Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill contains several sensible measures which the coalition will be supporting, and I will outline those measures here today. But it also contains provisions that risk weakening competition in superannuation and using the tax system to subsidise divisive political advocacy that has already failed the test of our courts. For that reason, this legislation requires significant changes that we trust the Senate will properly consider through the Committee of the Whole stage, but I will outline the intent of those amendments in my contribution here today.

There are six schedules in this bill, and some—as I said—are entirely reasonable. Schedule 3 provides tax exemptions associated with Australia hosting the Rugby World Cup, and that is standard practice when Australia hosts major international sporting events and is something that the coalition would support. Schedule 4 implements the Australia-Portugal tax treaty. Again, this is a very routine measure in such circumstances, designed to prevent double taxation and strengthen economic cooperation, and, again, the coalition will be supporting this schedule. Schedule 6 increases the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap, which will provide additional support to Australian wine producers. Australia's wine producers deserve more support, especially with the cost of living rising under this government. As a Tasmanian, I've spoken many times in this place about my fondness for our Tasmanian wine industry and, indeed, our national wine industry, and I'm very glad that the coalition will be supporting these changes to the WET under this bill.

But, unfortunately, as is often the case for these TLA bills, the government has chosen to bundle these very commonsense provisions that I've just outlined in with far more contentious provisions that the coalition finds problematic. These are the provisions which require closer scrutiny.

Superannuation is one of the most significant economic reforms in Australia's history. Australians now have more than $4 trillion saved for retirement. That figure is projected to reach $5 trillion by the end of this decade. Superannuation shouldn't be a political plaything. It supports the retirement incomes of millions of Australians and underpins investment across the Australian economy. But that system only works if Australians trust the government to remember that superannuation is Australians' money—it's not the government's money, it's not Labor's money, it's not even the money of the big super funds that manage that money nor does it belong to any bureaucrats. But, too often, this Labor government approaches superannuation differently. Too often, the government treats super as a large pool of capital that they can reshape, redirect control of and, of course, tax when their spending is out of control. Further, rather than strengthening competition in superannuation, as the name of the bill purports to do, this government repeatedly introduces measures that entrench the dominance of the largest funds and limits the ways that Australians can engage with their own retirement savings. It is that concern for the coalition that sits at the heart of schedules 1 and 2 of this bill.

As I said, the government has titled this bill as though it's 'supporting choice in superannuation', but this title could be straight from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four because, in reality, those provisions restrict how superannuation products can be presented to employees, thus denying choice. The onboarding process is often the only time that many Australians actively review their superannuation arrangements. It is one of the few moments when workers pause and ask simple questions: Is my fund performing well? Are the fees reasonable? Should I consider another option? Limiting the information available at that moment reduces the ability to compare and weakens competition across the system, so the parliament should be very sceptical of any moves to do this.

As I have foreshadowed, the coalition does support some aspects of the government's proposal. For example, it makes sense that funds promoted during onboarding should be funds that have passed the latest performance test. We agree with that aspect of this schedule. The performance test, indeed, was a coalition reform, and it has played an important role in protecting Australians from persistent superannuation fund underperformance. It should do so during employee onboarding.

But the system proposed in this bill contains a serious flaw. Under the bill, employers and the digital service providers that they use need to receive from the Australian Taxation Office information about an employee's stapled fund, or no options other than the employer's default fund can be shown. The government has said this is necessary to reduce duplicate accounts, and we would certainly support measures to reduce unintentional duplicate accounts with duplicate fees.

For this to work, the entire framework relies on the ATO being able to reliably retrieve stapled fund information, and there was evidence presented to the Senate inquiry into this bill which demonstrated that right now they can't. The government is merely hoping that the ATO will be ready in three months time. But all of this is happening at the same time that the ATO is also being asked to implement payday super, administer the new super tax changes and deliver on a large range of other reforms. Onboarding and employment software providers including SuperAPI, MYOB and Employment Hero told the committee inquiry into this bill that stapled fund retrieval currently only works around 55 to 80 per cent of the time, and that means that, in a significant number of cases, the system simply will not return a stapled fund.

Under this legislation, what happens when the ATO's stapled fund system doesn't work? Well, employees may only be shown the employer's default fund. This is, of course, great news for the largest established Labor aligned superannuation industry, but what it will mean is that a system that is designed to reduce duplicate super accounts will actually result in more of them—more duplicate accounts, more fees and worse outcomes for workers. This isn't simply some sort of ideological concern; this is a practical risk identified by the very businesses responsible for operating the onboarding systems the government will be relying on through their ongoing consultations with the ATO.

