Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to 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.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former prime minister—and the architect of superannuation—Paul Keating once said, 'Superannuation was always about more than just a savings account; it was about the democratisation of capital, giving every worker a stake in the wealth of the nation they are building.' I see the weight of that promise every time I walk down Union Road or Puckle Street, or when I'm visiting local businesses in Essendon Fields. When we talk about Treasury laws and schedules, we're really talking about that stake in the nation. We are talking about the promise that a lifetime of work in Maribyrnong and across the country, whether you're a teacher in Keilor East or a nurse in Glenroy or a retail worker in Kensington, will lead to a retirement where you aren't just surviving but thriving.

In my time as an advocate for working people, I have spoken with parents and workers where the conversation isn't about global tax conventions; it's about the 'what ifs': What if I haven't saved enough? What if my super is being eaten away by fees? The bill before us today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, is this government's answer. We're delivering this alongside our landmark payday super legislation. Payday super is a once-in-a-generation reform to fix a massive integrity gap. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22; that is $100 million every week that workers earned but never received. For a 34-year-old in my electorate, failing to recover these missing funds could reduce their retirement nest egg by $32,000. This bill ensures the system works for you, not the other way around. Today we've introduced additional changes that will make super even fairer from top to bottom and more sustainable in the long term. These changes will make a significant difference to low-income workers in my electorate, boosting their super and giving them a better retirement.

Let's go back to the first day of a new job. We've all been there—the nerves, the excitement and the stack of paperwork, which is often digital these days, that sits between you and your first shift. It's a moment of transition and, for many, it's a moment of vulnerability. Schedule 1 and schedule 2 of this bill focus squarely on this moment. Currently, the onboarding process is a bit of a minefield—a worker starts a new job, and in the rush to get their payroll details sorted they inadvertently open a new superannuation account. They didn't mean to; they already had a fund they'd been contributing to for years, but the system wasn't designed to show them their stapled fund—the one that belongs to them—at the right time.

By streamlining the choice-of-fund process, we are ensuring that a worker's existing fund is visible and accessible from day one. This isn't just about tidying up paperwork; it's about stopping the 'silent thief' of duplicate fees. In my community, we have a high population of young workers and people in the gig economy, who move between jobs frequently. If they open a new account every time they start a new contract, they are paying double, triple or quadruple administration fees and insurance premiums. For a young person in Moonee Ponds, losing just $100 a year to unnecessary fees can result in thousands of dollars lost by retirement age. From 1 July 2026, we are fixing this. We are making sure your super follows you so your savings stay in your pocket.

Further to this, schedule 2 introduces a ban that is long overdue. For too long, some onboarding software providers have treated a new employee's first day as an advertising opportunity. They are being paid to push specific super products, often ones that are more profitable for the provider than they are for the worker. When you're starting a new job, you should be focused on your new responsibilities and your new team. You shouldn't be pressured into a financial decision by a pop-up ad or a payroll app. This bill creates a safe zone for onboarding. It ensures that the information workers see is regulated, transparent and focused on their best interests, not on someone's commission. We are keeping the focus on MySuper products—the gold standard of regulated, high-performing funds—and ensuring that if an advertisement does appear, under the strict exceptions we've carved out, it is accompanied by clear, unambiguous disclosures. This is about honesty. It is about ensuring that the choice a worker makes is an informed one, not one they're pushed into.

I represent communities that are outward looking. We are home to people from every corner of the globe, and our local economy is increasingly connected to international markets. That is why schedule 4, the tax convention with Portugal, is more than just a diplomatic formality; it's a bridge. This is our first ever tax treaty with Portugal, and it will be our 47th overall. For the local businesses in my community looking to innovate, this treaty and others like it remove the hurdles. By reducing withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties, we are making it cheaper for Australian businesses to access Portuguese capital and technology. We are also ensuring that people who earn income in both countries aren't being taxed twice on the same dollar. It's about fairness and it's about making Australia an attractive place for the kind of investment that creates jobs in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne that I represent. It also has a tough-on-tax edge. This treaty strengthens our ability to fight tax evasion. It allows tax authorities to exchange information and assist in collecting debts. It's a clear message from this government that, if you do business here, you play by our rules and you pay your fair share.

I want to turn to schedule 3. I must admit that at first glance it seems a little bit like the odd one out in a Treasury bill. We are debating the mechanics of superannuation and international tax treaties, and suddenly we find ourselves talking about scrums and lineouts. It's a bit weird to see the Rugby World Cup sitting alongside superannuation, but there is a very serious reason it is here. When we bid for major international events, like the 2027 men's and 2029 women's rugby world cups, we make promises to the world. We promise that Australia is a professional, reliable and welcoming host. Part of the entry price for hosting global tournaments involves providing targeted tax exemptions for the organisers.

While it might seem like a strange inclusion in this specific debate, it is about the economic livelihood of our cities. In Melbourne sport is its own religion. We are the sporting capital of the country. We know that a major sporting event brings benefits that ripple out far beyond the stadium. It's the extra shifts for the casual workers at our local bars. It's the bookings for our small transport companies. It's the tourism dollars that help our suburban cafes thrive. Most importantly for me, it's about legacy. I think of the young girls playing at local clubs in Melbourne today. When they see the world's best athletes competing here in 2029, they won't just be watching a game; they'll be seeing a future. So, yes, while it's a bit of a legislative sidestep to talk about rugby in a superannuation bill, it's a necessary one to ensure we remain a top tier destination for the major events that inspire our kids and boost our local economy.

Schedule 5 deals with deductible gift recipient status, and this is where the bill truly touches the heart of my electorate. The not-for-profit sector is the backbone of our community. When the government can't be there, these organisations are there supporting the vulnerable, protecting our heritage and advocating for change. Throughout my career, I have seen the incredible power of people coming together to demand a better future for them and their communities. Whether it's advocating for better education, providing crisis support or championing equality, these organisations need every bit of support they can get.

By granting DGR status, we are making it easier for everyday Australians to donate knowing that their contribution is tax deductible. We are supporting the helpers. From the restoration of St Patrick's Cathedral to the advocacy of Equality Australia, we are ensuring that the diversity of our communities' interests is reflected in our tax system. The removal of certain listings is also a necessary part of this process, ensuring that the system maintains its integrity and that tax concessions are only flowing to those who are actively delivering for the community. These groups are doing the heavy lifting in our civil society, and they deserve a tax system that encourages rather than hinders their growth.

Finally, schedule 6 looks at our wine industry. I'll be the first to admit that you won't find many vineyards in the middle of Maribyrnong. I've checked! I've been up and down Maribyrnong River, and I can confirm we are definitely more suburban sprawl than Shiraz soil. While we aren't treading the grapes in the north-west, we are the ones that move them. Our logistics hubs and transport workers rely on a thriving wine sector. This bill increases the WET rebate cap to $400,000 to give producers breathing room. This complements our broader support, including the increase to the excise remission scheme cap and our two-year draught beer excise freeze to ease pressure on local pubs and clubs. Those opposite, when they aren't fighting with each other, spend their time claiming to be the champions of the regions, yet they left our wine producers struggling under an outdated cap and trade doors that were slammed shut. They talk a big game, but it takes a Labor government to actually deliver the practical tax relief and trade partnerships that keep family vineyards viable and our local supply chains moving.

This bill doesn't reinvent the wheel; it ensures the wheel is turning for the worker. When we came to office, we inherited huge deficits and $1 trillion worth of Liberal debt. We know Australians are under pressure, which is why we're delivering two more tax cuts for every single taxpayer. The fundamental divide in this place is clear. While Labor protects the worker, those opposite still treat retirement savings like a political piggy bank. After a decade of delaying the super guarantee, they now want to raid the nest eggs of young Australians for housing, forcing the next generation to choose between a roof today and poverty tomorrow. They remain the party of 'no', stuck in a worldview where the only way for a young person to get ahead is to rob themselves of their own future dignity.

We are choosing action over obstruction. When the people of Maribyrnong go to work tomorrow, I want them to know that we are in their corner, ensuring that the system rewards their hard work. I commend the bill to the House.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the member for Casey.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goldstein!

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now call the member for Goldstein.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour. I am under no illusion that I am an inadequate replacement for the member for Casey. However, in the spirit in which he has appeared in the chamber, I am honoured to nonetheless follow him. It is important to speak on this piece of legislation because the Labor Party wants this legislation to be about, somehow, making the case that they're being generous on the issue of superannuation, but let's be very clear about this. This bill is an omnibus bill. It is running about 10 different agendas under the banner of thinking that it is justified because it has the word 'superannuation' in it.

There is a component in this legislation where the government is saying they're supporting superannuation choice. The problem is it isn't the choice of Australians; it's the choice of the fund managers. Today the modern Labor Party is not a party of organised workers. It is a party for organised capital, where they seek to entrench the vested interests of industry funds, particularly the funds that profiteer and take from people's retirement savings. They take that money. They funnel, siphon, launder or wash—whatever word you want to use—then pass it on through kickbacks to the Australian Labor Party and its campaign coffers. It's either that or the trade union movement. The bigger the volume of money, the more they can just shave money off the top and use it towards ill-gotten and corrupt gains. That is the basis on which this legislation is put before this parliament. It's a way to maximise the revenue in the funds they control. It's a way to maximise their grab, their take and their pathway to get money into the kickback cartel cycle of life, to provide the liquidity for the modern Labor Party to campaign so they can sit in office.

You just need to understand how the cartel kickback circle of life works. You have the trade union movement that takes money from workers' wages. They then, through law, compel people to be in funds that they control. They then campaign and fund the Labor Party to sit on the treasury bench. Once they're on the treasury bench they try and take as much money as they can from Australian workers' wages and force it into funds that they control. And then they use that money to launder it—to drive it through marketing mechanisms or whatever it is—so that it goes back into the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party to keep them entrenched. They always want to take more of Australians' money because they want to control Australians. At a state level, state Labor governments propose projects. Those projects are then used to siphon money and raise the expectations of taking money from people's superannuation funds, again. so that the beneficiaries can be those who are members of the unions. It's the cartel kickback circle of life.

