section of the run.

Support for prostate cancer research is another priority, with net profits from the annual CMSF Charity Golf Day going to the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and the National Breast Cancer Foundation.

Industry Funds Culture Industry Funds have a special culture. They work together – have a common purpose. They share the fruits of success. They fight as a national movement to protect workers’ retirement entitlements; their objectives are based on labour and community values. They are the biggest and most successful of all co-operative movements, with a rich history and an outstanding record of achievements.

A number of key leaders have spoken about what sets the funds apart. As Anne Byrne, CEO Uni Super, said the main challenge for industry funds was “To maintain the co-operative nature

26/

… of the funds and not go off and just think of them all as separate businesses (to not) lose … what really made them.” (this and the next three quotes from Workers Capital: Industry funds and the fight for universal superannuation in Australia). Fiona Reynolds observed “There was a great sense of purpose and a great sense of being joined together about what was trying to be achieved”.

Tom Garcia, AIST CEO, warned the Liberal push to de-industrialise super must be defeated because it can lead to industry schemes just becoming organisations that sell superannuation services to consumers.

The culture of industry funds has a pioneering spirit. As Sandy Grant a pioneer of industry funds said: “I always felt there was a great sense of pioneering. That you are doing something that was so vastly different and so much better. We really lived that … It was really powerful … it was ‘Hey we are pioneering. We’re taking on the world. We’re taking on the big end of town’ that drove us.”

For as long as this spirit lives, industry funds will continue to be the pioneers that takes superannuation to a new level.

And industry funds should heed the advice of ACTU President and CBUS trustee Ged Kearney who spoke about the importance of solidarity: “If we lose the collaborative culture of all funds working towards a comprehensive outcome we won’t just begin to fragment we risk losing our legitimacy as the founders of the whole superannuation system … people trust industry super and we don’t want competition between industry funds around which one you can trust more than the others”.

Industry Funds trustees should never forget the advice Labor stalwart Anthony Albanese received from his mother to ‘never forget where you came from’ and we would add, never forget who were your friends and who were your enemies.

Many employer organisations who originally opposed Industry and Universal Superannuation have come to recognise that universal superannuation has not only worked for the benefit of retirees but has greatly strengthened the Australian economy, created millions of jobs and contracts for employers.

Today Industry funds still have enemies driven by profit objectives and/or by ideological opposition to universal super.

Industry funds have become a powerful national movement that is the national protector as well as the voice and champion of workers’ retirement entitlements.

It must be remembered that the culture of employers was primarily to establish superannuation for their employees to serve their business interests, as we explained earlier.

The objective of banks and life insurance companies who manage company schemes was primarily to maximise profits above all else.

27/

Liberal Government’s Ongoing Agenda In the 1993 Federal Election, the Hewson-Howard Coalition Parties’ policy was to freeze the superannuation levy at its then existing level. They lost the election.

Destroy Award Super The removal of superannuation clauses from federal awards was an aim of the Liberal Party for many years, and pursued for nearly a decade when the Howard Liberal/National Party government was in office from 1996 to 2007.

The first attempt came in 1996 with the Workplace Relations Bill which was blocked by the Democrats in the Senate due to union lobbying of the Democrats and their leader, Cheryl Kernot. The next year, the second attempt was made, this time to amend the Workplace Relations Act, but was stopped by the calling of the 1997 election.

After the Howard government was reelected, it re-introduced the bill but the Senate again blocked it.

Work Choices The fourth attempt to remove super from awards occurred with the 2005 Work Choices draft legislation. This time, the government was successful.

However, the implementation was delayed until 30 June 2008. This delay saved award super due to the result of the 2007 election. The defeat of the Howard government and the election of the Rudd Labor Government led to the retention of superannuation as an award entitlement.

28/

Choice for whom?

The Coalition attempted to undermine industry funds by introduction of the Choice of Fund legislation in 2005, overriding federal awards and the limitation of employers to nominate funds. These award provisions limited the right of the employer to decide what funds their employees were in. Having an industry fund as a default fund in the award meant that unless they chose not to be, workers would join the industry fund and not face pressure from their new employer to join their preferred scheme.

‘Save the LISC’ campaign As mentioned, the Abbott government decided it would remove the Low Income Super Contribution scheme (LISC) from 1 July 2017. WIS launched ‘Keep Super Fair’, and together with the industry funds, the ACTU and unions campaigned hard for its retention. After much lobbying, enough of the crossbench Senators agreed that this was a bad decision and agreed to reject the legislation. In the 2016 budget, the Turnbull government replaced the LISC with an equivalent scheme, called the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO). This was a victory for the Women in Super movement.

Plan to Remove Union Trustees The next tactic was in 2015 when the Abbott government tried to dilute union representation with the Independent Trustee legislation to require fund boards to have a majority of ‘independent’ directors and an independent chair. This was unsuccessful after the ALP, Greens and four Senate crossbenchers blocked the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) Bill 2015.

This defeat did not change the Coalition policy of removing union trustees from Industry Boards and replacing them with so-called ‘independent’ trustees.

The Importance of Union Trustees The creation of joint managed industry schemes back in the 1980s was a step towards democratising the system of determining who should be on the Trustee Boards.

Industry Superannuation Schemes directly involve two parties — one is employers, the other workers — so it is logical that these two parties manage the schemes.

It is democratic because half the trustees represent the employers who pay the premiums to fund entitlements and the other half the unions who represent the workers who receive the benefits.

