Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Superannuation Guarantee system—in conjunction with voluntary superannuation contributions and a means-tested, government funded age pension—forms an integral part of Australia's retirement income policy;

(b) recent analysis by Industry Super Australia indicates employers failed to pay an aggregate amount of $5.6 billion in Superannuation Guarantee contributions in 2013-14;

(c) this amount represents 2.76 million affected employees, with an average amount of more than $2,000 lost per person in a single year;

(d) within the electoral division of Indi there were 16,068 affected employees, with an average amount of $2,001 lost per person in a single year;

(e) evidence received by the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Superannuation Guarantee indicates a failure to adequately detect and address that Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance causes long term financial detriment to millions of Australian employees, significant competitive disadvantage to compliant employers, and an unnecessary impost to Government finances through additional reliance on the age pension; and

(f) in its report, the Committee:

  (i) concluded the current approach of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in identifying and addressing Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance is inadequate and recommends that the ATO takes a more proactive stance;

  (ii) argued that there is a compelling need for the determination of a reliable Superannuation Guarantee gap figure annually in order to track rates of Superannuation Guarantee non-payment, analyse which policies are effective, and ultimately minimise the problem;

  (iii) recommended the current Superannuation Guarantee Charge framework, with its reliance on employer self-reporting, should be reviewed in order to ensure that penalties are strong enough deterrents; and

  (iv) considered it is crucial to move Superannuation Guarantee compliance from the 'paper age' to the 'digital age', enabling a greater focus on proactive methods, and in turn increasing the effectiveness of efforts to detect and remedy Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance; and

(2) calls on the Government to accept and act upon all 32 recommendations made in the Committee's report to address the significant problem of Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance.

In moving this motion, I call on the government to recognise that the superannuation guarantee system in conjunction with voluntary superannuation contributions and a means-tested government-funded age pension form an integral part of the Australian retirement income policy. All employees must receive the full benefits of their superannuation guarantee entitlements. They should not be short-changed by employer noncompliance or bankruptcy. I believe in fact that we've come to an emergency situation, where hundreds of thousands of people have fallen through the cracks and have missed out on their superannuation entitlements, often thousands of dollars, through no fault of their own. Superannuation guarantee noncompliance has, according to the super funds themselves, cost as many as 2.7 million Australian workers an estimated $5.6 billion in one year alone: 2013-14. When employers fail to meet their obligation to pay employees their proper entitlements, we see poorer retirement outcomes for those workers who miss out. As a consequence, there's a higher age pension liability for the Australian government.

In December 2016 a report from the Industry Super Australia and CBUS indicated that retirement incomes have been undermined over many years by employers who have not met their obligations on behalf of workers. On average, Australian workers have missed out on more than $2,000 per person each year. On 30 August, the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, reported that Australian workers are denied as much as $2.8 billion in superannuation payments each year. So we've got a serious problem here.

I first became aware of this when the employer of a constituent—and I would like to acknowledge Cheryl Robl, of Wangaratta—claimed bankruptcy, leaving her retirement fund short-changed by more than $8,000. There have been at least another five constituents who have approached my office with similar stories of lost savings. We as an office have had limited success in working with them to resolve this. The sensitivity around their loss and the betrayal of trust is such that they are reluctant to make their identities public. Ms Robl recently advised the Australian Taxation Office that her employers had failed to honour the superannuation guarantee charge to her fund. She followed the ATO formal superannuation recovery process to the letter, but, even after the ATO took steps to collect the debt owed to her, she was left empty-handed, and earlier this year the case was closed. The bankruptcy trustee advised that there's no money to be claimed. Despite this devastating outcome, Ms Robl directed her energies into highlighting the impact of what happens when employees miss out on the superannuation guarantee entitlements. She's become the face of this issue in my electorate. I want to thank and acknowledge her for her determination in ensuring that this problem remains before the government, needing a solution.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the North East Media newspaper journalist Jamie Kronborg, who told her story and the personal stories of others impacted by this superannuation emergency. And, through the Wangaratta Chronicle, Jamie Kronborg has followed these stories. I acknowledge the role of the local media in bringing these cases to my attention and to that of the public. Their work ensures that we have a clearer understanding of the extent of the problem and its impact on our constituents. Following this, I made representation to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, in December 2016 and also asked the minister a question in parliament. While there is a clear legislative framework for the ATO to protect employees, the legislation only works if there is adequate resourcing for the ATO to respond quickly to claims. Ms Robl did everything absolutely correctly but was still unable to recover her superannuation.