Where has it been enlivened more than the CFMEU? We found out all about that today, about what's been going on, in the Wood inquiry in Queensland, which has directly exposed the CFMEU-Labor Party cartel of corruption. We've heard about the problems through what's been voiced in Senate estimates today. There's what's been going on in the Queensland parliament, the scrutiny today. Then, of course, there have been the nonanswers that the minister has provided in the House of Representatives today. She won't give simple bits of information like whether she requested reports from the CFMEU administrator. She won't address the allegations of corruption in the CFMEU. It could be a choice of wilful blindness because she didn't want to see corruption—and didn't want to hear about corruption—because then she wouldn't be accountable for the corruption. She won't even reveal to this place the report that was handed to her by the CFMEU administrator.

The Labor Party oversees the cartel kickback corruption cycle of life, where they take Australian workers' money and shove it in funds. Those funds then finance projects where they can skive money off the side. Then they also make sure that that funding is then used for marketing expenses, to ensure that Labor stays in government. Literally, the Mafia could not have designed a scheme as sophisticated and sanctioned in law as has been done by the modern Labor Party. And Australians are the ones who pay.

Any time there is a threat to the power structures that sit behind the cartel kickback circle of life, they will fight endlessly to keep it in place. If they don't, they know the revenue sources they need to sit on the treasury bench will dry up. More importantly, they will then have to justify, on democratic grounds, why they should be able to legislate their agenda.

Labor doesn't represent organised workers anymore; it hasn't represented them for a long time. It represents the people who work the public sector and how much they can extract from the taxpayer. The other thing they represent is organised capital and they try and push as much money into that system—no matter how many times the facts are put out there, they won't accept that they're taking too much of Australians' money.

Think about the absurdity of the situation we now face. The retirement income system has three pillars. The first pillar is homeownership. The second pillar is retirement savings through a set retirement savings scheme, which is superannuation. The third pillar is pensions, which are publicly available to those who need it. Ninety-three per cent of people's principal today is left in their superannuation when they die. People have more super than they need to retire with dignity and they're passing on with nearly their total principal intact. That says to me we have our priorities wrong. Young Australians cannot afford to get into the property market and increasingly have huge volumes of savings available at their disposal to get into the market earlier and cheaper, but the Labor Party never wants Australians to access that money, because, if they start putting their own interest from their working life and retirement into homeownership first, they will become far more independent through their working life and in retirement.

Instead, the Labor vision has become this sick joke where young Australians can't afford to buy their first home and they're increasingly trending towards having a mortgage at the point of retirement in which they're able, over many years, to garnish off people's superannuation funds as much money to feed the cartel kickback circle of life that they are beneficiaries of. It is a perversion of the best interest of Australians and it's all done under the annex of claiming virtue. But they are directly assaulting the pathway for young Australians to own their own home. If you had have said to anybody before 1992, 'Do you think it is logical to buy your home first before you focus on your retirement?' everybody would say, 'If you don't think that, you need your head read.' Well, what this government has done, and what successive Labor governments have done, is prioritise the size of somebody's 67th birthday cake over whether they can buy a home earlier, younger and cheaper, and they are paying the price.

It affects women—who desperately want to get ahead and be independent and, in particular, those who are post divorce—and young Australians the worst. Frankly, it corrodes the very basis of the Australian aspiration and the Australian dream for homeownership. But that's fine for modern Labor because it means that they get to control your life. It means that, increasingly, they want superannuation funds to become the new fundie-feudal lords—to buy and build the houses to rent to you for life. The sick idea, and it is sick, that they would deny young Australians a pathway to buy their home earlier and cheaper with their own savings but they're quite happy for those funds where those savings are held to go and build and buy housing to rent back to those young Australians who can't get into the property market is a complete perversion and a deliberate act of economic social engineering to try and turn Australian society on its head.

The debate about housing has always been central to the type of country that we want to be. Australia has always been a land of great promise where young Australians can go on and, if they work hard, save and sacrifice, buy their first home. This is not just some sort of economic idea; it is fundamentally central to the type of nation we are. Because, when people own their own home, they are in a position to be more financially independent, they're more likely to be able to form a family and support them and they're more likely to be in a position to have the foundations and pillars for retirement security. At every stage of life, if you buy your home earlier and cheaper, you will be in a stronger and better position—not just to save on rent but to then go on and build the foundations of the success of a life and to be confident in doing things like becoming self-employed or setting up a small business. But Labor has turned around, torn that social contract up and said: 'We know how to run your life better. We know how to design the rules and regulations so that it benefits our mates over you.'

More importantly, they're increasingly rigging the structure of the Australian economy to benefit themselves. It is the very model of corruption that we should be seeking to expose, and the unions and industry funds are actively ensuring that it is perpetuated. Of course, every member of the Labor Party in some way is a direct beneficiary of the cartel kickback circle of life. If they sit on those Treasury benches, they sit on the Treasury benches because the financing of the campaign increasingly comes from Australians' retirement funds, which are shaved off and laundered all the way through the system under the banner of 'marketing expenses' to the point where they end up in the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party.

When this government extols the virtues of this bill, what they are extolling is—I can assure you it is not a virtue—the argument for their cartel kickback circle of life, where private funds for the retirement security for millions of Australians find their way laundered into the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party. Any pathway that frees people up to take control of their funds through self-managed superannuation funds, they seek to shut down. You just need to look at how the Assistant Treasurer right now is making the case for why self-managed superannuation funds who aren't exposed or don't create the consequences of the compensation scheme of last resort—they are deliberately, maliciously targeting self-managed superannuation funds, just like they did with the retiree tax on refundable franking credits and just like they wanted to do on their proposed unrealised capital gains tax.

Every avenue they have to attack self-managed superannuation funds, they will absolutely take, because they want Australians to take their money out of SMSFs and put them in the industry funds that they can then control, because when they do that, they don't just control your retirement; they control your working life. They are trying to undermine that spirit of independence that has made this country great. More importantly, the trade union movement—particularly the CFMEU, the corrupt CFMEU—is one of the biggest beneficiaries of this cartel kickback circle of life. When the CFMEU gets control of Australians' money, we now know from public reports that have been tabled in the Wood inquiry, it's used to sanction and perpetuate violence, harassment of women and the demonisation of people who are prepared to stand up.

Absolutely we oppose this corruption. What's scandalous is that this Labor government runs interference when we do simple things like try and table a report into CFMEU corruption in this parliament, as the Leader of the House did before question time. There is a time where good people of decency, I would hope, are prepared to stand up and call out the behaviour of this Labor government and the correlation of their behaviour and what they have engaged with. Sitting behind it is a fundamental compromise situation, where the Labor Party is actively participating in a deeply distrustful and deeply dishonest range of conduct for which every Australian is paying.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the member for Goldstein talk against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, a bill targeted at superannuation reform, reminds me of something very important, and that is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. When I think back on the history of superannuation, my mind goes back to what happened when the first superannuation guarantee was put through this place in the early nineties. What did those opposites say then? They said that we'd all be ruined. They said that it would be a disaster for the economy. They said that it wouldn't work. They called it an extra tax when the proposal was for a three per cent contribution from employers. Things have not changed. They haven't changed because, we know, just like then, this is a coalition that doesn't back in workers and does not back in superannuation, as we see from the member for Goldstein's debate today.

Not only was that the case; he was also incredibly disingenuous in talking about housing. If you want to talk about housing, and if you want to understand what people need when it comes to getting more young people into homes and making sure that parents can have confidence that their children can secure and live in their own home to build for their future, we need to remember what those opposite have said and done when it comes to housing. They have said that a five per cent deposit is not something they'd support. What we need to know from the coalition is: who are the people who are not going to get a house because they don't support that policy? What we know from the coalition is that they didn't build a single social housing home. What we know about the coalition is that they did not have a housing minister for the majority of their last term.

When the member for Goldstein stood here and talked today—not content with the will they, won't they, on again, off again, relentless feudal infighting that subsumes everything those opposite do—he had to squeeze in a discussion to try and amend this not to support the reforms in superannuation that this Albanese government is putting forward today. I am always pleased to have the opportunity to talk about superannuation, a proud Labor initiative and a proud Labor legacy which enables Australians to fund dignified and independent retirement. Of course, that superannuation guarantee that was first enacted in this parliament in 1992 under the Keating Labor government was established because Labor took a long-term, responsible view of Australia's future. It recognised that an aging population would place a burden on the federal budget without a scheme to support everyday Australians. The idea behind super is really straightforward. It is compulsory, long-term savings, where your employer has to kick in. Thirty-four years on, Australia's super system stands as one of our greatest national achievements. It is the envy of the world, and it has delivered stronger, safer and more prosperous retirements for Australians.

When we talk about superannuation, we don't want to leave it where it is, because when you believe in something and you back something, you always want to make it better. That's what this bill does—and it's not just this bill. We heard from the Treasurer this morning about reforms to the LISTO—changes to increase the maximum payment and raise the income threshold, making sure that some of our lowest income Australians and some of our most vulnerable have the support that they need to offset and to make their lives better. It has strengthened Australia's retirement income system, provided workers with peace of mind about their future and acted as a vital partner to the aged pension. Beyond its social benefits, super has also become an economic powerhouse, fuelling national growth through major investments in infrastructure, housing, innovation and productive enterprises. These investments help underpin the resilience of the Australian economy and, crucially, ensure that working people share in the wealth they help create. Its establishment sits alongside other transformative public policy reform such as Medicare, the PBS and the NDIS, which are also Labor government initiatives. It shows what this government's priorities are. It shows what Labor's priorities are: people.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 before the House today strengthens the superannuation system through a series of schedules. Some employees have stapled super funds, and these are funds which are linked, or 'stapled', to an individual employee as they move jobs. The first schedule of this bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. It will enable people with a stapled fund to more easily see their existing fund when they change employment and make an informed choice about using it. This more streamlined approach will mean less duplication of super accounts and less of people's hard earned money going into super fund fees. This amendment gives employers more flexibility to request an employee's stapled super fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. This enables more efficient implementation of payday super.

Payday super is Labor's legislation. It comes into effect on 1 July this year and requires employers to pay super at the same time as they pay wages—not quarterly, not later but on payday. This is because super isn't a privilege. Super isn't a bonus; super is not an extra. Super is wages, and they deserve to be paid when they are earned. The CEO of the Association of Superannuation Funds Australia, Mary Delahunty, said:

The approach in the Bill strikes a balance between maximising member choice, ensuring workers are presented with options, and knowing that they are in the best performing product for them, while continuing to ensure that the number of Australians with more than one super account continues to reduce.

