Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. I rise somewhat surprised that there seem to be expressions of controversy and outrage to the contents of this important bill. The bill might not be the thing capturing the excitement of the media right now, but it is nonetheless an important part of the business of governing.

In 2021 superannuation law was reformed to enable a stapled plan to be a key component. When someone changes jobs—we know that 2.9 million Australians change jobs every year—in circumstances where they're unable to nominate a new fund, the employer would then go and find their existing fund and put their money into that. It essentially ensures that duplicate accounts weren't being created to the financial detriment of workers, something we saw for a very long time.

Schedule 1 of this bill is a fairly modest addition which extends the stapling provisions—which, by the way, were introduced by the coalition for the very purpose of preventing duplicated funds—so that employers can help facilitate this through the onboarding process by identifying the fund that belongs to the worker, not just after they've been given paperwork and returned it without filling in a choice of fund but from the beginning of the relationship. It ensures that workers are able to have clearly outlined what their options are, including their existing fund, should they have one. It's there to help fulfil the intention behind the stapling reforms that were brought in in 2021 and, obviously, to support the context where payday super is introduced, so as to ensure that businesses are given the flexibility they need to be able to comply with those rules.

The benefits also go to supporting businesses through having a more methodical onboarding process. We know, as other colleagues in the House have said, that there's a lot going on during the onboarding process, so making it as simple and straightforward as possible for businesses to be able to comply with those obligations and support employees in selecting their funds so they can get on with business is very important.

As has been mentioned, this bill brings together a set of targeted and practical reforms. It goes to superannuation, and they're fairly technical amendments which I'll go through in more detail shortly. It goes to a particular international tax arrangement, philanthropy and some sector-specific tax settings on wine. While the measures deal with different parts of the law, they share a common purpose and that is really just making the systems that we rely on work better in practice. This isn't about a high-level ideological argument. This is very practical reform that is included in this bill. It's really where the law and the policy meet in real life—how they work for workers, how they work for businesses and how they work for the community more broadly.

In general terms, you've got schedule 1, which is about streamlining the choice-of-fund process for businesses so that they can find out the account information of their workers from the get-go. Then schedule 2 amends corporations law, which goes to the advertising of superannuation products at the time of onboarding. As we've heard in other contributions, we know that there are super funds which are not high-quality, low-risk funds that have been signed up to, to the great detriment of workers, so it limits advertising to their existing accounts or to MySuper and well-secured superannuation products. We understand that superannuation account decisions are not at the forefront of every worker's mind at every point in time, but we've got to make sure the settings are there so the default position is one where people's money can be looked after to the greatest extent possible.

Australia's superannuation is one of Australia's quiet success stories. It has helped millions of Australians retire with dignity, it has reduced long-term pressure on the age pension and it has turned the savings of working people into a long-term investment that supports the broader economy as well. Superannuation isn't just an abstract; it's not theoretical. It is, at the end of the day, deferred wages—money earned week by week, job by job, and set aside so that retirement is not defined by uncertainty or hardship. For workers, superannuation represents security for the future. For businesses, it's a core part of paying people properly and meeting their obligations. For the country, it is a system built on trust.

This bill is about protecting that trust and strengthening a system that already does a great deal right. But, as we've seen, some flaws have emerged. We need to address those and we also need to ready the system for other reforms that will come. The reforms in this bill are, again, fairly—I would have thought—technical and uncontroversial, but apparently controversy has been found in these times where picking a political fight is the go-to position.

Alongside the payday super bill, which we've already introduced and passed, this is a piece of promised legislation. It was built on a simple idea that workers should share in the prosperity that they have helped create. But over time we've seen that workers starting a new job, experiencing that great moment of change, have found themselves under pressure—pressure to make a whole lot of decisions in very quick succession. One of the things that can pop up is a suggestion of changing funds. We also know it's a stressful time for business getting a lot of things done right quickly—payroll, tax, super and other compliance, making sure that people are ready to get onto the job, making sure the OH&S induction is done and all sorts of things that need to be overcome. It is a busy time, so we need to make sure, to the extent that superannuation policy kicks in, that it is helping people and not hindering.

Stapling was introduced in 2021, and, again, that is essentially the requirement that, if someone doesn't choose a fund, their money, where possible, is put into an existing superannuation account rather than creating a new one, which leads to that duplication that has cost workers for such a long time. We need to make sure that the policy intent behind that isn't undermined by recent phenomena.

As I was saying before, 2.9 million people start a job every year. About 2.5 million of those are onboarded through an online onboarding process, and we've seen a proliferation of advertising in those onboarding systems, which are often offered to business without charge but include advertising. That advertising is for super products that sometimes are not suitable. The issue is if someone, through that advertising, selects a superannuation fund, including one that might not be in their interest, might not be as secure as a MySuper product or another conservatively invested one. We know that about 325,000 workers select an advertised superannuation product when they're using that onboarding software. We need to make sure that they are protected from inadvertent decisions, from inadvertently creating multiple funds, and that they are not signing up to something that is not in their interests at a time of high pressure and with a lot going on at that point in time.

This bill is really quite focused on addressing some of those challenges. We know that each additional account means extra fees. It means extra insurance premiums. It means less money left over time to benefit from that magic of compound interest. I think it was Albert Einstein who called compound interest 'the eighth wonder of the world'. So we need to make sure that workers are enjoying the benefits of that magic as much as possible when it comes time to retire.