For these reasons, we have serious concerns about how these provisions will operate in practice, particularly in relation to employee choice, duplicate accounts, system reliability and transparency. We will therefore be moving amendments in the committee stage to address these concerns and to ensure that the framework is workable before it takes effect, and I certainly hope that this chamber will be supportive of those amendments. They are sensible safeguards for a system that will affect millions of workers and employers. It will influence how Australians choose their superannuation for years to come, and it could mean the difference between, on the one hand, higher fees and multiple accounts and, on the other, lower fees and better outcomes.

Finally, I want to turn to schedule 5, which deals with new deductible gift recipient listings, also called DGR listings. This bill proposes to grant a specific DGR listing to Equality Australia for gifts made after 30 June 2025 and before 1 July 2030. Equality Australia is currently registered as a charity with the ACNC under the subtype of 'Advancing public debate'. But, importantly, this is not an organisation that the regulator or courts have found to be eligible for public benevolent institution status. In fact, the ACNC refused Equality Australia's PBI application. That refusal was then upheld in the AAT and again by the Full Federal Court. Those decisions were clear in their reasoning: Equality Australia is not principally engaged in direct relief of disadvantage.

This matters because DGR status isn't a symbolic label; it is a taxpayer funded financial benefit. It makes donations tax deductible. It is in every practical sense a public subsidy, and, when parliament grants a DGR listing to an organisation, we are making an explicit judgement about the suitability of that organisation to receive this subsidy. It is therefore reasonable, and indeed necessary, for parliament to be incredibly cautious when the government asks us to extend special tax treatment to an organisation that is engaged in active and contested political advocacy, particularly when Australia's charity regulator and the courts have already considered that same organisation's activities in detail and declined to elevate it into a higher benefit charitable category.

There is no doubt that Equality Australia engages in political advocacy. The organisation is heavily involved in campaigning against the sex based rights of women and is in favour of sex ID laws which further erode those rights. Let's be very clear: the debate around these issues is not one where government should be picking a winner by selectively applying a tax advantage to one side and not the other. That is exactly why Australia has a set of principled, well-established DGR categories—so that eligibility for taxpayer support is based on mutual, purpose driven criteria, not political preference or alignment with the government's ideological agenda. The government's proposal in this schedule departs from that very principle. It is asking the parliament to elevate a specific advocacy organisation above others, despite the fact that the regulator and the courts have determined that it does not meet the relevant high standard. It is utterly inappropriate for our DGR framework to reward favoured advocacy groups while excluding others.

For all these reasons, the coalition will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to remove Equality Australia from the list of organisations receiving DGR status. Australians expect DGR status to be reserved for organisations that meet the highest standards of scrutiny. They expect it to be applied consistently, fairly and without political favour. They expect parliament to protect the integrity of that system, not undermine it by carving out special treatment for an advocacy organisation simply because the government happens to agree with its platform. With this amendment in the committee stage, this is what the coalition intends to do.

In conclusion, this bill contains measures that the coalition supports, and I've outlined these here today. But it also contains provisions that raises serious concerns about competition and choice in superannuation and about the proper use of our DGR framework. Those concerns should be addressed, and we will be pursuing them in the committee stage. Australians deserve a superannuation system built on choice, competition and trust, and they deserve confidence that the taxpayer supported gift recipient status is reserved for organisations that meet the highest standards of scrutiny.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator Chandler that superannuation is one of the great economic triumphs of our country and should not be politicised. Labor is the party of superannuation, and this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, is another step in strengthening a system that delivers on its purpose of providing income for everyday Australians for a dignified retirement.

In 2022-23, a review of the Your Future, Your Super reforms found that employee onboarding software providers were being paid to advertise superannuation products, particularly products associated with the software provider. Some of this activity led to suboptimal outcomes for workers. The legislation before us today will introduce a framework around when and how superannuation fund products can be advertised to employees during the onboarding process to protect workers rights.

Starting a new job is one of the few times many people pause and think about their superannuation. It is not the time for organisations to manipulate the system for paid advertising and business development at the cost of working Australians. This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during an employee onboarding.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exceptions. Where an onboarding platform chooses to advertise, it will be required to display an employee's stapled fund, where one exists. Products that can be advertised will be limited to the employee's stapled fund, the employer's default fund and MySuper products that have passed the most recent annual performance test.