Schedule 2 amends the Corporations Act and implements a targeted ban on superannuation advertising during the employee onboarding process. This is an important time for new employees, and they should be able to consider their super options in a well-informed, non-pressured and clear way without being hit with sales pitches or feeling compelled to choose a particular product. I spent my younger years cutting my teeth supporting and representing manufacturing workers, and the time for workers to understand their superannuation entitlements is at the beginning. It's not when you've suffered an injury. It's not when your loved one is sick. That's what this legislation is focused on. To keep things practical, there are a few sensible exceptions. Workers will still be able to see information about their stapled fund, their employer's default fund or any regulated MySuper product. These exceptions make sure that people still get the key details they need without turning the onboarding process into a marketing exercise. This amendment ensures the process is less overwhelming for workers and keeps the focus on transparency and genuine choice rather than advertising.

The remaining schedules in this bill concern a range of matters. The first fulfils an obligation to World Rugby as part of Australia's forthcoming hosting duties in the 2027 and 2029 Rugby World Cups, and it follows similar exemptions that were provided for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup. The schedule implements amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax and withholding tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. These measures bolster Australia's reputation as a trusted host for major international sporting events—events that generate jobs, promote tourism and lead to long-term social benefits, such as increased participation in sport. These are events that not only drive economic growth and drive good, full employment but also bring our communities together.

Schedule 4 of this bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act and concerns the 30 November 2023 tax convention between Australia and Portugal. This convention is the first agreement of its kind between Australia and Portugal and will promote stronger trade, investment and, indeed, innovation connections. It encourages investment by lowering withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties. The convention also outlines clear rules regarding the allocation of profits from cross-border activity, making processes more efficient and predictable and cutting down compliance costs. This schedule supports Labor's drive to ensure multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. It strengthens the integrity of our tax system by allowing tax authorities in both countries to share information and help each other collect tax debts—important tools in tackling tax evasion and avoidance. It's clear—and we know in this House—that Labor is the party of lower taxes for everyday Australians. But what we also want to make sure is that big business, big multinationals, are paying what they owe and are paying what they should.

Schedule 5 of the bill concerns measures to maintain trust and integrity in the administration of tax concessions accessed by not-for-profits that have deductible gift recipient status. Specifically, it amends the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1997 to update the list of deductible gift recipients, providing transparency and, indeed, clarity for donors.

The reforms in schedules 1 and 2 of this bill build on Labor's significant work to strengthen the superannuation system. This includes legislating the purpose of superannuation—that is, that the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. In other words, it's not a piggy bank that can be raided at the behest of others.

Another Labor superannuation reform that has had a huge impact, both financial and social, is superannuation on paid parental leave. On 1 July 2024, Labor added an additional two weeks to paid parental leave, increasing the total from 20 weeks to 22 weeks. The scheme has continued to grow by a further two weeks each year and will peak when it reaches 26 weeks of paid leave this year. As of July 2025, superannuation has been paid on government funded paid parental leave. This directly targets the unfair gap created when women's income drops, on average, by 55 per cent in the first five years of parenthood.

Yes, I say 'women's income' because it reflects the reality that women still shoulder most of the unpaid caring responsibilities in this country. That could be raising children, supporting ageing parents or caring for family members. Taking time out of paid work to do this essential care has a real and unfair financial impact on women.

Earlier in this speech, I mentioned payday super. This generational reform deals with the problem of unpaid superannuation. In 2021-22 alone, the ATO estimated that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid. That's around $100 million, every single week, that workers earned but never received. The payday superannuation legislation passed last year will help ensure employees are actually paid the super they're entitled to at the time they are entitled to it. Under the legislation, employers must ensure that the super payment hits the employee's super fund within seven days of payday.

The amendments in this bill are important because they bolster Australia's world-leading superannuation system. Together with payday super and the LISTO and backed by previous reforms, they will help ensure that Australians keep more of what they earn and retire with more—retire with dignity. While those opposite delayed the superannuation guarantee and undermined the foundations of the system, Labor is strengthening superannuation. We should all be proud of our super system and the hardworking Australians it supports and back in these changes to make sure that we're delivering for future generations. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the remarks of the honourable member who just concluded about keeping things safe, about dignity and about making sure that people can get their super and that no-one intrudes on it. That all sounds like marvellous stuff, except for people who were with the First Guardian and Shield funds, where $1.2 billion went missing. There's still well in excess of about half a billion dollars that they're looking for. They were just the people that the member was talking about. These were the schoolteachers. I know one very well—my former wife. The money has gone. It's just disappeared—hundreds of thousands of dollars, reflecting their life as a teacher. It's not just one but multiple people—about 12,000 people. We're expecting these people to become KCs, King's Counsellors, in pursuit of their money.

I've asked Minister Mulino, who I know has been talking to Melinda Kee—that's good—if we can give these people a break. Rather than have them go through this—they have to go to AFCA to get to CSLR and then they've got to go back to the trustees and countersue them and find out the liabilities that reside there. These people did what they were asked to do. They put their money in a super fund. They didn't go wild on the London Stock Exchange; they put their money into super and went back to their jobs. These people are going to have to continue working—I don't know, maybe waiting tables—because they have no money.

What should be happening, if we really believe in supporting superannuation and other measures, is ASIC should pay these people out and then they do the footwork and the legal work to recover the money. That would be a generally decent thing to do, but instead we're going through this bureaucratic fiasco. We're putting people in hospital with stress. I followed this up last year, I'm following it up again now, but there has to be some resolution to this. I am very disappointed, and I put the minister on notice that at the first opportunity I get in question time—I managed to get one question in the last two years; it's a reflection of how things were going for me—I will ask them what we are doing about this. For those who are sitting back in their rooms, Minister Mulino, at the next opportunity I'm going to ask you about where we are with this process.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for New England to use the correct titles of ministers.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer, Minister Mulino. On their behalf I will ask, 'Where are we with these people?' We have to raise the tempo on this. I thought that this would somehow get to a resolution. I commend Macquarie Bank, which has come out as one of the organisations involved with it and it paid the people out. There was one other whose name evades me. The people all need to be paid out.

What we have now is a process where some might possibly get $150,000. That's not going to get you very far. I will revert back to my accountancy days. As a very rough rule of thumb, you're going to live on about 10 per cent of what you've got in your super. If you've got $150,000, you have to work out what you're going to be doing on $15,000 a year plus the pension. That's a pretty meagre life. In fact, for some people that means a life in their car if they don't own their house. We will be making people destitute. Some of these people had more than $1 million in their funds. Quite a number of them that we spoke to had $300,000, $320,000, $400,000—diligent people who've worked hard all their lives. They were not financial advisers; they relied on other people who had licenses to deal in money to do the right thing. But these people who got their super money—even when accounts were frozen and the owners couldn't get access to their own accounts—the money was withdrawn by First Guardian and Shield and basically disappeared. It turned up as jewellery and cars and floated overseas. They were completely swindled out of their money.

The hope that the people and the groups have is that we, in this chamber, will continue to fight on their behalf. I've made it abundantly clear to my colleagues in One Nation that this is a fundamental issue that talks directly to the hearts of people around Australia, the western suburbs of Sydney and in regional towns. We have to try to do more. I won't delay the House, but I think it's important that people know that I haven't forgotten about this. There are other things happening around this building today, where people have a fascination about themselves, but we should have a fascination about the people who are really hurting. Because of a failure in the system, which was no fault of the people who invested in their super, we have put people into destitution and gone completely against all the principles that were just enunciated in the previous speech. Everything the member said about safety, security, reliability, not being able to steal from the balances—all that failed in regard to these people.

What should happen, to be quite frank, is that ASIC should pay all these super accounts out, reinstall the money. Then the government, which has vastly greater legal resources, should pursue the people who created the malfeasance, those who were associated with them and those who were paid a fee—a trailer free or an upfront fee—to hawk the business. Get the whole lot of them and line them up, and then the government can reclaim the money that it's paid out and hit them with costs on top of it. That's fair enough. They broke the law, not the people who put their money in super. If we don't do this, all the narrative and all the discussions about this issue are a total farce. It's a total farce because we haven't actually lived by the principles that we're enunciating in such things as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill. It's just an explanatory memorandum of piffle.

I call on the minister, the Assistant Treasurer, not to confound this with technicalities, legal principles, liabilities and this sort of amorphous regalia of legalese. Just pay the people out and then use the great resources of the Commonwealth of Australia to pursue those who committed the crime—those who defrauded Australians and have left people in destitution—for the money that they stole.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choices in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is a bill that may appear complex at first glance, but at its heart it is about something very straightforward. It's about making sure that the systems Australians rely on are fair and transparent and genuinely work in their best interests. It's about strengthening confidence in superannuation, protecting workers at important moments in their working lives and backing regional industries that are essential to Australia's economy, culture and future.

I represent the Hunter, a proud regional community built on hardworking people. It's a region of miners, tradies, nurses, teachers, hospitality workers, small-business owners, farmers and winemakers. It's a region where people understand the value of a hard day's work and expect that effort to be respected and rewarded. People in my electorate are not looking for a shortcut or special treatment. They want commonsense policy, they want fair rules and they want a government that understands that life and work in regional Australia often look very different from life and work in the capital cities. This bill reflects that understanding.

At its heart, this legislation strengthens Australia's superannuation system. Labor created super because we believe Australians deserve dignity and security in retirement. We believe that, after a lifetime of work, people should not be left uncertain or vulnerable. Since then, Labor governments have consistently acted to protect and strengthen the system so it continues to deliver on that purpose.

However, for too long, many Australians have seen their retirement savings quietly erode, not because they made poor decisions or failed to plan but because the system allowed inefficiencies and gaps to be present. Duplicate superannuation accounts, unnecessary fees, and insurance premiums that workers did not even realise they had or were paying have steadily chipped away at balances over time. This bill takes practical and sensible steps to address that problem.

Starting a new job should be an extremely positive moment in life. It should be about opportunity, stability and progression. It shouldn't be a moment where a worker's retirement savings are put at risk without their even knowing it. By making it easier for employees to see and consider their existing superannuation fund when they commence a new role, this bill helps prevent the creation of unnecessary duplicate accounts. It empowers workers to make informed choices while preserving their right to choose the fund that best suits their circumstances. It doesn't remove choice; it strengthens it.

