Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) | Link to this | 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.

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

The coalition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. The current arrangements strike, in our view, an appropriate balance between supporting young workers and limiting additional costs for employers.

This motion would require compulsory superannuation contributions for employees under 18 regardless of the number of hours they work. Businesses are already preparing for the implementation from 1 July, today, of payday super. That means updating payroll systems, changing payment processes and adapting to a significant new compliance requirement. Many small businesses are focused on managing those changes alongside broader cost pressures. We could talk about those all day, but we've already traversed much of that ground in this chamber over the last couple of weeks. This motion would add further employment costs at the same time as small businesses are dealing with all of this.

Now, the Greens argue that this change is designed to benefit young workers, but I think it is important to consider the impact that the changes they have proposed could have on youth employment opportunities. Increasing the cost of employing younger workers might make it harder for some businesses to offer entry-level jobs and additional shifts. First jobs provide valuable experience and allow young Australians to build skills and confidence for the future. We know that youth unemployment remains well above the national average. In that environment, policymakers should be careful not to introduce measures that could discourage the employment of younger Australians, and it is our fear that this measure being proposed here today by the Australian Greens has the potential to do that. The coalition believes the priority should be supporting both opportunities for young people and the viability of small business, and for those reasons we will be opposing this motion.

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

I think we need to be very clear about what is going on here. What is going on is that a Labor government has introduced payday superannuation regulations—and I should be clear that the Greens absolutely support payday super because we believe that workers should be paid their super at the time they are paid their wages, and that is why we supported the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. But these regulations introduce, among other things, an exclusion for workers who are under 18 years old, working less than 30 hours a week, from being entitled to the superannuation guarantee.

Let's be clear. People under 18 who are working pay taxes on their income. People who are under 18 and are working contribute to our society and contribute to our economy. So why should they, just because they are under the age of 18, not receive superannuation payments? That is the question that the Labor Party needs to answer.

There's a reason that the Labor Party is colluding with those great friends of the Australian working people, the opposition—the coalition, who have consistently trampled workers' rights and actively suppressed wages for working people at every single opportunity they've had. The Labor Party is now joining with them to bring on a Greens disallowance motion that is moved in order to protect people who are under 18 and ensure that they get superannuation payments. Now, why is Labor doing that? I'll tell you why Labor is doing it: because it doesn't want this issue to be a running sore for it. What have we got coming up soon? That's right. The ALP National Conference. What are they facing? A revolt from large parts of the union movement, who want to see superannuation paid to people under 18.

It's fair to say the Greens, including me, have had our differences with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, in the past, but I've got to say the SDA have been strong. They have been staunch, they have been steadfast and they have campaigned strongly and admirably for people under 18 to be paid superannuation regardless of how many hours in a week they work. But we have a Labor Party running scared of the union movement and running scared of the SDA. They don't want the platform of this disallowance to be there to assist that campaign on behalf of working Australians who are under 18.

It is instructive, I might say, that four senators who are extremely closely aligned with the SDA just voted against the interests of the SDA. Senator Polley, Senator Farrell, Senator Ciccone and Senator O'Neill, shame on you all. You are in this place in large part because of the factional arrangements inside the Labor Party and because of the deals between unions and the Labor machine, and now you turn around and you vote against a campaign that your union, the SDA, is so admirably running. The Labor Party is running scared of the unions. They are running scared of the Greens. They are running scared of the SDA. That is what is going on here.

Do you know who the big losers are going to be? People under 18 who work less than 30 hours a week, most of whom will not get super because they are not entitled to the superannuation guarantee in this country. That is devastating for young people. It is devastating for fairness. It is devastating for equity. If you're old enough to go to work, you're old enough to get superannuation and qualify under the superannuation guarantee no matter how many hours a week you work. That is the principle being put forward by the SDA and large chunks of the union movement and the Australian Greens, and that is the principle that is not supported by the Australian Labor Party, a political party that was founded on the basis of working people and advocating for the interests of working people.

