Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for his interest. I note that he hasn't had the energy, forethought or concern to put himself on the Notice Paper for this bill. If he wants to make a contribution in this debate he should jump. He should put himself on speaking list. He hasn't shown enough interest in it to date to do so, so, no, I won't be taking any intervention from the overexcited member for Mackellar. Do the normal course of events and put yourself on the speaking list.

While employees have the book thrown at them for stealing from employers, by introducing a superannuation guarantee amnesty the government is establishing a different rule for employers who steal deferred wages from employees. Not only have the government failed to address the issue of unpaid super, they have also botched the handling of this issue with business and the ATO.

The Senate inquiry has found that while employees have the book thrown at them for stealing from employers, the government, by introducing an SG amnesty, is establishing a different rule for employers who steal deferred wages from employers. It's a simple fact, undisputable, that it's a different rule for SG amnesty as opposed to other unpaid wages and entitlements.

Let's look at what would occur, what would follow, if this bill passes because there may be many on the other side who say, 'Yes, we get that this is a dud bill but is it going to do some good in the scale of things?' Treasury has confirmed that $230 million is expected to come forward under this amnesty. Unfortunately, that is a drop in the ocean for a 26-year period. Estimates are the annual SG gap is $5.9 billion but $230 million is likely to come forward as a result of this amnesty.

We want you to think what is going to go on. Let's take two bakers working in the same town. One of them is complying with their obligations under the SG laws paying their 9.5 per cent to their employees and paying all their rightful entitlements while the baker down the road is not paying their 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee requirements. Their wages bill is more than 9.5 per cent less than the baker down the road. They have an advantage. Everything they sell, everything they put on their shelves, goes to market cheaper because they have sought and found an advantage by doing the wrong thing and breaking the law.

Through this amnesty, we will be congratulating, we will be rewarding and we will be saying to the baker that has done the wrong thing, 'We're going to forgive your sins and you are going to have obtained the historical advantage over the baker that has done the right thing.'

As my colleague the member for Blair has pointed out, there is nothing in here that is going to stop them from continuing to do the wrong thing. There is nothing that is going to stop them from recidivist behaviour. An amnesty for employers who have stolen guaranteed superannuation payments from their employees, we believe, is simply the wrong way to go. The proposed amnesty is for employers who have not complied with their superannuation guarantee obligations. They are going to get a leave pass for doing the wrong thing for up to 26 years.

Superannuation theft is just as bad as wages theft. We don't think the employers, the businesses that have done the wrong thing, should be rewarded while employers that have been doing the right thing, struggling through difficult times, are going to be relatively disadvantaged. Importantly, this was not recommended by the Senate economics committee that inquired into superannuation guarantee non-payment. No recommendation came from that committee that looked in a detailed, deliberative way at those provisions—nor was it recommended, interestingly, by the government's own superannuation guarantee cross-agency working group. It didn't come from there. It didn't come from the Senate. Effectively, what is going on here is that the lawbreakers are going to get a tax cut. The government's proposed changes mean that an employer could have kept superannuation entitlements from an employee for more than 25 years. They will not face any penalty if they pay that back during the amnesty. Rather than increasing penalties for employers who do not pay their workers' superannuation, the government wants to give them a free pass.

Usually when employers do not meet their superannuation guarantee obligations they can be liable for penalties and charges. An SG charge, which is composed of the SG shortfall together with nominal interest and a $20 per employee per quarter administration component, will be waived. Penalties can be up to 200 per cent of the amount of the SG charge plus a general interest charge when the SG charge or penalties are not paid back by the due date. Under the government's proposed amnesty, the administration component of the SG charge and the penalties will be waived. Quite simply, what we are proposing to do here is penalise employers and businesses that have done the right thing and reward businesses that have done the wrong thing.

My second reading amendment also calls on the government to end the uncertainty around superannuation. If you talk to workers, if you talk to people within the industry, the first thing they will mention when we talk about superannuation is the uncertainty. The continual chopping and changing of policies, the uncertainty around the future settings and the uncertainty around where the government is going on this is undermining confidence in the sector and it is undermining the willingness of workers and others to do what the superannuation system was set up to do. It was set up to enable and encourage them to save for their retirement.

The sort of uncertainty that I am talking about comes from members such as the member for Mackellar, a self-declared member of the 'dirty dozen'—these are the 12 MPs who believe—

Honourable members interjecting—

They're something short of a majority, even in their own caucus.

See this speech in context