For workers in the Hunter, this is particularly important. Many people in my electorate work in industries where job mobility is common and often unavoidable. Apprentices move between work sites. Labour hire workers move between projects and coalmines. Casual workers pick up shifts across multiple employees. People in construction, coalmining, health and hospitality often change employers as projects start and finish and as new opportunities arise. Without sensible safeguards, each of those job changes can mean a new super account. Each new account can mean new fees and new insurance premiums. Over time, that erosion adds up. It reduces balances, it undermines confidence and it creates uncertainty about retirement outcomes. Over the course of a working life, this can make a real difference. It can affect when someone can retire, how comfortably they can retire and whether they can retire with peace of mind.

These reforms help stop that from happening. They give workers clarity and control. They ensure that more of what Australians earn stays in their super accounts, working for their future rather than disappearing through inefficiencies. This bill also supports employers by providing clearer and more timely superannuation information. That matters as we move towards Payday Super, which will ensure that workers are paid their super at the same time as their wage. Payday Super is about fairness, it is about compliance and it is about making sure workers receive what they are entitled to, when they are entitled to it. These measures will help employers prepare for that change in a practical and manageable way, reducing confusion and improving compliance across this whole system.

Another important benefit of this bill is the way it strengthens consumer protections at a critical point of a worker's journey. Starting a new job can be overwhelming, as we all know. We all started here once. There is paperwork to complete, systems to learn, safety requirements to understand and expectations to meet. It is not a time for workers to be exposed to pressure or influence when making decisions about their retirement savings. This bill ensures that when employees are providing their superannuation details during onboarding they are protected from inappropriate advertising and undue influence. Workers should be able to engage with superannuation in a safe and informed way without being steered or nudged by marketing tactics.

At the same time, the bill preserves access to relevant and important information. Employees can still see their stapled fund, they can still see their employer's default fund and they can still see regular MySuper products that meet strict standards. The focus is on transparency and informed choice, not sales. This approach reinforces trust in the superannuation system. It recognises that superannuation is not just another financial product; it represents people's financial security. Decisions about super should be made with clear information and confidence, not confusion or pressure.

These reforms build on the government's broader work to strengthen superannuation and make it fairer and more sustainable for all. Legislating the purpose of super, lifting the super guarantee to 12 per cent, expanding performance testing and ensuring funds deliver value, boosting support for low-income earners and paying super on paid parental leave are all part of a consistent agenda. That agenda is making sure Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn and retire with dignity in their older age.

But this bill is about more than just super alone. It reflects on a broader commitment to supporting communities and industries across Australia. It supports Australia's role as a trusted host for major international sporting events, delivering jobs, tourism and long-term social benefits. It strengthens international tax arrangements to encourage trade, investment and innovation while ensuring integrity and fairness in the tax system. It supports the philanthropic and not-for-profit sector, which plays a vital role in communities like the Hunter, where volunteers and community organisations often provide essential services and support.

Crucially for my electorate, this bill delivers meaningful and practical support for the Australian wine industry. The Hunter Valley is one of Australia's oldest wine regions and one of its most distinctive. Wine has been produced in the Hunter for generations. It is part of our history and part of our identity. But the wine industry in the Hunter is not frozen in time. It is a modern, highly skilled industry that brings together agriculture, science, tourism and a fantastic group of workers. Wine production in the Hunter supports vineyard workers, winemakers, cellar door staff and logistics operators. It supports accommodation providers, restaurants, cafes, transport operators, event organisers and tour guides. It supports local tradies, local suppliers and local service businesses. It brings visitors to our townships and villages and sustains local employment right across the Hunter region. When people visit the Hunter for wine, they don't just come for a tasting and leave. They stay overnight. They book local accommodation. They dine at our amazing local venues. They shop in our local towns. They attend concerts, weddings and festivals. That flow-on effect is essential to the health and resilience of a regional economy.

The Hunter wine industry also plays an important role in exports and promoting Australia's wine reputation overseas. As we all know, and as I've said in this place many, many times, the best wine in the world comes from the Hunter. Hunter wines carry the story of the region onto the international market and contribute to the Australian brand. That reputation has been built carefully over decades through quality, innovation and consistency, often by family businesses that have weathered the good seasons and the difficult ones alike.

However, Hunter wine producers are facing increasing pressures. Rising costs of energy, packaging, freight and labour are squeezing the margins. Climate vulnerability is adding uncertainty to every single vintage. Global competition is intense, particularly for smaller producers competing against large international brands with far greater scale. For many family owned wineries, the pressures are consistent. These are businesses deeply connected to place. They employ local people. They invest locally. They support community events, sporting clubs and charities. When they face uncertainty, the impact is felt well beyond the vineyard gate.

That is why an increase to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap under this bill is so important. By lifting this cap from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year from 1 July 2026, the government is providing targeted, practical support that reflects the real cost pressures facing wine producers today. This is not about advantage or excise. This is about stability and sustainability. For many Hunter wineries, this additional support will help fund investments in water efficiency, energy upgrades and climate resilience. It will support training and retention of skilled staff. It will help producers innovate, improve quality, diversify offerings and reach new markets. In the Hunter, this kind of support also keeps the entire local supply chain moving. Every vintage relies on regional truck drivers and freight operators, label and packaging suppliers, fitters and plant mechanics maintaining plant and equipment, and the local builders and lecos when winery upgrades or expanded facilities are needed. It supports chefs, waitstaff and cleaners at restaurants and accommodation venues that benefit from cellar door tourism. It supports event crews who run tastings, weddings and festivals that bring visitors into the region throughout the year.

When a Hunter winery can invest in a plan with confidence, that confidence spreads through the local economy, creating more shifts, more jobs, more apprentices getting a start, more bookings for local businesses and more families able to stay in the community they love. Importantly, it also supports people behind the industry. In the Hunter, wine is often a family affair. Parents, children and grandparents work side by side across the vineyards, the cellar door and the back offices. These businesses provide stable employment in regional towns, where opportunities can be very limited. They allow young people to stay local rather than move away for work. They help keep schools open, sporting clubs strong and main streets active. Supporting wine producers through this rebate is ultimately about supporting those families and ensuring the Hunter remains a place where people can live, work and build an amazing future. It will also help protect cellar door operators, which are central to the Hunter's tourism appeal. Keeping those cellar doors open means keeping people employed, keeping visitors coming and keeping regional towns vibrant.

This measure also sends a clear signal that regional industries matter. It recognises that wine is not a niche concern or an afterthought; it is a significant contributor to regional jobs, exports and tourism. Supporting wine producers means supporting entire regional economies. In the Hunter, wine sits along coalmining, manufacturing, agriculture and energy as key pillars for economic strength. A strong wine industry helps diversify the regional economy and makes communities more resilient to economic change and global shocks. This is exactly the kind of practical, targeted policy rural Australia needs. It understands local conditions, it builds on existing frameworks and it delivers real benefits where they are needed most. It reflects Labor's values of fairness, security and opportunity. It reflects a commitment to making sure economic growth is shared and that no community is left behind. That's why I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment moved by the member for Fairfax will be supported by the coalition, and I'm glad that the member for Hunter has acknowledged in his contribution the truck drivers of this country and the freight industry as a whole, because, at the moment, the trucking and transport sector is in freefall. I really think that, as a matter of urgency, the Labor government needs to call a summit and needs to hear solutions to what is a calamity in our country when you have companies such as Ron Crouch Transport and Don Watson Transport going to the wall and third-generation, decades-old companies doing it tough. It's so, so difficult because everything, as you know, gets delivered on a truck. Everything—our food, just about every good—at one stage of the chain process gets delivered on a truck.

This bill before the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, contains six schedules providing employers and agents with access to employees' staple fund information earlier, restrictions on superannuation advertising during onboarding, Rugby World Cup tax exemptions, Australia-Portugal tax treaty deductible gift recipient listings and schedule 6, which is an increase to the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap. At the early part of my contribution, I want to refer to schedule 6, which is about changes to the WET. Increases to the Wine Equalisation Tax producer rebate cap are important because currently producers can claim refunds of excise up to $350,000 per annum. The bill will increase that refund amount to $400,000 per year.

This rebate will hopefully keep small and medium winegrowers afloat, and, particularly in regional Australia, this is imperative. The Riverina is Australia's second largest wine-producing region. When I say Riverina, I'm being a little bit generous. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area has long been in the Riverina. The Riverina, some could argue, starts at Narrandera and go west. It takes in Griffith, Yenda—amazing wine country. That is well represented by the member for Farrer. You look on any given tourism schedule, any given Wikipedia entry, and it's considered the Riverina, and it is. Five of New South Wales's 16 winegrowing regions are in the Riverina. Wine is also linked to the great immigration stories of southern New South Wales, particularly through Italian communities. You've got the Casellas, the De Bortolis—I could go on and on. Some of those names are synonymous of course not just throughout Australia but worldwide. Yellowtail and other iconic brand names have done so much to boost win production in that outstanding winegrowing area of New South Wales.

Demand for cool-climate wines from the Riverina—again, not just the electorate but the regional geographic areas—is strong. Riesling is seeing a great resurgence domestically. Then you look at the vineyards at Cottontail Wines, Wagga Wagga, Borambola Wines—it's been operating for more than 30 years; McMullen's there. They're doing an outstanding job. These wineries add to the dynamic regional tourism offering and provide perfect venues for birthday parties, meetings and weddings. The Wild Vine are out on the road to Oura. They're an outstanding wedding venue, and their vineyards are very well looked after. Charles Sturt University is doing some great research, and it's home to the next generation of, we hope, Australian and international winemakers, so their own wine stands out as well.

In the world renowned Tumbarumba region, we have premium cool-climate wine and grapes, with 19 vineyards and 3,000 tonnes of grapes crushed annually. They're reasonable numbers for a regional winery. The Murrumbateman wine region is home to 20 world-class boutique wineries: Clonkilla, Nick O'Leary Wines, Helm Wines, Shaw Wines—all outstanding, just to name a few. I know the mayor of Yass Valley Council, Jasmin Jones, is one of the great promoters of the wineries there, and she's also very worried about what she describes as an industrial junkyard with the take-up of arable farmland with 260-metre-high wind towers. She's extremely worried, as she should be. That's cool-climate wine country, and it's tourism country. It should not be, in the reckless race to renewables, taken up with those monstrosities that they call wind turbines.

These wines that I mentioned just a little bit earlier from Murrumbateman and elsewhere around the Yass Valley appear on curated wine lists at restaurants around the world as well as the dinner tables in the Riverina and also sometimes in the Hunter Valley, in South Australia and elsewhere—Margaret River; I could go on. They're very good wine-producing country too, but they all know the value of Riverina and southern New South Wales wines.