The light on the hill has been flickering for years, growing ever more dim since the start of neoliberalism in Australia under a Labor government in the 1980s. I'll tell you what—it is so dim and flickering so much you can barely make it out when you look towards the top of the hill these days. The light on the hill was all about inspiring, protecting and enhancing the conditions for working Australians, and here is a moment in time for the Labor Party—an opportunity to demonstrate that they really are here for working people and that their rhetoric is not just hollow spin but actually has some substance. What have they done? They have squibbed it.

Not only have they squibbed it; they've squibbed it using the numbers of the antiworker parties in this place—the Liberal Party, the National Party, the One Nation party, the far right in this place. Labor has no morals. Labor doesn't mind who it gets into bed with if it suits their political agenda and if it ensures that people under 18 are not going to get access to the superannuation guarantee. This is a shameful day.

I want to say this to everyone who has worked so hard. I acknowledge the tireless and inspiring efforts of my friend and colleague Senator Barbara Pocock on this issue. I acknowledge the SDA, who has run a magnificent campaign on this. I acknowledge all the working people who've been in touch with so many of us and all the young people who just want a fair go in life and want to get superannuation payments so they can have some hope of a dignified retirement when they leave the workforce. I thank all those people and I say to them—and I'll close on this: thank you for your tireless advocacy. Thank you for your staunch campaigning. Do not give up. This fight is not over. The Greens will keep fighting. I have no doubt the SDA and large sections of the union movement will keep fighting, and civil society, which wants to see fairness and wants to see an end to this age discrimination, will keep fighting. I say to the Labor Party: you could have done it the easy way, but you know what? You will end up doing it; it'll just be done the hard way.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I associate myself with the work of my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock and the words just then of my colleague Senator McKim. It's extraordinary, isn't it? The Labor Party now have a choice: they can either pick the pockets of teenagers who go to work and put money in the pockets and the profits of megacorporations like Coles and Woolworths, or they can stand up today and say, 'You know what; teenagers are entitled to super when they go to work.' Today, Labor is choosing to pick the pockets of teenagers and put money in the profits of Coles and Woolworths. What a disgrace Labor is!

The basic principle here is, no matter your age, if you go to work and do a day's work or three or four hours work, you're entitled to your wages and fair conditions—and the Greens believe you're entitled to your superannuation. But when it comes to teenage workers, 16- and 17-year-old workers, Labor say, 'Actually, you know what; they don't need superannuation.' They'd rather that the money go to Labor's corporate donors, whether it's Coles or Woolworths or McDonald's. That's where they want the money to go.

What really gets me about this—and I credit the work of the SDA and the work of those young people who have been crunching some of the numbers here—is it can make a difference of thousands of dollars. At the end of two years of working without super, under Labor's plan, young workers are getting maybe $2,000 or $3,000 in their super when they turn 18. That $3,000 in their super will then multiply with compound interest over the course of their working life and can make a really significant difference. That's what Labor's cheating young workers out of.

Bringing on my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock's disallowance motion today in order to vote it down, with the handmaidens of corporate Australia in the coalition and One Nation—that's what the government are doing. The Greens are moving a motion here saying that when 16- and 17-year-olds go to work, they should get paid their super and the profits shouldn't go to the likes of Coles and Woollies, and Labor are working with the coalition and One Nation to pump up the profits of Coles and Woolworths—only this time they're doing it at the expense of 16- and 17-year-olds' superannuation accounts and payments. Shame on Labor!

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Senator Chandler has already indicated our position on this matter. In adding to her remarks, I make the point that this parliament is supposed to be for the people. We are not here for the SDA or the Rest Super fund or whatever else these people think we're here for. At the end of the day, younger people are not thinking about superannuation. The idea that superannuation is the only way to have a safe or good retirement is such paternalistic thinking. Australians are not stupid, and Australians have a range of ways that they make their financial arrangements to prepare for their future and their family's future. The idea that you've got to shoehorn every single dollar into superannuation to suit the fat cats at Cbus and HESTA, and all the other people that the Labor Party and the Greens want to help out most of the time, is lazy rust-bucket thinking.