To be advertised during onboarding, a MySuper product must have passed the annual superannuation performance test and the person advertising the product must not be related to the fund offering the product. The organisation advertising the MySuper product must have requested an employee stapled fund and provided those details to the employee, should they be available. Any advertisement must also be accompanied by clear and unambiguous disclosures. This is particularly important for workers in high-risk industries, where the consequences of losing insurance can be serious. The 'dangerous occupation' exception allows super funds to elect that members employed in certain high-risk occupations will be provided with insurance—including death, total and permanent disability, and income protection insurance—automatically, regardless of their age or account balance. The purpose of this exception is simple—to make sure that workers in dangerous industries are not left without cover at the point they need it most, particularly young workers and new starters.

That is why choice must be informed choice. If information is unclear, incomplete or presented in a way designed to steer people through marketing tactics, then the system is not supporting genuine choice; it is undermining it. The way choices are framed matters. Ensuring workers receive clear, accurate information helps them make decisions that will genuinely protect their retirement savings and their insurance cover. These safeguards are not theoretical concerns; they reflect the real experiences of workers and the risks they face on the job every day. I want to acknowledge the important advocacy of the ACTU and the Electrical Trades Union, who have consistently highlighted the importance of protecting insurance cover for workers in dangerous occupations.

The proposed changes would also reduce needless duplicate super accounts, which would save Australians from paying multiple sets of fees and help to boost their consolidated investment returns, in line with the broader objectives of super. They would protect employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, open appropriate products for their circumstances or unintentionally create duplicate accounts. These are important consumer protection reforms which will better safeguard Australians from conflicted sales practices and employee onboarding platforms and further strengthen the payday super reforms.

I'll make a couple of comments just briefly on stapling. Stapling was introduced as part of the Your Future, Your Super reforms in 2021, alongside the annual performance test. Stapling was incorporated to help prevent employees from unintentionally opening new accounts every time they start a new job. A stapled fund is an existing super account that is linked or stapled to an individual employee so it follows them as they change jobs. This helps to reduce fees and avoid new super accounts being opened every time someone starts a new job. Having super in just one account can also help grow a person's investment returns faster. The number of super accounts fell from around 27.4 million in 2019 to about 24.8 million in 2025. The number of Australians who have a single superannuation account increased from 74 per cent in 2020 to 78 per cent in 2024. Before stapling, it was estimated that about 850,000 duplicate accounts were created each year as workers moved between jobs. This bill will assist in this important protection for workers. Treasury estimates a full ban on onboarding advertising could save members between $17 million and $117 million a year from avoiding underperforming products plus additional savings from $3.3 million to $56 million a year from fees saved on having duplicate accounts.

To demonstrate the danger for workers from a practical perspective, I want to highlight a case study that was reported in the AFR in 2023. Accounting software giant MYOB were accused of funnelling workers into an underperforming super fund, Slate Super, through tricky advertising on their digital onboarding platform. Workers' current funds were often buried in the fine print, whereas their feature funds, who were paying for advertising, had clear prominence. Unfortunately, not everyone gets as excited about superannuation as those of us here in the chamber. Most workers probably don't delve into the detail and fine print, especially at the exciting time of starting a new job. These so-called choices without proper analysis do not give workers meaningful choice in their superannuation fund or provide comparable information, which can clearly lead to outcomes that are not in the best financial interests of the consumer.

Slate Super returned 13.44 per cent in its highest growth fund compared with an industry average of 21.8 per cent. That's more than eight per cent less. Its fees were also significantly higher than those of many other funds. A member with a $50,000 balance would pay $645 in fees annually compared with $500 on average. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that this legislation seeks to curb. Signing up to a product like this could substantially disadvantage some workers and leave them with thousands less in their retirement many years later.

Australians deserve protection from inappropriate advertising when they provide their superannuation details to an employer during the onboarding process. This is a key moment for employees, and they should be able to engage with their super in a safe and informed way, free from inappropriate pressure or product promotion. Workers should be confident, when they start a new job, that there are strong guardrails to protect their interests at the point of employee onboarding, to ensure they are not inadvertently being moved into a poorer performing super fund.