The coalition successfully implemented the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement, which removed the five per cent tariffs on Riverina wines destined for the UK. This was a win for our producers and the British public.

I have to say that in any tariff arrangements or free trade agreements that are signed—and I know Senator Farrell is well aware of this. He likes a good red. I have been with him on a trip or two, and he knows the value of making sure that our winemakers are looked after in any trade arrangements. I know that the member for Page did a good deal of shadowing in that trade phase, but he also, as a minister in the former coalition government, understood the value of getting the right arrangements when it comes to free trade agreements. I could mention the member for Wannon there too.

We do support many measures in this bill, but—and this probably comes to the very core—it shouldn't have been bundled in this way. Those six schedules are, you could argue, disparate. Labor has stitched together a series of largely unrelated measures and wrapped them around contentious superannuation changes that it knows we oppose. It is clever. It's what Labor does. They are always good at politics and never really that great at policy. This approach is designed to force a false choice on the parliament: accept the superannuation changes or be accused of blocking sensible unrelated measures. It's wedge politics. It's not good lawmaking, but it's what, unfortunately, Labor does. We know that Labor has a 50 seat majority, and we know that this bill will pass. We know that it'll go to the Senate, and we know that Labor will do deals with the senators who hold the balance of power, and so on we go.

When it comes to superannuation, we also understand that it is one of those things that we all have and that we all need, but it's something that we probably hold at arm's length. Not a lot of people truly understand the power of superannuation, but I'll tell you who do understand the power of superannuation: those Australians caught up in the First Guardian and Shield collapse. That, for some, is an absolute tragedy—their life savings just gone in an instant. People don't need, at that stage of their lives, to have the rug pulled out from underneath them, as they have. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, is taking further steps to support thousands of Australians who invested in the Shield Master Fund and the First Guardian Master Fund after the collapse. So they should. I really worry about this whole situation. I know that the then shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Cowper, was very strong and extremely vocal on this.

The ABC reported as recently as 10 February:

The government is planning to tighten the rules around managed investment schemes and give corporate watchdog ASIC more power to demand information.

So it should. The article continues:

It comes following the collapse of major funds Shield Master Fund and First Guardian.

Consultation on Treasury's proposals closes on the 27th of this month. I do hope earnestly that the government has thrown the net out wide enough to get the proper consultation, and I do hope that the right people have been eyeballing those most affected by this corporate collapse—this collapse of superannuation funds for so many people. The ABC article continues:

About 12,000 Australians—

not a small number—

poured $1.1 billion in retirement savings into the two funds, which collapsed in 2024 and 2025 amid what incoming ASIC chair Sarah Court has described as "industrial-scale misconduct".

Investors in First Guardian, many of whom switched from highly regulated super funds into the product, face little prospect of recovery directly from the fund, with liquidators in December saying just $1.6 million of $446 million tipped into it had been recovered—not enough to pay their fees.

In order to recover money for investors, the corporate watchdog has instead launched a series of lawsuits against companies responsible for overseeing the fund.

Now, at the risk of Labor just saying, 'Well, what did you do when you were in government?' as a parliament entirety, what was done? We should have been onto this, and ASIC should have perhaps been doing more to ensure that these companies just don't go under. If you're somebody near retirement, if you're somebody looking forward to putting your feet up and enjoying your twilight years, knowing that you've got so much invested in these superannuation funds, and that will be what you live off for the rest of your life, and all of a sudden that money disappears—place yourself in their shoes. It must be so worrying, so bad for your health. I know parliamentarians across the aisle feel for those people. We should, we must and we have to in order to do better as parliamentarians. ASIC must do better. Corporate watchdogs must. We must absolutely ensure that this cannot happen again.

I know it's happened before. I know we've had situations that have occurred previously, but it's not right. It's simply not right. The collapses of the First Guardian and Shield schemes have, as the ABC quite correctly reported, exposed deep flaws in the regulation of Australia's $4.3 trillion superannuation sector. It's a massive amount of money, but the ordinary, average, everyday Australians relied on that super. They relied on those two major companies, Shield and First Guardian, and now they have nothing. They face a very bleak prospect.

The ABC also says:

The scandal has also thrown into the spotlight gaps in the regulation of parts of the financial services industry.

Both First Guardian and Shield were managed investment schemes, a type of fund first established in the late 1990s—

and the story goes on. Both sides of government are accountable for this—I'll be perfectly upfront and say that—but it's now up to Labor, who are in government, to do what they can to help rectify a very sad and bad situation for those investors, many of whom now have nothing. They've got absolutely nothing, and they were looking to rely on that to live out their lives in reasonable prosperity, and they have now been left high and dry.

I commend to the House the amendment that's been moved by the member for Fairfax. The legislation has way too much packed into it, in typical Labor fashion.

Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. While I will not oppose this bill, I want to raise concerns I have with schedule 2 of this bill, which could result in less, not more, choice in superannuation products. Reduced competition in superannuation has a hidden cost for all Australians, and we need to be alive to these risks when making what we may think on the surface seems like a no-regrets change—and there are other issues we have had in, for instance, making things like the performance test. Some of those changes we have made in those areas have ended up reducing choice or reducing dynamism in the super industry.

We need to be much more alive to unintended consequences, which is why I have a second reading amendment to this bill. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

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

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

(1) affirms the objective of superannuation is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way;

(2) notes that:

  (a) while advertising of superannuation products has led to poor outcomes in some circumstances, advertising does and should continue to play an important role in fostering competition and driving innovation among superfunds;

  (b) while Australians are often disengaged with their superannuation fund, efforts to legislate additional consumer protections in response to this disengagement can unintentionally weaken competition between funds; and

  (c) any weakening in the competitive pressures on superfunds to maximise net returns for customers also has a hidden cost to the retirement balances of account holders; and

(3) calls on the Government to acknowledge this policy tension and commit to reviewing this and other legislative measures for the individual and cumulative impact on fund incentives and performance".

This bill has seven schedules. While I will not go through each schedule in detail, I note that, on balance, there are positive measures held within the bill, but I also note it is quite inappropriate to include some of these schedules as one bill, because they are not the same thing. It means it makes it difficult to support some bits and not other parts.

I'm pleased to see schedule 5 lists six new deductible gift recipients, including in particular some organisations that I've worked with—in some cases, I even supported their DGR status—including Equality Australia, the Great Synagogue Foundation and the Parenthood Project. This represents important recognition for these organisations and for the philanthropic work that they do. Similarly, I note that schedule 6 increases the rebate claimable by wine producers from wine equalisation tax in an effort to provide additional support to Australia's wine industry, and I support these measures. But schedules 1 and 2 are the most consequential changes and the ones for which this bill gets its name.

Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to allow an employer to request information about an employee's stapled superannuation fund from the ATO if the employee has not selected a product during onboarding. This is an important change that will make it a little bit easier for employers to act in the best interest of their employees by identifying their stapled superannuation product rather than creating duplicated funds when a default is not provided as part of the ongoing onboarding process. Duplication of superannuation products costs Australian workers millions each year—with more than four million Australians holding more than one superannuation account. The more that we can do to minimise unnecessary and unintended duplication is a positive step forward.

Schedule 2 puts a ban on advertising superannuation products during the employee onboarding process subject to certain exemptions. This change has come about after a series of cases in which employers were found to be directing new hires towards underperforming financial products to which the employer had a relationship. Perhaps the most high-profile case of this was MYOB, who was accused in 2023 of directing employees towards an underperforming high-fee fund with the option to stick with their existing fund buried in the fine print. The intent of this schedule is therefore not without cause. We know that many Australians are generally disengaged with their superannuation—perhaps even more so than usual at the point of starting a new and exciting career opportunity. When clicking through the often lengthy onboarding processes, many of us will take the path of least resistance. The tendency can and has been exploited.

But some in the industry and I are concerned that this legislation will have unintended consequences that, in fact, lessen competition in the sector—not strengthen it. Advertising may have certain negative connotations in today's highly commercialised environment, but the ability to advertise is an important mechanism for new products to break into markets and to disrupt the landscape. Without the ability to advertise new products, incumbents can become easily entrenched, and, without constant competitive pressures, performance and consumer outcomes can weaken. While many Australians are disengaged with super, we should not simply take this as an accepted fact. The start of a new job could be an important opportunity for Australians to re-evaluate their retirement savings options. To the extent that we can, we should be encouraging Australians to be engaged. Actually, it is an area where I think it would be appropriate to be spending government money in terms of advertising—perhaps much more so than other government funded advertising campaigns. Advertising, more broadly, has a role to play in this.

Obviously, we don't want this to be used as an opportunity for employers to cross-sell conflicted products, but a blanket ban, as was originally canvassed, is not a viable option, because the obvious beneficiaries of a blanket ban are default funds. It is estimated that about 60 per cent of Australian super fund members are invested through a default super fund option that was selected by their employer—often their first employer. But, even if these funds were a good option at the time, there is no guarantee that performance is sustained. In 2022, ASIC reported that nine of these default products were failing the performance test, which impacted about 800,000 members according to Morningstar. If we put a blanket ban on the advertising of products when onboarding, there is one less opportunity for consumers to assess their current fund and adjust their choices if necessary.

In response to this feedback from industry, the government has made certain exemptions to a blanket ban. For example, in the minister's second reading, he advised that advertising would be permitted if the advertised product was (1) the employees stapled product as confirmed by the ATO, (2) the employer's default product or (3) a MySuper product that meets certain requirements, including passing the annual performance test. These are sensible changes and the legislation requires advertising of new products to be accompanied by information about current stapled products to highlight the benefits or lack of benefit in switching products. But, as the FSC points out, the explanatory memorandum outlines that showing stapled products requires collecting information from the ATO commissioner, which adds an administrative barrier to finding stapled products.

Currently, onboarding platforms are able to use third-party verification services to find stapled products through fund information rather than the ATO. This process is often faster, but can admittedly be less reliable. The FSC is concerned that making the ATO the single source of truth will result in administrative delays that mean, in effect, only default funds will be shown under these exemptions. This, I believe, is not the intention of the bill. So, while I accept that this bill has good intentions, I accept that there is some scope for this bill to create unintended consequences, and I think this is the piece that is really important for the government to measure, keep pursuing and keep an eye on. If it does have these unintended consequences then the government will have to swiftly act to change this. It will take time to implement, but this is important in assessing the effectiveness of this bill.