Late last year, the Senate agreed to an inquiry into unpaid superannuation. The inquiry made its report in March 2017, with 32 recommendations. The minister also established a superannuation guarantee cross-agency working group, which released its final report on 14 July this year, with nine recommendations. I'd like to place on record my support for the minister and my acknowledgement of the action she has taken. Perhaps it is too little too late, and there's a long way to go before this issue is resolved. On 29 August—in fact, last week—Minister O'Dwyer announced that the government would introduce a package of reforms to give the Australian Taxation Office near real-time visibility over superannuation guarantee compliance. I welcome this package. It includes measures to require that superannuation funds report contributions received at least monthly to the ATO. It requires a rollout of the single-touch payroll, or STP, system, which will reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and transform compliance by aligning payroll functions with regular reporting of taxation and superannuation obligations. This is long overdue. The package involves the improvement of the effectiveness of the ATO recovery powers, including strengthening director penalty notices and the use of security bonds for high-risk employers to ensure unpaid superannuation is better collected by the ATO and paid to employees' super accounts. It gives the ATO the ability to seek court ordered penalties in the most serious cases of nonpayment, including employers who repeatedly fail to pay their superannuation guarantee liabilities. In July, the government introduced legislation to close a legal loophole used by employers who have previously counted salary sacrifice amounts paid by employees towards their own employer contributions. That was very welcome.

All these changes are, in fact, welcome, but they come too late for my constituent and others in my electorate and they come too late for millions of others who may never see their full entitlements paid. The ATO is dealing with about 20,000 complaints about unpaid super each year from both current and former employees. In announcing the government's most recent package, Minister O'Dwyer pointed out that employers' failure to meet their superannuation guarantee obligations to their employees has been a problem since the guarantee was first introduced in 1992. Successive governments have failed to make significant reforms to the system. The ATO has managed to recover more than $2 billion owed to employees since 2010, but even it admits estimates of losses to employees are conservative. So I welcome the strengthening of employer penalties for noncompliance and the increased powers for the ATO when dealing with repeat offenders. The move to single-touch payroll electronic payment systems will give the ATO near real-time visibility on an employee's wage and super payments, particularly amongst small businesses, where the problem of noncompliance is most acute.

However, the government needs to act on further key reforms, including all 32 recommendations of the Senate Economics References Committee. The super industry has been united in calling for an expanded taxpayer funded safety net to cover super entitlements for workers in cases where their employer goes broke. The existing Fair Entitlements Guarantee, the FEG, is limited to outstanding wages, is only for bankrupt and insolvent companies and doesn't cover super. The government needs to consider a recommendation to improve pay-slip reporting to help employees keep better track of their super payments by providing the ability to check that their super has actually been paid into the fund. The requirement for improved pay-slip reporting to include superannuation guarantee payments is outlined in a private members' bill proposed by the member for Mayo. The bill will be introduced to the House in the near future. I welcome that.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the work that the government has done so far, but it's not enough. We need to go much further. We need to address many of the issues that people in my constituency are feeling. I welcome the work of the ATO in prioritising this work, but they need more resources. They need significantly more resources to get on top of what I call this emergency. As a local independent member of parliament, I'm proud to bring these issues to parliament. I'm really proud to have this debate today, and I thank my colleagues for participating in it. I ask for your continued support as we work with the government to make sure people's super guarantees are protected for their retirement, thus saving the government money through pension schemes.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a very real concern for many people in our communities. I would like to thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion to the House. Indeed, the superannuation guarantee, along with voluntary contributions, forms an integral part of Australia's retirement system. I also accept and acknowledge, as the member for Indi outlined in her contribution, the very real problem of employers' noncompliance with that system—not that this is a new event, unfortunately. Many governments over a long period of time have tried to find various ways to deal with that issue. When companies are found to be noncompliant, they do face punitive payments and penalties as a result.