In closing, I wanted to make some comments that pick up on Senator Chandler's remarks. I note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee did inquire into this legislation and recommended that the bill be passed. The coalition senators' dissenting report and the comments we heard just a moment ago said that the bill is Orwellian in suggesting that these restrictions improve choice. The suggestion that sensible safeguards somehow undermine choice misunderstands how the super system works in reality. Choice is meaningful only when it is exercised in an environment that is transparent, fair and free from pressure or misinformation. A choice that guides Australians unknowingly to a decision that leaves them worse off is no choice at all.

Australians can only make informed decisions about their retirement savings when the system operates with integrity. This is what this legislation is designed to do. The real risk to choice arises when people are steered into decisions without adequate information or when commercial interests dominate the process. Sensible guardrails ensure that the decision about where your super goes remains genuinely yours. Protecting the integrity of the decision-making process is not Orwellian; it is a basic responsibility when dealing with a system that manages trillions of dollars of Australians' retirement savings. Again, I would like to thank those stakeholders who submitted to the inquiry, for your submissions and insights, and, more broadly, thank the many organisations who consistently engage in the work to continue to maintain the integrity and fairness of our superannuation system.

In closing, this legislation is another step in the great Labor legacy that is superannuation, a legacy that has completely transformed the lives of retired working people over just one generation. Reforms like this will ensure that the objective of superannuation—that is, a dignified retirement—is not eroded as the system matures. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I offer on behalf of the Australian Greens our support for this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill. As colleagues would know, schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to limit advertising of superannuation funds, during employee onboarding, to APRA regulated funds. This is an important reform that will protect workers from being influenced to join unsuitable superannuation products when they commence a new job.

This has been more delayed than it needed to be. Last year, Labor failed to include these changes as part of the payday superannuation bill, despite these changes being part of the exposure draft of that bill. We moved a second reading amendment to that legislation here in the Senate and obtained the government's support for that amendment, which called on Labor to honour their previous commitment to introduce legislation to regulate the advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding, commencing on 1 July this year. So we are pleased that we are here debating this today. We acknowledge particularly the Super Members Council and Super Consumers Australia, who have fought the good fight and kept the pressure on Labor to introduce these reforms.

I want to speak quickly about some of the amendments that have been circulated in relation to this legislation—in particular to schedule 5, which grants DGR status to several organisations. The Greens are going to support that provision, but I want to make the point that we need to see some broader reforms to deductible gift recipient eligibility. I want to commend my colleague Senator Faruqi for her advocacy in this space and for the amendments that she has circulated in relation to that schedule.

The amendments on sheet 3646 remove DGR status for organisations that have supported in any way, directly or indirectly, an illegal occupation. We know, for example, that there are Zionist charities in Australia with DGR status who are funnelling funds that they've raised in this country back to the IDF and back to illegal settlements in places like the West Bank. It is beyond outrageous that the Australian taxpayer is effectively subsidising funds that are being sent back to the IDF, which is currently engaged in a genocide in Gaza and which is currently perpetrating an illegal war against Iran. There is simply no argument for the Australian taxpayer to be indirectly funding those activities by offering DGR status to a group raising money here and funnelling the money back to the IDF and to illegal settlements in the West Bank.

I don't expect the government to support this amendment because—let's face it—Labor's cheering on an illegal war. It was the first government in the world to come out and cheer on Israel and the United States in their illegal war against Iran. But this amendment does give effect to Australia's international obligations—notably its obligations to the International Court of Justice, which in 2024 called on party states, including Australia, to 'prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory'. So that is what the Greens are doing today. We've been forced to step up and do this because of the vacuum left by Labor, which is refusing to act in accordance with this country's international obligations—specifically, to the International Court of Justice.

The amendments on sheet 3645, in Senator Faruqi's name, seek to widen DGR status eligibility to include animal welfare advocacy organisations. The critical issue here is that the ATO's definition of 'animal welfare' is too narrow, and, as a result, many important areas of animal welfare work are excluded. They're not captured by that definition. As a result of that, the majority of animal welfare organisations actually miss out on DGR status, which, of course, impacts on their capacity to raise funds. Some areas of animal welfare work that currently don't qualify for DGR status include rehoming wild animals, disaster and crisis emergency response for animals, and animal welfare advocacy.