But I would like to talk to the broader cumulative impact of some of the super reforms that have been put forward in this place over the past few years. Superannuation policy constantly grapples with balancing consumer protections for a relatively disengaged cohort of Australians and the important point of driving competition. I am concerned that the cumulative impact of superannuation policy, including the performance test, which the Treasurer has recently agreed to review and which I think is really important to review—not to remove the performance test but to minimise the unintended consequences of reducing competition and innovation, which I do believe the performance test does at the moment—has created less competitive pressures on funds to outperform and to deliver for their clients. This has a cost, albeit hidden, and I'm concerned that this legislation may add to that cost.

I do want to argue that this should worry us all. Australia has an extraordinary amount of our resources in superannuation—$4 trillion. It's absolutely remarkable. We have one of the biggest pension pots in the world in that cumulative fund. We have some of the biggest pension funds in the world in this small country of ours while only having 27-odd million people. But the issue really is that we need those funds to be as competitive as possible with each other if they are going to be using that $4 trillion worth of Australian assets. That is over 100 per cent of our GDP, so what that money is doing really matters if that money is going to be used for, firstly, the greatest benefit of the members and, secondly, making sure that it is actually serving the country as well. The sole object of superannuation is, frankly, to earn returns for members, and I'm never going to violate that principle, but I do recognise that, with that big asset pool, in some ways a super fund has an enormous impact on our economy. That impact, through different pieces of legislation, can be more or less positive both for the members and for the funds.

I want to draw your attention to a particular example: super funds' investment in innovation. You would think that, with the high level of superannuation funds and pension funds available, Australian super funds would be investing in innovation in Australia, particularly given that VC funds and PE funds have been shown to significantly outperform the ASX and more traditional listed areas. However, what we have seen is that super funds have reduced their exposure to innovation and particularly VC and PE over recent years. Members of the industry—the VC-PE sector—have told me that, in the last five years, the major super funds have not invested in a new VC fund over that period of time. So the super funds are investing in the ones they're used to, but they're not actually investing in the new innovation in the VC and PE area. I think this should be concerning us because who is funding innovation? I think these sorts of industries are perfect assets for super funds in the sense that they are long duration and need patient capital but also have the opportunity, with good ones, to earn really extraordinary returns. So they should be the place, but they're not currently. It's why I've been pushing—and I really respect and appreciate the Treasurer being open to looking at Your Future, Your Super and ASIC and at expanding ASIC's review of RG 97 to include funding for innovation. But I do think this is the stuff that we need to beware of in some of this. We are trying to protect consumers, but, if it ends up that we are just entrenching providers that do not really have to show their worth to consumers and that are not subject to strong competition, we will be doing a disservice to all the people who invest across our country in these superannuation funds. That is the piece that I think it is really critical for the government to be monitoring as it brings in these sorts of changes.

Finally, I urge the government to deal in good faith with the Senate inquiry process and commit to waiting for this review to take place before pushing this legislation through the Senate. I would actually say it would be great if the Senate inquiry could be done before this legislation is once again pushed through the House, because it is hard to vote on legislation without having the full information. But that is literally the modus operandi of this government.

I support the intent of this bill, and my feedback has been that the Assistant Treasurer has done a great job of engaging with industry and really being incredibly consultative. That doesn't surprise me at all, because I think that's been his approach across many different areas. But I do think there is a danger here, and I do think it's important to make sure that this bill does actually strengthen consumer outcomes and we don't lessen competition. We need to be very careful that this bill actually lives up to its title, which is improving choice in superannuation.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025—legislation that strengthens fairness, flexibility, and transparency across our superannuation and taxation frameworks. This Bill ensures that every Australian worker, no matter their industry, income, or employer, has genuine choice in how their retirement savings are managed and invested.

Superannuation is, at its heart, a promise—a promise that after decades of hard work, contributing and saving, every Australian can retire with dignity, independence, and financial security. It stands as one of the great achievements of modern Australia and one of Labor's proudest legacies. Yet as our economy and workforce evolve, so too must our super system. We must give workers greater flexibility, reduce duplication, and cut red tape while strengthening the safeguards that protect members' savings.

This Bill delivers on that commitment. It amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund process during employee onboarding, ensuring that workers can easily nominate their preferred fund when they start a new job. It further amends the Corporations Act 2001 to prohibit the advertising or promotion of specific superannuation products to new employees as part of that onboarding process—protecting workers from pressure or confusion at a time when they should simply be exercising informed choice.

These changes strengthen the right of employees to take their super fund with them—their fund for life—eliminating the problem of multiple accounts, duplicated fees, and unnecessary insurance costs. It also removes outdated clauses in industrial awards and enterprise agreements that restrict choice, ensuring that workers are never locked into underperforming or unsuitable default funds because of legacy arrangements.

Importantly, this reform recognises the role of employers. By streamlining processes through the Australian Taxation Office's existing digital infrastructure, employers will have a simpler, clearer system to manage superannuation contributions. For small and medium businesses, this means less paperwork, fewer administrative headaches, and greater compliance certainty. It's a balanced approach one that delivers employee empowerment without adding to employer burden.

The Bill also reinforces transparency and accountability within the superannuation sector. Funds will be required to give members more timely and accessible information about how their retirement savings are invested, what fees they're paying, and how their fund's returns compare to market benchmarks. A system built on openness and comparability helps Australians make informed decisions, holds funds to account, and lifts overall performance.

Deputy Speaker, the Bill extends beyond superannuation reform to include several other important, practical measures. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax and withholding tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries in recognition of their temporary operations in Australia—a standard practice for international sporting events that supports our reputation as a global host nation.

It also amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the new Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the elimination of double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance. This strengthens our international tax cooperation, promotes cross-border investment, and protects Australian and Portuguese businesses from being unfairly taxed twice on the same income.

Further, it updates the list of deductible gift recipients under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reflect charitable organisations and initiatives that continue to deliver public benefit across our communities—ensuring that worthy causes remain supported through the generosity of Australians.

Finally, it amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum producer rebate claimable by eligible wine producers from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year.

This provides tangible relief to small and medium winemakers, particularly in regional Australia, helping them reinvest, innovate, and remain competitive in both domestic and international markets.

Together, these complementary measures strengthen Australia's economic and policy framework—supporting worker choice, simplifying compliance, boosting transparency, promoting international cooperation, and backing local industry. They reflect an Albanese Labor Government committed to practical, balanced reform that benefits people, businesses, and the broader economy alike.

Deputy Speaker, this Bill is about more than technical amendments—it's about real outcomes for Australians. A young tradie no longer has to juggle multiple super accounts and can consolidate his savings across different employers. A nurse moving between hospitals can keep her trusted super fund. A local winemaker sees fairer support for their hard work. Even international sporting events and partnerships benefit from clearer, fairer tax arrangements that encourage investment and engagement.

These changes are introduced responsibly, with a transition period to allow employers, funds, and regulators time to adapt systems. The Treasury and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will continue working closely with industry, unions, and stakeholders to ensure smooth implementation. This consultative approach—deliberate, collaborative, and grounded in fairness—is how good policy is made.

Labor built Australia's superannuation system because we believe every worker deserves financial security in retirement—not just the wealthy or those with stable careers. From compulsory super to today's digital and governance reforms, we have continued to evolve a world-class system that safeguards the dignity of all Australians. With this Bill, we reaffirm that commitment.

Superannuation remains a powerful social and economic asset. Our $3.5 trillion national super pool doesn't just secure retirement; it underpins investment in infrastructure, innovation, and job creation—driving productivity and long-term national prosperity.

By making the system fairer, simpler, and more transparent, this Bill strengthens both individual outcomes and economic resilience.

When we get superannuation right, we don't just support retirees—we strengthen the entire economy. Trust is central to that success. Employers must trust that compliance is simple, and employees must trust that their savings are safe, performing, and working for them. This Bill builds that trust. It delivers choice without confusion, transparency without complexity, and progress without compromise.

Deputy Speaker, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is good, balanced policy—practical reform that delivers fairness, efficiency, and accountability. It ensures our superannuation system remains robust, our tax laws remain modern, and our workplaces, businesses, and communities remain supported for generations to come.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is another treasury laws amendment bill, and we have Labor Party government 101—make sure that it has a very impressive-sounding name. That has to be the first thing you get right. If they don't get the name right, there's actually nothing they can talk about, because the detail within the bill never lines up with what it says. We've got a bill that is about supporting choice in superannuation—sounds impressive. Everyone loves choice, except a bill like this narrows choice, and it conveniently narrows choice to those super funds that are industry funds that, purely by coincidence, happen to be connected to the union movement. Then the union movement happens to be connected to the ALP and the government and pulls the strings. It's all just a coincidence that this money cycles around, and the super supports the unions, and the unions bring members in and support the government, and then the government coincidentally does legislation that supports just those industry super funds. What did they say? Oh my God, what a coincidence! Was it Deidre Chambers, potentially? Anyway, we know how that one plays out. We see it all the time.

It goes to the next level of a name, and they've just had to sneak in—because you have to be a level of honest in these things—other measures. They just added other measures—very benign, very plain other measures that could be anything. And that is exactly what this bill does. There are no links and connections at all between anything in this bill. There are six schedules. We have talk about super. We're looking at wineries, which I will talk about in a moment. As the member for Casey, I'm lucky to represent the best wine region in the country. Some, myself included, would argue that it is the best wine region in the world, but I don't want to be that bold, so I'll stay with the best wine region in Australia. I know the member for Fadden agrees with me, because there are no wineries on the Gold Coast, so I've got at least one supporter there. The member for Riverina might have a disagreement with me. We'll take that up out of the chamber, but he will be very happy that he got a mention in this speech.

But we go from wineries to then the Rugby World Cup tax exemptions. I'm not sure of the link from wineries to Rugby World Cup tax exemptions. We're then looking at deductible gift recipient listings—charities with very important work. I'm not sure of the connection to superannuation, the Rugby World Cup or wineries. Those are all completely different issues that could be and should be individual bills that are dealt with on their own merit. Each schedule stands alone as a bill that is worthy of debate and that should be discussed, voted on and passed as individual measures so we can represent our communities fairly and make sure that we support what we can and oppose what we must as well, because there are some really terrible elements to this bill. As I talked about, it's that circle of convenience in super at the start. But this is what Labor does. They like to put all these measures together to force us as the opposition to vote on a whole bill. You don't have a choice to separate it out.