We know timing matters. Under the current rules, that information about an employee's existing superannuation account is brought to their attention only after all the forms have been sent out and the process is towards the end on onboarding. This enables that information to be obtained at the start of the onboarding process, rather than a form being handed out and the information being received only when the form comes back. But it doesn't nominate a superannuation fund such that the employee can find out whether an existing account exists. This has created an administrative burden and has also sometimes resulted in undesirable outcomes. The very purpose of stapling is to make sure money is not being put into new accounts all the time to the detriment of workers.

But it is now being undermined by advertising that we are seeing in an increasing number of online onboarding platforms. That is something that wasn't intended. I'm not being begrudging of the reforms made in 2021 by the coalition government. I think many of them were very good. It was back when the coalition were focused on governing, not on other things. But it's something that should attract support, because it really is building on something that has for a very long time been politically uncontroversial in Australia—that multiple accounts are bad for workers.

Schedule 1 essentially enables employers and their agents to access stapled fund details earlier—as I was saying before, a stapled fund is a worker's existing superannuation account—and to provide that information to employees at the point when choices are actually being made by those workers. For workers, it means recognising that they already have a super account—it's clearly set out in front of them—and that they can choose with confidence whether to stick with their current fund or, if they really want to, take on a new fund as well. They might want a change, entering a new industry or the like. For businesses it means fewer errors, fewer delays and a greater certainty that super contributions are really going to the right place from the get-go. Choice is preserved. People can still choose whatever fund they want and change over time, and if they really want to have multiple accounts they can. But the standard form choice still needs to be given and the choice still belongs to the employee under this regime. What changes is the quality and timing of information in the process.

As Australia moves towards paying super close to payday, this becomes even more important. Having accurate fund details early means that contributions flow sooner, more reliably and with fewer compliance headaches. This is good for workers and it's good for employers, and that is how a strong system becomes an even stronger one.

Superannuation works best when decisions are made deliberately, not under pressure, persuasion or commercial influence. Starting a new job is not a shopping experience. It is not the right moment for sales tactics, particularly when the product in question will shape someone's financial future decades down the line. As I was saying earlier, evidence has shown that some online platforms have been using that moment to promote what some would consider higher-risk superannuation products that most would objectively say are not in someone's financial benefit to sign up to. And as we've heard before, getting that superannuation account right, choosing the super fund with the right risk tolerance, is incredibly important.

To use those kinds of tactics undermines the trust the system relies on. At the moment, if a new fund is chosen through that process, all those stapling provisions don't apply. The employer is under no obligation and has no reason to seek information about your other fund details. So it has eroded the purpose underpinning that 2021 set of reforms.

Schedule 2 sets a fairly clear boundary. You can't advertise non-MySuper accounts where the results haven't been audited in line with processes that have been around for awhile now. It's designed to promote only simple, regulated defaults and not any of the ones with bells and whistles or high-risk-tolerance ones. It's not anti-choice; it is just preventing the pushing of higher-risk superannuation plans, knowing that that was a balance of competing possibilities. They could have completely abolished advertising, which would mean that those businesses would face higher costs, because they'd suddenly have to pay for platforms they're currently getting for free. But we also want to make sure the high risks and financial risks are minimised through these reforms. These are quite balanced and proportional, and very much designed with the interests of businesses as well as the interests of employees in mind. Australians should be able to trust that, when they engage in superannuation at the start of a job, the system is there to serve them, not to sell to them.

Schedule 3 looks at the supporting of the Rugby World Cup, both men's and women's; the Men's Rugby World Cup is in 2027 and the Women's Rugby World Cup is in 2029. This is a fairly standard tax measure that happens with a lot of large-scale sporting events, essentially exempting them from income tax and withholding tax over a defined period of time—a very standard procedure that we've seen with other events before. It's not only common Australian practice; it is international practice. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify that tax treatment.

Speaking of the clarifying of tax treatment, schedule 4 goes to an arrangement with the Portuguese Republic, or Portugal. It gives domestic legal effect to Australia's first tax treaty with Portugal. For businesses operating across borders, uncertainty is costly and we certainly don't want to see double taxation because it can deter investment, complicate planning and increase compliance burdens. This treaty reduces those risks while preserving Australia's strong anti-avoidance framework. It follows international best practice, strengthens cooperation between tax authorities and provides clearer rules for resolving disputes. It is about certainty where certainty is needed and integrity where integrity must be protected.

Schedule 5 is about supporting philanthropy with integrity. It updates the list of specifically prescribed deductible gift recipients. In layman's terms, if you donate more than $2 you can reduce the amount of that donation from your taxable income—so it is a very important means by which charitable organisations get support. Generally, there's a whole lot of categories which you need to strictly be aligned with in order to be defined as a deductible gift recipient. Another way of doing it is for some charities that might not neatly fall into one of those legislative boxes to be defined in tax legislation, and that enables them to collect donations—as I was saying, with a tax deduction if that donation is above $2. It is an important thing. It adds several new charities. It extends some listings, because they are defined by period of time, and also removes some organisations—the common reason being that some of the money is used other than for the purpose for which that DGR status was given. It is a regular practice, and it's very important that we maintain up-to-date registers to ensure that good charities are being supported.

Schedule 6 adjusts the existing wine rebate framework. It increases the maximum wine equalisation tax producer rebate from $350,000 to $400,000 per year from 1 July 2026. It builds on an existing rebate system, increasing support without adding any complexity to the system. It's a measured adjustment within a well-understood framework.

This isn't about sweeping change. This is not a radical bill. It's about making systems work better for the people who interact with them every day. It strengthens superannuation, one of Australia's great policy achievements, and improves clarity and confidence. It reinforces trust in systems. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context