But we should bear in mind that this motion draws on the figures promoted by the industry super fund, Industry Super Australia. We have seen that these have been dramatically inflated as a result. On 29 August the ATO published its estimate of the superannuation guarantee gap at $2.85 billion. This shows there is an enormous difference between what the ATO have reported and what Industry Super Australia has estimated. We must ask ourselves: why the difference? The reason, as discovered by the government's superannuation guarantee cross-agency working group, which is led by the ATO and includes APRA, ASIC, the Department of Employment and the Treasury, is that Industry Super Australia's methodology was inadequate. In fact, the Treasury estimates just one of its shortcomings regarding defined benefit fund members accounts for some $2.5 billion—45 per cent of Industry Super Australia's $5.6 billion estimate. It must also be noted that ISA made assumptions about locations of individuals. Because the source data is not disaggregated by federal electorate, it is therefore logical to conclude that ISA's electorate-specific figures would have to have a high degree of uncertainty.

This government accepts and promotes that any level of noncompliance within the superannuation system is illegal and unacceptable. The problem, as outlined by the ATO, suggests a gap of some 5.2 per cent of total potential superannuation contributions. This means that around 95 per cent of businesses are compliant with their superannuation guarantee obligations and they are actually paid. It is important to recognise that 5.2 per cent represents real people missing out on what is rightly due to them. Therefore, we see the suite of measures being proposed presently by those opposite as not assisting the system—in particular, the notion of removing the $450 earnings limit.

Amongst the most important elements of our reform package is the commitment to better informing employees about their SG entitlements and ensuring accountability at every stage. It is true that employees are sometimes unwilling to come forward. I congratulate those people in the member for Indi's electorate who have taken the opportunity to come forward and see their local member and raise their concerns, because that is not always the case. Sometimes, unfortunately, that is out of fear of reprisal such as losing their job.

So modernising reporting, which is another important commitment of this package, will allow the ATO to intervene early on employees' behalf, without receiving a complaint, to address nonpayment before it spirals out of control. Furthermore, the ATO will use the data from funds to provide employees with information about all of their superannuation payments through myGov. It will be able to tell all affected employees about their recovery activities, where previously only affected employees were informed.

The reform package does not stop there. It will increase the range of penalties for employers who are doing the wrong thing, and that is the critical part: to remove the capacity for employers to do the wrong thing by their employees.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Indi for her motion on this significant issue that affects hundreds of thousands of working Australians. Strengthening the compliance on superannuation guarantee payments and improving our efforts to recover unpaid superannuation for distressed employees are issues for which I and the member for Indi share great concern.

According to Industry Super Australia, within the electoral division of Mayo in 2016 there were 12,896 affected employees, with an average of $1,748 lost in superannuation per person in a single year. This amounts to a staggering 28 per cent of all employees in my electorate who are entitled to employer-paid superannuation contributions but are underpaid on those entitlements. All too often I am approached by members of my community who have been victims of unscrupulous employers. They sometimes learn only too late that their employer has not been paying their superannuation for many months or even years. I received another such email today. All too often, the employer eventually winds up their business and manages to avoid paying most or the entirety of the outstanding amount of superannuation that they owe their employees. This occurs even when employees notify the Australian Taxation Office of the unpaid superannuation.

Notifying the ATO is currently the only official avenue of recourse available to employees in their attempts to recover their unpaid superannuation, and yet the ATO is singularly ineffective in achieving this task. I have been approached by some constituents who have notified the ATO of unpaid superannuation amounts in the many thousands of dollars, and yet, more than seven years later, the results that the efforts of the ATO have reaped for these individuals can be measured in cents rather than dollars, while the business continues to operate as normal. Sadly, in one case the company concerned declared bankruptcy, and my constituents will never see the remaining unpaid superannuation paid to them. One of them was hoping to approach retirement. I do not seek to come down hard on the ATO, but I do have concerns that this area is not adequately resourced for the job of recovering unpaid superannuation. Employees need a much more direct avenue through which they can recover their superannuation, as the diligence and fervour of the ATO is never going to match an aggrieved employee, and understandably so, because what amounts to another day in the office for the ATO is the future livelihood of an employee.

For every year the employee's superannuation is unpaid, another year of compounding returns and future financial security is lost. Every year also creates a greater burden upon the Australian taxpayer, who must then fund additional and completely avoidable age-pension payments. The current ineffective system is helping only to force people onto government funded income support payments instead of allowing them to provide for themselves, as every ordinary retiree prefers. Much more needs to be done. I welcome the contribution of the Senate Economic References Committee, which reported on its inquiry into superannuation guarantee nonpayment in May this year. I have investigated all of the inquiry's recommendations seriously and at great length, and that is forming the basis for a private member's bill I am drafting on this issue of recovering unpaid superannuation. I look forward to presenting this bill in the coming weeks of parliament, during which I will cover this issue in much more technical detail and in far more time than I have today.