I want to talk specifically about the wine equalisation tax and make it clear for the record and for my community that we do support the government's proposal to increase the WET producer rebate. However, we do not support the moves to limit comparison of super funds and reduce consumer choice—as I said, driving those funds to the ALP, to the union movement and back again. We don't have a choice on how we vote. We have to vote collectively on this bill, so we will be opposing the bill in its full measure. But I absolutely support that. As I said, as the member representing Australia's finest wine region, I'm proud to stand here in support of the increase of the wine equalisation tax producer rebate. It's such an important initiative, particularly for those smaller wineries and cellar doors that need that tax to survive.

From 1 July this year, the rebate cap will be increased from $350,000 to $400,000 per financial year. I'm going to shock the minister opposite and congratulate the Albanese government on that move. When the government has good policy—which is very rare—I will support it, and I'll put it on the record. Congratulations on increasing the wine equalisation tax from $350,000 to $400,000. The Yarra Valley is home to over 80 cellar doors, many of which are small to medium family owned enterprises. I know, from speaking with local viticulturists, that many of these businesses have been squeezed in recent years by the bracket creep and the pressure of rising production costs compounded with the lack of demand in wines. By raising the cap, these wineries will be supported and encouraged to continue scaling and succeeding, allowing them to retain an additional $50,000 in cash flow to reinvest in their wineries and, so importantly, in local jobs and the local community. We must recognise that every bottle of locally grown wine that is sold at a Yarra Valley cellar door supports a network of regional and rural local jobs, from the winery hands and the winemakers to the hospitality staff to the chefs and the local tour operators.

I was lucky enough to work in the hospitality industry in my community. Unfortunately, that was about 20 to 25 years ago, but so many young people get their first opportunities in hospitality because of our wineries. According to the 2025 report by Wine Australia, grape growing, winemaking and wine related tourism contribute $51.3 billion to the Australian economy and support more than 200,000 jobs each year. By strengthening the financial viability of these wineries through this rebate increase, we are securing the future of regional towns in my community and in many communities across the country. This measure will help play a role to ensure that the Yarra Valley remains a vibrant, competitive and world renowned destination for generations to come, and I'm proud to always support my communities and always support programs and incentives that will allow them to continue to grow and flourish within our community.

Alice Jordan-Baird (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, brought forward by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, and I commend him for doing so. When I was 16 years old I worked in hospo. I was young, enthusiastic and excited to join the workforce and to work hard for my future. My boss signed me up to a dodgy traineeship. If I were a trainee, you see, he could pay me less, and he got away with it. I don't know whether there was malice or whether the employers in my establishment signed up all employees or just the young, enthusiastic and naive ones. I think it was just a program that, for my employers, was just the norm. What I felt at the time and what I know now is that it wasn't fair and it wasn't right.

This story is one I've told before in this chamber. That's because, for me, it was a really formative moment. I was young. It was the moment when I realised that employees aren't always treated fairly by their bosses and that an employer doesn't always have your best interests at heart, and it's when I learnt the importance of not just advocating for employees—yes, that's important too. I also learnt the value of actually having the right legislation and regulations set up and being adhered to so that these types of situations are prevented from even happening in the first place.

I'm proud to stand here today, because that is exactly what this legislation does. This bill is here to streamline the process for employees to choose a super fund when they start a new job. This is legislation to ban employers from advertising super fund products to new employees during their onboarding process. But it's also about so much more than that. This bill is about empowering employees to make informed choices about their super funds when they start a new job. It's about workers' rights and about creating those laws—the type of laws I could have benefited from at 16 years old—which protect hardworking Australians so they can secure their own futures. Taking advantage of employees who don't know any better, by compelling employees to make choices that are not in their best interests, is simply wrong. I know this, and we, as Labor, know this. We are the party that is grounded in advocating for and legislating to protect the rights of workers, and this bill is no exception to that.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act. This is the part about streamlining the process for choosing your super fund when being onboarded as a new employee. In 2021, a set of reforms—Your Future, Your Super—was introduced to improve the superannuation system. It was designed for a few reasons: to empower members and make it easier to choose a well-performing product that meets your needs; to hold funds to account for underperformance; and to increase transparency and accountability for how super funds use members' savings. It also introduced stapling. A stapled super fund is an existing super account linked, or stapled, to an individual employee, so it follows them as they change jobs. Having stapled funds reduces your account fees as it avoids new super accounts being opened every time you start a new job. This bill will build on those reforms. It will make it easier for employees to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job. This empowers employees by helping them to avoid accidentally paying double or triple fees, and this can save thousands of dollars.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exceptions. It's ridiculous that, when starting out in a new job, employees can have advertisements for super products targeted at them. Meanwhile, information about keeping their previous super account is not readily accessible. This is a key moment when employees engage with their superannuation, and they should be able to do so in an informed and safe way. A ban on advertising superannuation products to an employee, specifically at the point of employee onboarding, is really important.

These changes reinforce our government's commitment to supporting Aussies to make an informed choice about their super while providing strong consumer protections. We're protecting employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, because Aussies should be able to trust their employer and the super system we're all a part of. When you sign up to a new job, you're not always going to independently know all the fine details about all the available super funds and what's best to avoid, but that information should be accessible. Employees shouldn't be getting signed up to super funds that aren't necessarily right for them, just because their employer has compelled them to do so. And do you know what? Employees should be able to trust their employer to not push them into super funds that do not act in their best interests. They should be able to trust the system because the system should be working for them. It should be protecting them. If the system is, in fact, not protecting employees, then it's our duty as parliamentarians to change that. So that's what we're doing.

This bill will create those changes for employees right across the country, including in my own community in Melbourne's western suburbs. My electorate of Gorton is one of the fastest growing electorates in the country. The average age is 35. We are full of diverse, young, hardworking families—families who are setting up their children's futures and planning their own retirements. People in a good, hardworking community like mine don't deserve to be taken advantage of by their employers when they start a new job. They deserve to have transparency and proper access to information about their own super. They deserve to be empowered to make informed choices about their retirement savings, as do all Australians.

This bill is important for transparency, for employee empowerment and for strengthening our superannuation system, but it's by no means the only measure the Labor government is taking to ensure Aussies are earning more and keeping more of what they earn right up until retirement. We've passed payday super, a once-in-a-generation reform to fix unpaid super, because workers deserve to get paid their full entitlements and Australians deserve to retire with confidence and with financial security. The ATO estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22. That's $100 million every week that workers earned and never received. Thanks to this Labor government, from 1 July this year employers will be required to pay super at the same time as they pay wages, instead of paying it quarterly. This means that employees will receive their super in their funds within seven business days of payday and that workers will receive what they're legally owed.

The legislation we're debating here today complements those payday super reforms. That's because, by giving employees more timely and accurate information and details on superannuation, we're supporting their readiness for our payday super reforms. We're legislating these changes for workers because that's what Labor does. We are the champions of workers' rights, and we always have been.

I'm proud that this is not the first time that I've stood up in this chamber and talked about workers' rights, and that's because this is not the first bill that this Labor government has introduced to build better protections for workers. Late last year we passed Baby Priya's bill. Baby Priya's bill introduced a new principle into the Fair Work Act to protect families and employees. It means that, unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer funded paid parental leave cannot be cancelled if a child is stillborn or passes away. At the heart of Baby Priya's law are dignity, compassion and workers' rights. The same can be said of our changes to protect penalty and overtime rates. This was about safeguarding fundamental entitlements for around 2.6 million modern-award-reliant Australian workers.

And there's the legislation I haven't yet had the opportunity to talk about in the chamber because it was passed in the last term of parliament. I'm so glad that I have the opportunity to talk about it now. Our same job, same pay laws have seen thousands of workers receiving up to $60,000 extra in their pay packets each year, and our secure jobs, better pay laws were about modernising the bargaining system to protect better pay and conditions for workers. The right-to-disconnect laws have adapted Australia's workplaces to meet the needs of what a modern workplace actually looks like. Meanwhile, we've criminalised wage theft. These are all such important changes for Australian workers—changes that go alongside our reforms to the superannuation system.

Having lived in the Australia I know and love, I sometimes find it surprising to remind myself that, not so long ago, superannuation wasn't legislated. It's only through the work of legislated change and Labor governments that we have the workplace protections that exist today. Under the Keating government, Labor introduced compulsory super to Australia as part of the superannuation guarantee. Even the member for Riverina acknowledged the power of super in his contribution here this evening. Back then, we introduced compulsory super, and today we're strengthening it.

But this is nothing new for us. Labor emerged directly out of the union movements. It was industrial action that paved the way for the weekend. We introduced annual leave and sick leave. The Fair Work Act, unfair dismissal protections and our Paid Parental Leave scheme were all passed in the Rudd-Gillard years. And we've always championed gender equality. When we're talking about super, women really matter, because it's true women earn less and retire with less. The national gender pay gap is sitting at 11.5 per cent. Women are more likely to take significant breaks in their careers, putting them on the back foot when they re-enter the workforce. Women are less likely to be promoted into high-paying management roles, and women have less savings in their super when they retire. The gender super gap is about $50,000 for Australians nearing retirement—$50,000 less for women to live on in their retirement—because nurses, teachers, aged care workers and hairdressers are amongst those in casual and insecure work. Part of the issue is that those women in those fields aren't getting their fair share of super.

In Victoria, there is a 24 per cent gap between men's and women's super savings across all ages. But, for my electorate of Gorton, it's wider than even that. In Gorton, the gender super gap is sitting at 26 per cent, wider than the Victorian average and on par with the national average. This gap widens significantly as women approach retirement. The median man approaching retirement in Gorton has $181,000 in super. Compare this to the median woman. She's got $114,000 in super—37 per cent less. This is wider than both the Victorian and Australian averages by 33 per cent. That's why the changes that this Labor government has made to women's earnings and super are so important. We've introduced LISTO and expanded paid parental leave, and we've ensured that women are now earning super on top of their paid parental leave.

The low-income superannuation tax offset is an automatic tax rebate paid into the super accounts of low-income earners to offset some or all of the tax paid on their super contributions. You or your employer pay this 15 per cent of the pre-tax super contributions into your super fund, up to a maximum of $500, and it's designed to ensure that low-income earners generally don't pay more tax on their super contributions than on their take-home pay. We're increasing the LISTO by $300 to $800, and we're raising the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000. This measure is so important. It was about delivering a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, 60 per cent of whom are women. That's because women are among those low-income earners. LISTO is boosting the income of close to 8,000 people in my electorate, totalling $3 million across the electorate, and it's helping close the gender super gap.

