Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

What we've just seen is the Labor Party, supposedly the party of the worker, teaming up with the coalition to block young people under the age of 18, who show up and do the same work as an adult, from getting super. Well done, Labor. Shame on you. The Greens support payday super. We believe that workers should be paid at the same time as their wages; that is not in question here. What is clear is that Labor has chosen, today, to leave a huge injustice in place for people under the age of 18. Labor had the opportunity today to make sure that young people get the super that they deserve.

Thousands upon thousands of Australians are retiring with not enough super. Heaven knows they need it, because the reforms that the government's put in place in relation to aged care means they're going to need money to look after themselves in their old age. Yet, under these regulations, 515,000 young workers—workers who are stacking shelves in our supermarkets; workers who are making fast food, in places like McDonald's, and making coffees and cleaning tables—are going to be denied superannuation simply because they're under 18 and they work fewer than 30 hours a week, and because Labor has decided to side with the coalition to stop them from getting what they deserve.

Last year alone, $415 million in super contributions were denied to the young people of this country. This is the Labor Party that tells us that they care about intergenerational inequity. Well, put your money where your mouth is. If you really care about generational inequality, here's a really simple thing you can do: let people under the age of 18 get the super that they deserve.

People who are under 17 can work hard; they can be asked to pay tax; they contribute to their workplaces and they contribute to their economy; but, when it comes to retirement savings, Labor is saying, 'That doesn't count.' That is such a double standard—500,000 young Australians missing out on super because Labor has decided to team up with the coalition to stop them. That's pretty much every young person in this country under the age of 18 who works, because 93 per cent of young people who work do less than 30 hours a week, so they are going to be caught by this provision. It's not a small carve-out and it's not a technical anomaly; it's the rule, that Labor has just done a deal with the coalition to keep, for virtually every young person in the country.

I think we need to be really clear about who is going to benefit from this: not young people, but the big corporations who employ them—big corporations like Coles, who made just over $1 billion in profit; companies like Woolworths, that banked $1.38 billion in profit. There was $600 million in profit for Chemist Warehouse, and $2.9 billion for Wesfarmers, which owns Kmart and Target. And McDonald's global profits exceeded $13 billion.

So, once again, Labor talks the talk out there—says that it cares about intergenerational inequality; says that it cares about helping workers—and then sides with big corporations to let them get away scot-free from paying their fair share of super to young people under the age of 18. Shame on you!

These are some of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the country. They can afford to pay super to young people. Yet, for some reason—who knows why—Labor has decided to let them off the hook. The reason that many companies choose not to follow the law and pay super is because Labor lets them off the hook. We know that some are already paying: Bunnings, Aldi, JB Hi-Fi, Priceline—they are doing the right thing and paying super to young people under the age of 18. But there are many who are not: Hungry Jack's; McDonald's; Coles; Woolworths; Chemist Warehouse. Labor could have fixed that today, but, instead, it has sided with the coalition and done a deal to deny young people under the age of 30 payment of their super. This is the party that says it cares about intergenerational inequality and says it cares about the worker—well, only some workers, and not if they're under 18.

The SDA's submission provided testimony from young workers around this pay discrimination. For example, they said:

Sarah is 18 and has been working since she was 15. She works at a discount department. $3,000 is what Sarah's super balance could have exceeded by now if contributions had been paid while she was under 18, nearly three times what she has now.

When she was asked how she felt about that, Sarah said: 'Not good.' She said:

That is a lot of money [unpaid] and I'm doing the same work That's just not fair.

Well, everyone, Labor—the supposed party of fairness, the supposed party of the fair go, the supposed party of the worker, the party who supposedly want to deal with intergenerational inequality—just stopped young people under 18 getting super in their pay. Shame on you.