I caution the Labor government again on their preparedness to go along with ideas that come from the super lobby which haven't been thought through. There's no other industry in Australia which opens the door and where all the money just falls in like the super funds. The healthy scepticism that many people on this side have is that the super lobby is so rich that it's been able to commission thousands of different reports where it can find ways where it should get more money that it can manage, in the case of 18-year-olds, for 42 years. Of course they want more money, so they can charge high fees on it and send distributions back to their mates in the unions which own the funds. Of course they want that. I just think that we've got to be able to look at the vested interests here, and I think we've got to be very careful—

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

It's the Labor Party!

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

All the speakers have been heard in silence, and that is exactly what will happen with Senator Bragg.

Senator McKim, you are not in a debate with me.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just make the point that I think the government ought to be very careful about adopting holus-bolus the ideas that come out of the super industry, because their formulation of policy will always be more money for them. It's like Dracula and the blood bank. They never have enough money. They never have enough blood. And the reality is that the Australian people are not stupid. There are many ways that people can prepare for their financial future.

The parliament can go out of its way and abolish ways, as it did last week, for Australians to prepare for their futures. And last week the parliament adopted an idea, which I think is going to come back to haunt it, from the super funds about banning self-managed funds from being able to invest in property. The extension of this policy is that now these funds are not able to invest in new properties off the shelf. They're not able—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bragg, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, I ensured you were heard in silence. You will give the same respect to Senator Bragg, or I invite you to leave the chamber.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness) | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point that, if a self-managed super fund wants to invest in an off-the-plan development, then it is adding to housing stock. By definition, the trustees are not able to live in that dwelling. It seems very strange to me that a government that says it wants to increase housing supply has adopted a policy which was written by the super funds to stop SMSFs from investing in property because they're worried about their market share.

I find very grating the amount of time this Senate spends working through the laundry list of issues from the super lobby. Everything is about how they can get more money, akin to Dracula and the blood bank, whether it is trying to give 16-year-olds more superannuation or trying to ban self-managed funds from doing things to ensure the market position of the major funds, which obviously are worried about haemorrhaging members to SMSFs.

The idea that people are too stupid to manage their own financial affairs is, frankly, offensive. People are not stupid. People are better informed than they ever have been. People are able to go deep on a number of technical issues that may not have been possible in years gone by because of the different technologies people now have in the palm of their hand. There's the idea that this parliament will work through the laundry list of issues from the big super funds, who are desperate to have more money. Their solution to every problem is more money for them to manage and charge high fees on, so they can send distributions back to their mates. I make the point that the government should be very careful about adopting more and more policies every week that have been written by vested interests. They should be smarter than that and be able to see it for what it is.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't intend to speak on this, but I will momentarily. I'm struck by the comments from the Greens. I don't know if you've forgotten, but a matter of days ago—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kovacic, please direct your comments to the chair.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—via you, President. I'm not sure if the chamber remembers, but a number of days ago, the Greens struck a deal with the government in relation to CGT and negative gearing. The thing is, you could have, as a part of that deal, included young people in superannuation. You chose not to. You traded them away.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair—they traded away young people and superannuation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

It appears that they decided that they would prefer—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

We could have supported crocheting!

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have called Senator Shoebridge and Senator McKim to order several times.

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

Guilty by association!

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

You are wilfully disrespecting me, and I will name the both of you.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is, the Greens chose to trade away superannuation for young Australians under 18 to instead tax widows. They thought that would be a better choice. In reality, where we are today with this circumstance is because you made a decision about what was more important to you, and you are now pretending that you care about people under 18.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the disallowance motion as moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.