To close that gap, we've also made significant changes to super when it comes to parental leave. You can be sure that this Labor government is working at closing that gender pay gap and gender super gap. This is what happens when we elect women: women's issues become the forefront of the government's agenda. I couldn't be prouder to be part of a Labor government made up of 57 per cent women, because, when we elect women, we legislate on women's issues only.

Only our government will protect Aussie super—because this bill is just one part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment for Aussies to earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well. I commend this bill to the House.

David Moncrieff (Hughes, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Superannuation plays such an important role in securing the financial wellbeing of Australians while also making a tremendous contribution to investment in the Australian economy. Superannuation has provided modern Australians with the financial independence that would have been unimaginable to any of the generations that preceded them. It's a system that has changed lives for the better and it's a system built by Labor.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 builds on that legacy and expands on the financial independence that the superannuation system has provided to modern Australia. The measures in this bill support Australians where they are in their lives, whether they're starting a new job, saving for retirement, running a small business, building a winery, hosting a global sporting event, investing across borders or donating to a cause they believe in.

On this side of the House, we believe Australians deserve the choice and the confidence to make economic decisions with fairness and transparency at the forefront. This is particularly felt when we look at superannuation. Superannuation is one of the great Australian reforms. It's a Labor reform. It was built by a Labor government in partnership with working people and, for more than three decades, it has quietly transformed retirement in this country. Labor always has been and always will be the party of superannuation because we understand what it represents. It is not just something people ignore when they're working. It represents dignity in retirement, the difference between scraping by and living with security after decades of hard work.

Let's be honest about the history of superannuation here. Those opposite opposed compulsory super at its creation. They delayed increases to the super guarantee. They described it as a burden. They tried to water it down. We lifted it to 12 per cent; they froze it. We legislated the objective of superannuation so it cannot be quietly redefined; they warned of catastrophe. We are paying super on paid parental leave so that women are not penalised in retirement for taking time out to raise children; they voted against it. So, when we speak about strengthening superannuation, we do so with credibility. This is not an afterthought for us. It is core to who we are, and this bill continues that work.

Think about the moment when someone starts a new job. It is exciting, but it can be stressful. There's paperwork and there are tax file numbers, bank details and emergency contacts. There are systems to log on to, there are forms to sign and somewhere in that process is a choice about super. In that moment, superannuation is often reduced to a tick box—a choice that compounds over 10, 20 or 40 years, a choice that can mean the difference between security and stress in retirement.

Under earlier reforms, stapling was introduced so that workers would remain connected to their existing super fund when they moved jobs, because for too long every time Australians moved jobs they automatically ended up with a brand new super account. That was an important step. It reduced the explosion of unintended duplicate accounts that were eating away at retirement savings through multiple sets of fees and insurance premiums. But the system can work better.

Right now, too often, people are asked to choose a fund without clearly seeing their existing one in front of them, or they are presented with options in a way that is not neutral. We know that we can do better to streamline the choice-of-fund process, with changes like the one in schedule 1 of this bill, which allows employers or their onboarding providers to request an employee's stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the process. That means that, when a worker is completing their onboarding, they can see their existing fund details clearly and make an informed choice—not a rushed choice, not a choice made in confusion but an informed choice—with all the relevant information available.

Let's be clear: choice remains. Workers can choose any eligible fund. We are ensuring that that choice is based on transparency, not confusion, because superannuation is not a retail impulse purchase; it's a lifetime investment. A few percentage points in fees compounded over decades can mean tens of thousands of dollars in retirement.

During a review of earlier reforms, it was discovered that some onboarding software providers were being paid to promote specific super products to new employees during the onboarding process, sometimes products linked to the software provider itself. Reflect on that. A worker is starting a new job, they're required to provide their details, they are navigating unfamiliar systems and, in that moment, they are showed paid promotions for superannuation products. That's not a level playing field. That's not informed consent. That is commercial influence at one of the most vulnerable points in the process.

Superannuation is not a streaming service. It's not something that should be marketed to someone while they are navigating the first day of employment, so we're putting a stop to it. This bill introduces a targeted ban on superannuation advertising during onboarding. It's the end of stealth marketing at the point of employment. It's the end of commercial steering disguised as administration. Employees will see their stapled fund and they will still see the employer default fund. Certain MySuper products can be displayed if they pass the annual performance test, are advertised by an unrelated party and are accompanied by clear disclosures.

When a worker is providing their super details to an employer, that space should be free from inappropriate influence. That is what it means to govern in the public interest. Last year, this parliament passed the payday super legislation. That reform is a once-in-a-generation change to fix unpaid super. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that $5.2 billion in super went unpaid in 2021-22. That is $100 million every single week that workers earned but never received. Let's reflect on that. Every week, $100 million of Australians' retirement savings was simply not paid out.

Unpaid super disproportionately affects younger workers and those in insecure work. Casual employees, part-time workers, people in industries with high turnover—these are Australians who can least afford to miss out on retirement savings. In a typical ATO investigation of an unpaid super case, a worker has missed out on nearly two years of contributions. For an average 35-year-old, failing to recover that money could reduce their retirement savings by around $32,000 in today's money. If an employer goes bust and super is never recovered, the impact is even worse. For that same 35-year-old, their retirement balance could be more than $90,000 worse off in today's money. That's not an abstract concept; that is real money. It could be a future home deposit. It could be someone's medical costs. It could be someone's dignity in old age.

From 1 July 2026, under payday super, employers will be required to pay super at the same time as wages, rather than quarterly. Super contributions must be received by the employee's fund within seven business days of payday. That change does two things: it makes it easier for employees to track their super in real time and it allows the ATO to detect missed payments earlier, before debts spiral out of control and become unrecoverable. The legislation also strengthens the super guarantee charge. Under the new framework, if an employer fails to pay super in full and on time, the charge applies for each payday missed. It includes notional earnings, compensating employees for investment returns they missed out on due to late payment. It includes an administrative uplift, reflecting the cost of enforcement and incentivising voluntary rectification, with reductions available for employers who come forward and have a good compliance history. It includes choice loading—an additional penalty if the employer fails to pay into the employee's chosen fund. For those who persistently fail to pay, even after the ATO has raised a charge, penalties of up to 50 per cent of the unpaid amount can apply. These are serious consequences because unpaid super is a serious issue. Super is workers' money, and under this government we are making sure that it is paid on time every time.

These reforms do not stand alone. They sit alongside the expansion of the performance test, from around 80 products to more than 800, driving accountability and transparency across the system. They sit alongside the Financial Accountability Regime and stronger reporting standards. They sit alongside paying super on paid parental leave. Piece by piece, reform by reform, we are strengthening this system, and we do so because we understand something fundamental: superannuation is deferred wages. It's not a gift from the government. It's not a bonus from employers. It belongs to the people who earned it, and it deserves to be protected as fiercely as wages in a pay packet.

When you look at schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, alongside payday super, a clear theme emerges. We are strengthening super at the point of choice and at the point of payment. We are protecting workers when they start a job and we are protecting them when they get paid. For small businesses across communities like mine in southern Sydney, certainty and clarity now reduce headaches with compliance later.

These reforms provide the right information at the right time. They are sensible, modern changes that reduce friction and help ensure our superannuation system runs smoothly for employers and employees alike. This is what responsible economic management looks like. Each reform strengthens the system. Each reform protects workers. Each reform reflects a simple belief that retirement security is not a luxury; it is a right earned through hard work. It is about understanding that fairness and growth are not opposing forces; they are mutually reinforcing. Those opposite will look at superannuation and see a cost to the system. We look at it and see dignity. They look at consumer protections and see regulation. We see we look at them and see fairness. They will look at global events and see tax concessions. We look at them and see jobs, participation and national pride.

This bill is another step in building an economy that rewards work, protects savings and positions Australia confidently on the global stage. Australians want to know that when they work hard, their retirement savings are protected. They want to know that the system is not quietly chipping away at their balance through unnecessary duplication. They want to know that when they start a new job, they are not being funnelled into a product because someone paid for placement in an onboarding portal. They want fairness. They want transparency. They want confidence. This bill delivers that. It strengthens the moment of choice, it protects the integrity of the process and it reinforces a reform agenda that puts workers first.

Superannuation is one of the great Australian achievements. It did not happen by accident. It happened because a Labor government believed that working people deserved more than the bare minimum in retirement. We are determined to ensure that that belief continues to shape policy, protect workers and strengthen retirement security for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Madonna Jarrett (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill introduces important reforms to superannuation and tax laws to implement our election commitments, streamline systems and processes, and reduce compliance costs for taxpayers. Let's start with super. Labor is the party of superannuation. Why? Because Labor is the party for workers.

Let's look at some history. Superannuation in Australia began as a limited benefit salary for white-collar workers, gradually expanding through the union negotiated industrial awards until the early 1980s. A major shift occurred in 1983 with the support of the Labor government under the leadership of Bob Hawke. That government was an architect and proponent of the Prices and Incomes Accord, which exchanged national wage rises for a three per cent superannuation contribution, laying the foundations for universal coverage.

The most significant reform followed in 1992, under the Keating Labor government. That recognised our ageing population and the unaffordable strain the growing age pension payments would have on the Australian economy. As a result, the superannuation guarantee, a compulsory employer contribution, was introduced. Starting at three per cent, it became part of a three-pillar retirement income system. Although Keating proposed compulsory employee contributions from 1997, this element was cancelled by the Howard Liberal government.

Subsequent governments built on or altered these foundations. The Howard government allowed the employer super guarantee rate to rise to nine per cent in 2003, and restricted super guarantee calculations to ordinary time earnings. It was the Rudd-Gillard government, a Labor government, that later legislated to increase the guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent between 2015 and 2019. But, as history says, it was the Abbott government, a Liberal government, that deferred these increases by six years, pushing the commencement to 2021. These deferrals and reversals are typical of the coalition, who have a track record of not supporting workers.

More recently, the super guarantee rate reached 10½ per cent in 2022. Guess who was in government then? Yes, the Albanese Labor government. It's reached 12 per cent, supported by reforms aimed at improving fund portability and performance. This Labor government has also legislated that superannuation be applied to government paid parental leave.

Debate interrupted.