Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The coalition supports many of the measures contained in this bill, and that is why this bill should never have been stitched together the way that it has been. Labor has effectively cobbled together a grab bag of largely unrelated measures and wrapped them up around a contentious measure—a measure that it knows the coalition will oppose, and that is a change to superannuation which restricts choice, reduces competition and rewards union aligned industry funds.

Labor has bundled together these various measures not because it makes good policy sense but because it suits Labor politically. Labor is attempting to force a false choice on the parliament: either support the entire bill and accept bad changes to super, or oppose the bill and be accused of blocking unrelated and sensible measures. That is not good lawmaking. It is old-fashioned wedge politics. And some wonder why trust in the political system is eroding! This typical Labor tactic puts politics above policy. Each schedule in this bill should stand on its own merits, or, at least, agreed non-controversial measures should be grouped together. But that degree of respect for the parliament is something sorely missing under this Albanese Labor government. Labor has deliberately denied parliament that opportunity. Because the coalition supports some of the measures in this bill while adamantly opposing others, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the:

(1) Government has cynically cobbled together unrelated measures within this bill in an attempt to play wedge politics, not deliver policy outcomes;

(2) Opposition is supportive of Schedules 3, 4 and 6, which deal with tax incentives for the Rugby World Cup, a tax treaty with Portugal and an increase in the Wine Equalisation Tax producer rebate cap;

(3) Opposition wishes to see the smooth passage of Schedules 3, 4 and 6 and are willing to work with the Government on these uncontroversial aspects; and

(4) Opposition has serious concerns about Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, which restrict choice in superannuation".

The bill contains six schedules, most of which are broadly uncontroversial. There are schedules dealing with an international tax treaty, sporting event tax exemptions and support for the wine sector—measures the coalition has supported in the past and continues to support. Schedule 3, for example, implements income tax exemptions associated with the Rugby World Cup to attract that major sporting event. This is standard practice for major international events like this and mirrors concessions provided under previous coalition governments. Schedule 4 gives domestic effect to the Australia-Portugal tax treaty. This is a routine and sensible measure, and it has our support. Schedule 5, which deals with Labor's priorities in regard to retaining, providing or removing DGR status for various organisations requires further scrutiny. This will be done by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, to which this bill has been referred. Schedule 6 increases the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap, delivering much-needed support to Australian wine producers. We support this.

The problem is that Labor has cynically bundled these schedules together with a very contentious superannuation measure. In fact, that measure goes across two schedules—schedule 1 and schedule 2—and, of course, there's further work that is needed in the DGR related schedule.

Schedule 1, in and of itself, is largely mechanical but, paired with schedule 2, amounts to an egregious intervention into the superannuation sector. Australians now have more than $4 trillion saved for retirement and superannuation, and that figure is on track to reach $5 trillion by the end of the decade. That capital does not just fund dignified retirements; it underpins investment opportunities to help maximise returns for hardworking Australian workers. But the system will only be sustainable if people trust it—trust that it's managed solely in members' financial interests; trust that governments will not retreat from respecting that primary objective of maximising returns for superannuation holders; trust that governments also will not treat superannuation as a political plaything, as a piggy bank to fund the government's priorities.

The coalition understands this instinctively. Superannuation is part of a worker's pay. It is not a gift. It is not a bonus. It is money earned by and owed to Australians. Labor, on the other hand, does not understand this instinctively. Labor sees super differently. Labor increasingly treats super as a pool of capital it can direct, constrain or tax for its own political purposes, and this bill is part of that longstanding pattern. Rather than strengthening competition and empowering Australian workers, Labor is narrowing the ways Australians can engage with their own super. Rather than trusting Australians to make informed choices, Labor wants to make the choice for them. That does not strengthen the super system; it weakens it. It doesn't strengthen trust; it erodes it. We see Labor's approach to super in schedule 2 of this bill. Schedule 2 is described by Labor as 'supporting choice in superannuation'—an Orwellian description if there ever has been one. A ban on advertising does not support choice; by definition, it limits choice.

From 1 July 2026, many superannuation products will be prohibited from being advertised to employees during their onboarding into a new job, the very moment when workers are most engaged and most likely to actively consider their super. On the surface, this might appear benign, but scratch a little deeper and a familiar pattern emerges. This is not about empowering Australians; it is about steering them into choices Labor wants to make on their behalf. Labor claims this change will prevent workers from being pushed into poorly performing funds, but Australia already has a world-leading performance test regime that weeds out underperforming products.

As the Financial Services Council has made clear, this measure inherently benefits industry super funds at the expense of non-default, non-industry and alternative products. Union backed industry super funds already dominate default arrangements. Retail funds and other competitors are structurally disadvantaged. Competition is increasing in Australia's super sector, and this is causing the large, union backed industry super funds significant heartache as Australians exercise their right to move their own money to a fund of their choosing. Recent reports suggest that one million Australians switched super providers last year, representing around $150 million of super switching every single day. Retail funds are large beneficiaries of super switching. At a time when Australians are actively re-engaging with their super, Labor is proposing to close off avenues for comparison and engagement. That is not accidental.

The sector has also raised serious concerns about implementation. Payroll and onboarding providers have been clear that sequencing stapled fund information ahead of permitted advertising is not as straightforward as it may seem, yet the regulatory detail will not be released until after this bill becomes law. Meanwhile, major platforms such as MYOB and Employment Hero have warned that systems are not ready. Once again, Labor is legislating first and thinking later.

This bill forms part of a broader pattern by Labor that favours union backed industry super funds at every opportunity and, despite its rhetoric, is weakening super, not strengthening it. You only need to consider other recent measures of Labor's that put the Labor government and their interests at the centre of the system instead of the interests of everyday Australian superannuants—measures such as forcing mandatory cooling-off periods to advantage industry funds and tweaking the performance test to direct capital to where government wants it to go. All of this spells bad news for average Australian superannuants—less choice, less competition, more government control, more power concentrated in union backed industry funds aligned with Labor, more uncertainty for Australians planning their retirement. Under Labor's approach, trust is not lost in a single moment; it is chipped away at. This bill is yet another chip.

It's worth noting that all of this sits within a broader context of Labor's ongoing obsession with taxing superannuation. Labor's super tax 1.0 was one of the most reckless tax proposals ever put forward. Its most egregious feature was the indexation of a tax on unrealised capital gains. Taxing unrealised capital gains on non-indexed balances was economic lunacy. Morally, it was wrong, especially given the impact it would have had on younger Australians, in particular, as they grew older. That proposal punished aspiration and severely undermined confidence in the future of superannuation. The Treasurer was forced into retreat, and super tax 1.0 was no more. Very quickly, though, he started working on super tax 2.0. In fact, he brought it into the parliament today. It's interesting that Labor are so interested in tax, and I think most economic commentators around the country understand why; in fact, they're just trying to paper over what is the highest-spending government in the last 40 years outside of the pandemic.

The Treasurer's own budget papers show he is injecting into the economy a volume of fiscal stimulus equivalent to Labor's stimulus during the GFC. The Treasurer needs to find a way to pay for all this spending. Debt is to hit $1 trillion over the next few months. Australian workers are already paying an extra $4,000 in personal income taxes under this government. The Treasurer is looking everywhere—in each cupboard, behind each cushion on the couch—to find more money. Thus, they come after people's retirement savings and they come after superannuation. That is the context within which this bill is being debated.

The coalition rejects this approach. We believe in encouraging aspiration, not taxing it. We believe in growing the economic pie, not slicing up an increasingly shrinking economic pie. We believe in Australians. We believe superannuation money is their money, and we will not turn from that view.

See this speech in context