Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of Senator Ciccone, I withdraw the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet No. 8769. One concern raised yesterday regarding the superannuation bill was the emphasis of the risk the legislation poses to young people in high-risk occupations. It is a basic expectation that all Australian workers can have a safe workplace and come home uninjured and unharmed from a day's work. As a proud member of the union movement and as someone who for 30 years has represented workers' fight for fair pay, conditions and safety standards, I know how important to working people protecting and uplifting working people's rights is. Workers in the transport industry, to which I have devoted much of my working life, work in one of the most dangerous industries, with 10 times the number of workplace deaths than the average across all industries.

Yesterday there were some questions raised about the ACTU figures, about the number of people who are injured. It wasn't raised from the point of view that the figures were wrong; it was raised for the fact that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had a view about it. It was an interesting debate last night. The ACTU recorded, between 2003 and 2016, more than 3,400 workers losing their lives on their job. Of those, close to 10 per cent were under the age of 25.

This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019, would remove default superannuation for workers under 25. Some in government seem to think workers under 25 are less likely to have dependants and so insurance is less valuable for them. They also seem to think because workers are under 25, they're less likely to draw on disability insurance, that they don't need it. It's a ludicrous situation. They're talking about young construction workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, forestry and farm workers, prison officers, nurses and healthcare workers. All those workers have a higher risk of suffering a workplace injury; they are at a higher risk of dying on the job. More than 27 per cent under the age of 25 are in a high-risk job such as these. Insurance has real value for them, and real value for their dependent families, many of whom will have the economic burden—and the family and emotional burden—of caring for those who have been injured.

It has been suggested that if insurance is important to these individuals then they could seek individual cover themselves rather than relying on the default cover provided by their super funds. The truth is 18- to 25-year-olds are known for sensible risk mismanagement. The question of life insurance and the risk of suffering an accident at work or on the roads isn't front of mind for young people who are starting out in life. An example of that, of how the government has no understanding of under-25s, is the food service delivery industry, where workers are being regularly ripped off. They not only don't have superannuation and insurance; they also don't have minimum rights, because this government has no serious intention of making sure that under-25s have an opportunity to turn around and get a valuable paid job with dignity, respect, insurance and superannuation.

I'll give a recent example, of someone in Perth. A female Uber Eats cyclist's delivery trips in Perth's east ended in a nightmare when she was hit by a car, trapped and dragged along the road for 100 metres. Ms Morgado, 23, was cycling in Carlisle at about 9 pm on 31 March when she was struck by a Mitsubishi Pajero near the roundabout at the junction of Bishopsgate Street and Oats Street. A police spokesman said that Ms Morgado was trapped underneath the Pajero and dragged 100 metres. She received extensive injuries, including severe burns and lacerations to her arms, hands and face. The driver failed to stop, leaving the cyclist shocked and injured. Following police inquiries, an 86-year-old Carlisle man was charged, but for poor Ms Morgado it's no superannuation, no insurance and a government who doesn't care.

Those opposite are completely out of touch with how we best represent and best protect our most innocent youth in the workplace in our society. They don't have an understanding of how to protect people. Another good example is of a worker, Mr Klooger, who fought for these same workers in food delivery to get the right of superannuation and, yes, insurance, in what is a highly dangerous industry. Mr Klooger was terminated because he agitated for public complaint about aspects of the rates paid by Foodora to delivery riders and drivers. He also set up an online chatroom over WhatsApp which had more than 250 riders as its members. They used the platform to discuss the company's low pay, working conditions and lack of superannuation.

The government sits on its hands. It has no policy, no strategy to turn around and protect those workers in our society that are in a situation where they don't have superannuation, don't have insurance and, as you've seen in those two examples, are certainly poorly paid. In Mr Klooger's case, he was paid as little as $14 an hour. This is a government that has no connection with what young people under the age of 25 are receiving and suffering and the sorts of challenges they have. To sit and hear lectures from the government about how they're looking after the youth—well, if you want to start looking after the youth, start moving forward on the right sorts of entitlements for food delivery workers, for Uber drivers, for people in the rideshare industry. These people have been consistently and constantly ripped off by your buddies. I say 'your buddies', because you're doing nothing about it. The government has called this 'putting members' interests first'—this constant Orwellian language that they keep coming up with. Put Ms Morgado and Mr Klooger first. Put thousands of workers who are under 25 who are being ripped off first. Give them rights, give them superannuation and, certainly, give them insurance.

We've seen from the Liberal Party the novelty in acknowledging that working Australians have a legitimate interest in superannuation, let alone that those members' interests should be put first. Close to 24 years ago to the day, the then member for Warringah, Mr Tony Abbott, told parliament on 25 September:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people … The government is making us worse off now so that it will be better off in the future.

Almost 20 years on, to the month, the Abbott government struck a deal with the Palmer United Party to freeze compulsory superannuation contributions at 9.5 per cent for seven years. That hurt young people. Put members' interests first. Put under-25s' interests first. Put the community's interests first. The Liberal Party's war on superannuation is not so much in the past. When the legislation was up for debate in the other place, Liberal members of parliament were putting the case that we should cancel those delayed superannuation increases. These are the increases which are supposed to be guaranteed by legislation and due to take place.

We heard Senator Bragg use his maiden speech in this chamber to call for superannuation to be voluntary for low-income earners, just like insurance for under-25s. The Liberal Party seem to think that the only way to increase the wages for Australians is to slash their entitlements for retirement. The Liberal Party don't have a wages policy, they don't have a plan on how to stimulate the economy for growth and prosperity, they don't have an energy policy and they don't have a plan to govern. So what do they do? They fall back on attacking workers rights yet again. How about they start doing an 'ensuring company integrity' bill and start making sure these companies that are stealing from workers are held to account in a proper and fit way and, most importantly, that there is the opportunity for these workers to receive superannuation—absolutely clearly defined that contract workers, workers that are contractors and employees, have rights and insurance. Why don't they start saying that the real challenge we have on wages stagnation is that they haven't got a policy on how to give people rights in their workplace, rather than turning around with Orwellian language and a policy that steals from working people and people under the age of 25 and puts them in a situation of destitution for the rest of their lives and, of course, puts a financial burden on their families and loved ones?

It was Labor that introduced compulsory superannuation and Labor that defended it from the coalition's attempts to undermine it universally. That is because we believe that every Australian deserves to retire with dignity and independence, and our superannuation system is critical to that. But it is critical to that for all Australians. It's critical to that as a matter of proper government policy. It's critical to that for under-25s and many of those thousands of workers at the moment. In the case I raised in regard to Ms Morgado, there is a call-out from people raising money online for her through Megaphone, a workplace activist group within Victoria. We have to go out with a begging bowl because the government won't legislate protections for working people. This is a government that sits on its hands whilst the Reserve Bank tells it that it needs to be stimulating wage increases. It is a government that has failed to turn around and have policies that can make a difference for all.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those senators who have contributed to this debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.