The success of the industry funds is critical for the employers, the workers and the unions who operate in that industry because if the fund has any serious problems it will create enormous problems for each of those parties.

The so called independent trustees will come from the finance, banking and life insurance and other sectors of finance. These would be career trustees who would only spend some of their time on Industry Trustee Boards and most of their time on bank boards or committees or in other ways working for banks, life insurance companies etc who are the real opponents of industry funds.

The question is where will their main loyalty lie? Will it be with industry funds or will it be with their main income provider?

A system of financial and investment advisers which was set up by the banks

proved to be a great disaster and many people lost their life savings, homes or farms.

Independent trustees are more likely to bring with them the culture of the financial sector which is ‘profit maximisation is God’. They are unlikely to adopt a culture of the industry funds.

The real objective of the powerful for-profit financial institutions is to get control of the $300 billion of investment of the Industry Funds, out of which they would be able to make billions of dollars profit each year.

Industry Funds have been an enormous success so it makes no sense to change what is working successfully.

We Have Enemies Universal super has always had enemies driven by ideology and selfinterest. Even though they have been largely isolated, they are still very powerful.

As Winston Churchill once said “To have enemies is good it shows you stand for something”. Yes, we stand for all working people having a quality life which includes a quality life in retirement.

Our enemies, having failed to defeat the movement for universal superannuation, have developed new tactics designed to undermine superannuation.

They use the language of spin doctors to conceal the true intention of their policies.

They describe universal superannuation as a system of “forced savings” that deny workers “freedom of choice”. They claim that workers should be “free” to use their super for other purposes such as reducing their mortgage or other debts and 29/

other problems. These problems must be solved by other means and not by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Employers have always wanted workers to be “free” to trade off their annual leave and other entitlements (remember Work Choices). Now they propose superannuation should be traded off. Had the trade union movement not vigorously opposed this corrupt concept, many workers today would have few entitlements left and could finish up like workers in America.

Other threats include removal of default status and/or the capacity to have superannuation clauses in agreements and awards, and extending intensive casualization/sham contracting/ labour hire and now “uberisation”. All of these, combined with the inactivity of the Tax Office as regulators, make employment more precarious with the aim of rendering compliance with super obligations by employers virtually voluntary.

Our Quality of Life Superannuation has become more than just a retirement benefit. It has provided dignity in later life and in times of hardship. We can look at statistics about how the creation of industry funds enabled more working men and women to get super, and get access to TPD cover and insurance previously denied to them. To get a real insight into the effect of super, we need to get behind the numbers to how super actually changed members’ lives and those of their families. It is through telling and retelling these stories that the truly revolutionary impact of industry super can be appreciated. The family who lost a loved one but at least had this acknowledged as a work-related death through a death benefit, the member whose last months were made more 30/

comfortable when financial pressure was relieved by a TPD payment.

Superannuation has always had the potential to provide a quality of life in retirement for all workers.

The problem was that the employing class only wanted super for the elite of the workforce while the trade union movement wanted superannuation for all workers. The employers wanted market forces to decide who got super whereas the trade union movement did not.

Superannuation today like every other social or employment entitlement contributes to the overall quality of peoples’ lives.

Each of these entitlements had to be fought for. For example, the Whitlam Labor Government, back in the 1970s created Medibank; the Fraser Coalition Government abolished it. The Hawke -Keating Labor Government in 1983 restored Medibank under the name Medicare. Medicare helps give people a healthy life which in turn contributes to their quality of life.

Shorter working hours, 4 weeks annual leave and rostered days off (RDOs) have meant more time together as families and that improves the quality of family life.

Fighting for superannuation and these entitlements to be kept in awards and agreements is critical.

Our public education system and access to university courses means more people could have a career or profession, and as a result, a quality job and work life.

Every other entitlement, in one way or another, contributes to our quality of life.

What distinguishes us from America is that our entitlements are universal and extensive, whereas in America it depends on employers as to whether workers get entitlements. Unions have to continually fight to maintain these entitlements, usually company by company. We must not allow this to happen here.

History tells us History tells us the employing class’s attitude to wages, social and employment entitlements was much the same as it has been to superannuation.

Conservative political parties have always opposed universal entitlements, including universal superannuation, and sought to cut back many other entitlements e.g. Work Choices.

Play Your Part This publication aims to deepen workers’ understanding of the history of industry funds and why they have been so successful.

You can help protect the future retirement income of millions of Australian workers by talking to your mates and friends about the story of industry superannuation.

Better still, lend them your copy of this publication to read and talk about it with them. Encourage them to join their union, if they are not already members, and be part of the struggle to protect superannuation and other entitlements.

Little has changed over time. We only have to go back to 2016 when the former Federal Coalition Government Treasurer Joe Hockey publicly declared “that the age of entitlements was over”. Workers’ response must be to unite in solidarity with workers whose entitlements are under attack and even when they personally are not directly affected. We must always unite to defend the principle of workers entitlements like penalty rates, otherwise we will be divided and conquered.

INSPIRED? If the story in this publication has inspired you – you should read Tom and Audrey’s Memoirs which will also inspire you with other great moments and victories of the labour movement.

They also describe how difficult it was for workers, their families and particularly for women in the days as far back as the Second World War. Tom and Audrey write in a way that readers can understand how justice can be won.

Their aim is to inspire people to struggle for their dreams.

Dare to Dream: Stories of Struggle and Hope is available See www.daretodreammemoirs.com.au 31/

32/