Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025, Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:26): I rise today to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025. The coalition supports the principle of payday super. We've always believed that superannuation is part of a worker's pay.

It is not a bonus, nor a gift, but money that belongs to those who earn it. This explains why the coalition is not opposing this payday super bill. We want to make sure Australians receive their superannuation entitlements when they're paid their wages.

No-one wants to see workers ripped off. Sadly, ripping off workers still happens, and it happens too frequently. Around $5 billion in super goes unpaid every year, and that's just not good enough.

We want Australians to get every cent they're owed, and we're hopeful that more frequent payments will help close that gap. While the principle of payday super is sound, Labor's execution is anything but. Once again, we're seeing a rushed, reckless and poorly planned rollout of a policy that risks creating chaos for small businesses right across the country.

It's a familiar story to Labor—the headline matters more than the homework. From Treasurer Chalmers's botched super tax on unrealised capital gains to this half-baked implementation plan of payday super, Labor never seems to learn from its mistakes. Now they expect Australia's small businesses to pick up the pieces.

The coalition stands ready to support worthy reform—we always have—but, as is standard practice for a bill with such wide-ranging impacts, we will be seeking to send it to committee. The coalition will not stand in the way of employees being paid their super when they're paid their wages, but we are asking the government to reconsider its rushed implementation to allow small businesses sufficient time to prepare and adapt.

The government's own documents admit its timeline for implementation defies advice from Treasury. On page 102 of the explanatory memorandum, the plan was for an 18-month lead time between passing the laws, originally intended for late 2024, and them starting to operate, in July 2026. Instead, businesses are being given less than eight months, not 18 months.

What's more, it's not eight months from when the bills are passed but from when the bills were introduced. The government took around 2½ years, between announcing the policy and introducing the bill, and now, all of a sudden, it's a rush job. This is irresponsible.

As such, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the Opposition strongly supports the principle of Payday Super; (2) superannuation is part of an employee's wage and must be paid on time; (3) around $5 billion of superannuation goes unpaid every year; (4) the Government has ignored Treasury advice which suggests Digital Service Providers require 18 months from legislating the changes before implementation; (5) the Government is putting small business at risk by rushing the bill's implementation; (6) the Opposition is calling on the Government to delay the start date for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees for 18 months to provide them adequate time to adapt; and (7) that the Opposition is calling on the Government to legislate protections for small businesses who have made good faith efforts to comply".

Labor's reckless timeline risks the systems not being built on time for implementation. More time is needed for not only small businesses to prepare for the substantial changes but so too the systems providers who are being asked to rush the implementation of new software. The government has committed to shutting down the existing free service that processes super payments on the very date that this new law will be implemented.

The free superannuation clearing-house service will be shut down. This effectively rips the carpet from under around 200,000 small-business users, and it will only create further, unnecessary uncertainty. It is giving software providers practically no time to build, test and roll out the systems as they are required.

We all know what can happen when these types of technology transitions and upgrades are rushed. Why risk it? Small businesses will ultimately be the ones to pay the price where Labor's implementation plan is rushed and is not successful.

Every payroll software upgrade, every cashflow adjustment and every compliance change takes time, and, if you are in business, you know very well time is money. We support the principle of payday super. But let's be honest.

This is no small change. Especially for small businesses, this is a big change. Super payments are shifting from as few as four per year to as many as 52 per year.

Labor shouldn't paper over this change, particularly for a small operator such as a tradie with just a few staff members, or a cafe owner or a hairdresser, for example. These small-business owners are not payroll experts or accountants, and the owners and managers can't farm out the changes to an HR or payments division to look after. They just do it themselves.

Every second more they are asked by government to work on the business to meet compliance requirements for government is a second they can't spend working in their own business, serving customers and keeping the operation moving. That's not to say that this bill shouldn't proceed. In fact, we absolutely support the principle of payday super.

But we need to give small businesses time to adjust so they can get it right. Small businesses account for 97 per cent of all Australian businesses but less than 40 per cent of employees. They need the appropriate time to implement these changes.

The last thing we want to see these changes for struggling small businesses—which by extension compromise the workers that they employ—come into fruition as a risk. There is concern that, for some time, this bill could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That's why the coalition is once again backing our hardworking small-business community and asking Labor to consider a fairer implementation timeline.

It's not just about the coalition raising such concerns. MYOB is a well-known business which offers the market a business management platform. It's used by thousands of small businesses.

They have sounded the alarm on the harms that could be caused by any implementation as outlined by the government. Cashflow risks threaten thousands of small businesses. MYOB modelling suggests around a quarter of all small businesses would be at risk of insolvency because of payday super requirements.

COSBOA is also calling for more time, fairer penalties and cost support. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, has called on Labor to adopt 'a more realistic approach to implementing payday super'. COSBOA is also highly supportive of the principle of payday super.

But it warns that the current timeline risks overwhelming small businesses and undermining the intent of the proposed reform. The government is aware of these issues, but it's rushing ahead regardless. In fact, the Treasurer, in his speech to the House, pointed out that the ATO has said it intends to consult on its approach to compliance for the 12 months after the change.

There are businesses across the country today that would have no idea that this change is even coming, because of the Treasurer's rush to implementation. The coalition is merely asking the government to provide small businesses with a reasonable timeframe for implementing these changes. The coalition has shown Labor how to do this properly.

It was the coalition that delivered Single Touch Payroll, the system that makes payday super possible in the first place. Under Single Touch Payroll, we achieved real-time visibility of wages and super payments. It was a major reform that we rolled out carefully and successfully.

We phased it in sensibly: large employers first, smaller ones later, and micro employers were given concessions. That's how you deliver a reform that works. Labor, on the other hand, wants your local cafe to have the same implementation deadline as a multinational.

That's absurd. That's why we're calling for the government to extend the start date for small businesses—those with under 12 employees—by 18 months. That would cover 97 per cent of businesses but only around a third of employees.

It would be a fair, balanced and achievable approach. The government's plan also risks punishing those trying to do the right thing. We all want to catch the dodgy operators who deliberately withhold super, but we don't want to punish honest employers who miss a deadline because of issues beyond their control.

If Telstra or Optus goes down, if the bank delays a transfer or if the clearing house makes an error, surely we all agree that the employer shouldn't be hit with penalties for something beyond his or her own control. Labor is hiding behind the ATO's Draft Practical Compliance Guidance to paper over the risk. While the government will suggest that the ATO's Draft Practical Compliance Guidance is sufficient in offering relief from penalties, draft guidance isn't law.

It can change anytime, and it also expires after a year. That's cold comfort for small businesses trying to work out how to manage the uncertainty that goes with such a large implementation plan. That's why we're also calling on the government to legislate protections for small businesses that have made good-faith efforts to comply.

It would be a commonsense safeguard for employers doing the right thing, and adopting this approach is therefore a test of whether Labor actually cares about the needs of small business. The coalition will always back measures that help ensure Australians get every dollar they are owed, but we'll also stand up for small and family businesses, who keep Australians in work.

The government can be assured that the coalition will not be standing in the way. We're not planning to oppose payday super, but we do ask the government for its support to ensure a fair and responsible implementation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Taylor: The amendment is seconded.