I'm going to take a plunge here and say there wouldn't be a single senator in this place who wouldn't support organisations doing work such as rehoming wild animals, for example, when there's roadkill. My home state is the roadkill capital of the country. In terms of rehoming wild animals when there's roadkill and there's a young animal in the pouch, that animal needs to be, firstly, looked after in terms of crisis response and, secondly and ultimately, if it's able to be, rehomed into the wild. But those efforts by charities are not supported by DGR status.

I'm also going to take a plunge and suggest that advocating for animal welfare is something that every senator in this place would support, and yet advocating for animal welfare, because of the narrowness of the ATO definition that I mentioned earlier, does not qualify for DGR status. The animal welfare advocacy sector has long called for this issue to be addressed and resolved. I don't know why the government won't do it, but we are giving the Senate a chance today to act in support of organisations that rehome wild animals, provide disaster and crisis emergency response for animals and engage in animal welfare advocacy.

I also want to address a couple of amendments that have been circulated by other senators and other parties in this place, in particular those on sheet 3682, under Senator Chandler's name, which seek to prevent the registered charity Equality Australia from getting specific listing as a deductible gift recipient, which is proposed in this legislation. I do note in passing that none of the other five registered charities that this bill proposes to give DGR status to are in Senator Chandler's crosshairs. It is simply Equality Australia.

For those that don't know, Equality Australia advocates on behalf of LGBTIQA+ Australians, and it's particularly disappointing that Senator Chandler, a senator from Tasmania, as I am, is having a go at an organisation that represents nearly five per cent of her constituency; 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians identify as LGBTIQA+. We know that Senator Chandler has had a late-life conversion to fighting for women's sport, and we all know that that is code for transphobic activities. We all know that. I suspect that that late-life, or late-political-life, conversion owes far more to Senator Chandler trying to climb the greasy pole inside the coalition than it does to any genuinely held views of hers.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've a point of order in terms of impugning the character or motivations of Senator Chandler. Notwithstanding my admiration for Senator McKim's advocacy, I think that was a step too far, and I think he should withdraw.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. But I do want to make the point that 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians, which is the percentage of Tasmanians that identify as LGBTIQA+, is more people than the population of Burnie, which is the fourth-largest town in Tasmania. Senator Chandler is coming in here today and basically saying to a group of people in her home state—a state that she is supposed to represent in this place and a group that has more people than the fourth-largest city in Tasmania—that an organisation that represents them and that advocates for them extremely effectively, I might add, does not deserve DGR status.

There is barely a front that the coalition will not engage on to try and fight the culture wars. We're seeing it with their attempts to deny Australian women and Australian children who are currently in Syria the support they need in order to safely return to our country, and here we are again today facing amendments from Senator Chandler that seek to deny DGR status to an organisation that represents and advocates for around 22,000 Tasmanians as well as the many, many hundreds of thousands of other Australians who identify as LGBTIQA+.

I do note that One Nation have circulated a similar amendment to Senator Chandler, and I will say to the opposition that, when you find yourself lining up with One Nation on issues around a fair go for LGBTIQA+ Australians, you know you're on the wrong path—or you should know you're on the wrong path. Senator Roberts might think it's funny, but we know that One Nation regularly come into this place and seek to demonise queer folk and—in particular, I might say—trans folk knowing full well that, as a collective, trans folk are amongst some of the most vulnerable people in our country. They are a group of people who deserve our love and our support, not our hatred, and who absolutely do not deserve to be thrown under the bus in the never-ending culture wars in this country. We know what Senator Roberts and his colleagues in One Nation have got in terms of a track record of transphobia. Frankly, I don't think that will ever change, and I don't expect we'll ever see anything different from One Nation. I think transphobia is baked into who they are. But, honestly, there are good people in the opposition who shouldn't be fighting this front of the culture wars in this way, in a coalition of the nasty with One Nation.

We, I'm sure it is clear, will not be supporting either Senator Chandler's amendment or the One Nation amendment. We will proudly vote with the government to ensure that Equality Australia does receive DGR status, and I say to all LGBTIQA+ Australians: the Greens will always have your back.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge and echo a lot the words of Senator McKim in relation to his contribution on schedule 5. But I start off today to rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The core of this bill is about ensuring that working people have a genuine choice when it comes to their superannuation. It's about making sure that workers can choose their own super fund when they start a new job without pressure, without confusion and without being steered towards products that serve big corporate interests instead of their own. It's a simple principle. Workers should be able to make an informed decision about their own money. No worker should be pushed into a fund that isn't right for them just because they didn't know their options or they felt pressured to during their onboarding at work. Labor has always stood up for workers, and this bill continues that work.