In conclusion, I congratulate the member for Indi on her ongoing work, interest and dedication in seeking a fair go for Australian workers and I urge the government to consider both the substance and intent of this motion most seriously.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start with my recent reflections on this motion and say that no-one is disputing that there are problems where sometimes private citizens who have done legitimate work have not had their superannuation honoured and measures that should be appropriately taken to make sure they're properly paid have not occurred. I think everyone in this chamber would share the spirit of this motion. A couple of months ago somebody from the superannuation sector came around and showed me some data around unclaimed superannuation in different electorates. My data was among the lowest in the country; most of the superannuation benefits that should have been paid to employees within the Goldstein community has been paid. That is wonderful, but I know that isn't the circumstance everywhere. That's why legitimate efforts to address some of these issues are very important, particularly in the context of making sure that we have a system that people have confidence in. Superannuation provides security for people later in life—nobody would dispute that—but it's important to make sure it's paid as people go along so they can manage affairs.

Decisions made today around superannuation can have a big impact on people's material conditions at latter stages in life. In fact, one of the things that regularly gets raised with me is that people don't really think about their superannuation until they they're over the age of 50. The advice I want to give to anyone watching this under the age of 35, or at least under the age of 50, is that you should take your superannuation seriously now. If you are able to get a principal place of residence, it's probably going to be the biggest asset you will have and the biggest opportunity you are going to have around making sure you retire with confidence, so take it seriously and make sure you get every cent that is available to you legally and that you have earned. But, in addition to that, make conscious decisions about how it is to be invested. That is where perhaps some members within this place will end up with slightly more diverse opinions between different types of funds. I have taken maximum control of my own superannuation, but I recognise that other people would like to take less control and rely on the faith and goodwill of others. That's their call.

In short, I don't think people would broadly disagree with the spirit of this motion. The government already has a clear package of reforms to safeguard and modernise the superannuation guarantee from the start of the next financial year. I think that appropriately and proportionately represents and addresses the issues for now, but that doesn't mean the spirit of the measure put forward is wrong. I think it acknowledges some of the concerns that many members have, and that have come out of parliamentary processes, and makes sure that, in introducing this legislation, future amendments may be needed. That has to be done through proper processes around making sure it's proportionally recognised by the government and with a higher degree of confidence than currently exists.

In conclusion, I welcome this proposition is from the member for Indi, along with her contribution on this issue as well as many others, and recognise the efforts that the government has already made. On reflection, it's something I continue to think about and will continue to consider as part of what we need to do to deliver the type of security and confidence people need for their future retirement. That includes me and everybody in this room. In fact, I don't think there's anybody left under the old super scheme, so now we all have to think about it. And we will continue the dialogue into the future.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really pleased that I can make a contribution on this excellent motion of the member for Indi on noncompliance around payment for the superannuation guarantee. It's an issue that impacts on every electorate. But you'd expect me to draw attention to the statistics for the seat of Shortland, which I proudly represent in parliament. There are 15,714 residents of Shortland who are underpaid or will receive no payment of their superannuation guarantee. Fully 31 per cent of workers in Shortland suffer underpayment or non-payment of their super. This is a disgrace. The total amount per year is $30 million, and the average underpayment is $2,000 per worker per year. If you consider that, the compounding impact of that is massive. If you're going without $2,000 of super per year and that compounds through your 30- or 40-year working life, that is massive. It is robbing workers in my electorate, which is a low-SES region. I've got the poorest town in all of New South Wales in my electorate, the town of Windale. Just imagine the loss of that income for those workers. It is a crime, and I will return to that particular issue in a minute.

This is a startling statistic and that's why it's so important that urgent action is taken, and the Senate report is an excellent contribution. I welcome the fact that Minister O'Dwyer has at least drawn attention to it. I think the government aren't going far enough, but at least they're drawing attention to it. It starts with ATO compliance. If the ATO took this as seriously as they took nonpayment of GST, it would change pretty quickly. But I don't solely blame the ATO. They've had 4,000 staff cut under this government—and when an organisation loses 4,000 staff, it's pretty hard to do anything well—but this is a massive issue, and ATO compliance is the start of it. Moving to the single-touch system will help, but we really need to understand the scope of this and really understand the trials and tribulations that people go through to try to recover their payments.