Schedule 1 of the bill will update the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to make choosing your super fund simpler. It builds on previous reforms which were introduced to make the system fairer and more transparent and to stop duplicate accounts from draining away workers' savings through duplicate fees. When it comes to stapling, which is where your super fund follows you from job to job, that was part of that. It helps working people avoid paying extra fees, and the bill strengthens those reforms by making it simpler for workers to continue or stay connected with their existing fund when they start a new job. That clarity can save workers thousands of dollars across their working lives.

Schedule 2 will amend the Corporations Act to ban the targeted advertising of superannuation products to workers during onboarding, with some exceptions. This just makes sense. A new job should just be a fresh start—an opportunity to build new skills, meet new colleagues and contribute to your workplace. It should not be an opportunity for vested interests to push sometimes shonky financial products that may not be in a worker's best interests. Workers deserve honest information, not pressure, and this bill makes sure that workers are supported at this key decision-making point. To be clear, this bill will reduce the risk of workers being induced or influenced to choose a super product that is not appropriate to their needs or creating yet another super account that may be detrimental to those savings.

Together, these changes strengthen consumer protections and make sure working people can trust the system and their employers to do right by them. Workers shouldn't end up in the wrong fund because they weren't given clear information, and they certainly shouldn't have anyone pushing them towards a product that isn't in their best interests. In saying that, I encourage all workers to take a keen interest in their super and to look at the many great industry super funds in the market that are owned by their members. This is in stark contrast to retail funds that are delivering for the likes of the big banks.

This bill matters to all Australians, including my constituents in Tasmania. People deserve clear, honest information about their retirement savings, and they deserve transparency and control over their savings. This is just one part of the work that the Albanese Labor government is doing. We've already passed payday super, one of the most significant reforms for worker protection in decades. It ensures that workers get paid their super as they earn it. The ATO found that $5.2 billion in super wasn't paid in 2021-22, and that's $100 million a week taken from working people. From 1 July this year, employers will have to pay super at the same time as wages, and workers will get what they're owed, on time, every time. I'd like to congratulate the many trade unions that fought tirelessly on behalf of workers to get better outcomes for their super.

With this bill that we're debating today, these reforms will make sure workers have better information and better protections. That's what Labor does, and that's what the mighty trade union movement has done for more than a century. It has protected workers' rights, expanded opportunities and built a fairer society. This is just one example. Last year, we passed Baby Priya's bill which protected paid parental leave entitlements for families experiencing unthinkable tragedy. We've strengthened penalty rates and overtime protections. We've delivered 'same job, same pay' laws, putting thousands of dollars into workers' pockets. We've modernised bargaining. We've introduced the right to disconnect, and we've criminalised wage theft and improved job security. We have worked to close the gender pay and superannuation gaps. By expanding paid parental leave, paying super on paid parental leave and increasing the low-income super tax offset from $500 to $800, while lifting the eligibility threshold, we're supporting 1.3 million low-income earners. Sixty per cent of those are women.

Labor has always fought for workers, as have the generations of union members, delegates, organisers and leaders who built the foundations of Australia's workplace protections. Together, we have delivered compulsory super. We've delivered the eight-hour day. We've delivered strengthened protections for weekends and annual leave. We've delivered sick leave, and we have had protections against unfair dismissal. These rights were hard fought for and won by working people who organised and were determined in their fight for fairness. Today, we're strengthening super once again. Only a Labor government stands with workers. Only Labor governments protect Australian super. This bill is another step in helping workers to earn more, to keep more of what they earn and to retire with more.

I'd also like to also touch on schedule 5 of the bill and some of the amendments that are before the chamber—in particular, One Nation's and Senator Chandler's amendments to exclude Equality Australia as a deductible gift recipient. I can't say I'm surprised that we have that coming from the cookers, homophobes and you name it who stand for dividing people, but I am quite surprised that that's coming from the opposition, and I would urge many of the considered people on that side to not support those amendments.

Just the other morning, the Parliamentary Friends of LGBTIQ+ Australians had a wonderful morning reception. It was well attended, including by members of the opposition, which I was really heartened to see. I would ask and plead with people to stand up against—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 12.15, we shall now proceed to senators' statements.