I had a constituent come to me. She had worked for an accountant and found out that her accountant employer was underpaying her super. She left that job, because of being ripped off, and she now works for another accountant, who is helping her, pro bono, to recover her money. They actually made a submission to the Senate inquiry, and well done to them for making that submission. They were able to walk me through five years of talking to the ATO to try to recover this money, and the ATO couldn't even tell them how much was owed. The ATO would dribble out records; it would dribble out payments from the non-compliant accountant. It was a nightmare for people who were reasonably well educated, who were in a good position, because they're accountants, so they were in the system, to try to recover the funds. The system was absolutely abysmal. That's why urgent action is required to make the ATO take it seriously, to give the ATO the resources to recover the funds, to really try to help the 15½ thousand people in Shortland who are suffering underpayment of super, and to recover the $30 million that impacts 31 per cent of workers.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be controversial: this is theft. Often employers, when they get in a bit of trouble—and I understand that some might do it innocently—think that the easiest thing to not pay is the super, because it's the thing that workers don't notice immediately because it is paid in arrears. It is the easiest thing for them to start cutting down on. They might kid themselves that when business picks up, when sales come through, they'll pay it back, but it is theft. I would put to you that a worker who stole $2,000 from their employer would be facing jail time pretty quick smart if they got caught out. So why don't these employers face jail time? I'm not talking about an accidental underpayment; I'm talking about when an employer, in a concerted fashion, knowingly fails to pay super. That is theft from their workers and they should face jail time, just as any worker who steals from their employer should face jail time for knowingly stealing money. Until we do this seriously, until we lock up the employers who are the worst of the worst, who knowingly steal money from their workers, then this issue will not be solved. I know that's controversial, but this is theft and theft should face punishment. The due punishment should be jail time if it's serious enough.

I applaud the member for Indi for raising this issue. The ATO need to get serious about this. They need to pursue the 15½ thousand cases of underpayment in my electorate, and we need to lock up employers who do this regularly.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Indi on superannuation guarantee noncompliance. I'm sure the member knows that this is an issue that's been around for a long time. It's a real issue and, in listening to the member for Shortland and his obvious passion, I'd say this has been going on since I've been in the workforce. I first started work in the mid-seventies, and I saw issues related to superannuation then.I think I've still got a small superannuation fund existing with Gas and Fuel, who no longer exist in Victoria, from when I was working for them for 18 months. I'm sure that money has been chewed up by the super industry already, taken away in fees and things like that. This is an issue that has been around for a while. There have been some classic cases over the years of major companies not paying their superannuation obligations, which they should do. I heard it from the member for Shortland, but I fear that, if we lock up the employers, their staff will lose their jobs. So it has to be a two-way street. But the ATO does have an obligation to make sure that employers pay their superannuation.

To the member for Indi: it is a bit disappointing that you've actually cherrypicked some of the facts and stats that greatly inflate the size of the problem. I know that in your motion you refer to the 2014 analysis conducted by Industry Super Australia, indicating that employers failed to pay an aggregate amount of $5.6 billion in superannuation guarantee contributions in 2013-14. But, as you heard from the member for Forde, last week, on 29 August, the ATO published its estimate of the SG gap at $2.85 billion, which is around the half of the figure ISA cited.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's still huge!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally agree with you. I've just said there is an issue, and I agree with you that it's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but we need to do it with real figures and not figures that are inflated.

Any level of superannuation guarantee noncompliance is unacceptable. As we heard from the member for Shortland, he wants to jail them, but I think that might be going a bit far, depending on the category or size of that noncompliance. That is why the government has established a cross-agency working group led by the ATO and including APRA, ASIC, the Department of Employment and the Treasury to investigate these issues and recommend solutions.

I note that the member for Indi's motion has called on the government to accept and act upon all 32 recommendations from the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the superannuation guarantee. This government will not adopt blanket recommendations to keep up an appearance of doing something. Instead, we are working collectively towards achieving real outcomes in safeguarding workers' entitlements. For example, the Senate committee recommended things that have very little impact on noncompliance but would instead expand superannuation entitlements, like abolishing the $450 rule, reviewing the definition of ordinary time earnings or requiring more frequent superannuation guarantee payments. The rule that SG is not payable to employees earning less than $450 a month is a longstanding feature of the superannuation system that is well understood.

Noncompliance is largely driven by cash flow issues and not confusion about definitions. I know that the member for Indi, who has experience in business as well, knows that there are many situations where employers are paying their superannuation guarantee levies out of their own cash flow when they're still waiting on huge debtors and creditors to pay their bills and fund them as well. So it is a fine balance for many businesses out there, particularly in the current economy, but, again, no excuse for not paying the particular superannuation guarantees that they are obligated to pay. The government's response to increased visibility targets the key problem as well. Similarly, the use of ordinary time earnings as the basis for the superannuation guarantee is well established and benefits from considerable guidance from the ATO. Any confusion about the definition of OTE is not a key driver of noncompliance.

Requiring more frequent payment will also do little to improve compliance. More onerous superannuation guarantee payment rules can only make compliance more difficult for small businesses, particularly those with cash flow problems, as we've heard before. Already, with the PAYG and the BAS payments, you see companies paying PAYG when they're not earning any money at all, and the government is taking money from them and the ATO is taking money from them. We must be careful that we balance, particularly for small businesses, the cash flow problems. Around two-thirds of employers pay SG more frequently than the required quarterly payment in any case, so there is no value in mandating more frequent payments when its impact on compliance and the total guarantee payments will make little difference.

To the member for Indi: thank you for raising this. It is a real issue, and I'm sure the outcomes from the government's actions will lead to a better system in the future.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion before the House. Likewise, I would like to thank my Labor colleagues in the Senate, who took part in the important Senate Economics References Committee, instigating this inquiry last year. I think the inquiry into the superannuation guarantee has started now, with particular focus on this noncompliance around the nonpayment or underpayment of the superannuation guarantee. It is important because it impacts on so many people's lives, and we also know the cumulative impact that the nonpayment or underpayment of someone's superannuation guarantee has for them in retirement. So it's a great pleasure that I'm able to stand and support the member for Indi's motion here. It not only supports the superannuation guarantee system as a really integral part of the retirement incomes for Australians but also really calls on the government to act on the full 32 recommendations of that Senate Economics References Committee inquiry and the report that they brought down.

A lot of serious work was done by people taking evidence from all the players involved, and yet here we are, some nine months later, really faced with a government doing so little to correct the anomalies that exist in the system. It is incredibly disappointing. I acknowledge that the government has indeed formed what it refers to as a 'working party', which comprises some of the important key players there, and that's a start, but I've got to say that that was like seven months down the track after having done nothing but sit on these recommendations. We now have the government purporting to take action, but really there is little movement that I have seen so far around facing head-on the issues of noncompliance, and that for me is the real nub of the problem here.

Like colleagues before me, I don't just see one-off cases. I see many constituents who have been burnt, utterly burnt, by a boss that failed to pay their superannuation payments. That I see many people should not be surprising. Stop for one moment to consider that there are 18,000 people in my electorate alone who we know have been underpaid or not paid superannuation at all by an employer. And the member for Shortland, before me, is spot-on to describe this as theft. Make no mistake: superannuation nonpayment is tantamount to theft, and I don't think we should dress it up as anything else. These are entitlements that were duly owed to the employees. These were part of working conditions hard fought for over many decades to get in place.

Those of us on this side of the House value superannuation. Labor created superannuation. We will stand here to defend it and protect it. It's a vital part of retirement incomes for Australians. But the other vital component of this system is that the employers hold up their end of the bargain. You've actually got to pay the dollars that your workforce is entitled to. You cannot leave these people hanging out to dry both now and in retirement.

I have an example which I will end on. One of my constituents is owed at least $10,000—it's hard to know entirely. He's one of nine staff owed around that much money by one company, and the fact is that he is unable to ascertain how much is owed. In fact the ATO entered into an agreement with his boss about the repayment, but that's secret; he's not allowed to know the details of that agreement, so no-one can follow up and no-one can make sure that this company finally does do the right thing and comply.

I made a submission to the Senate inquiry, and I'm eternally grateful for those two issues around it. Get rid of the secrecy provisions and make sure that it's more than just pay slips that people rely on to get their superannuation.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.