Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (09:09): I am, thank you very much. This is the time of the week where we get to hear what the deep, dark thoughts of those opposite are, and they put them forward in these private senators' bills. It's probably a pretty good place for Australians who might be confused by all the fear and alarm that registers on the social media to actually get an idea about what the Liberal and National parties really think and who they're really standing up for.

In this case, all the rants that we've heard, the proposals, all the work that went into putting this together by Senator Hume would serve, possibly, at best, around 103,000 people. That's 103,000 very special people that really matter to the Liberal and National parties, but what about the rest of us? What about the tens of millions of Australians who will benefit from Labor's policies?

These are decent, working Australians who certainly will not benefit from this ideologically driven, narrow and unuseful contribution to the public place that's been put forward by Senator Hume. It's, supposedly, supported by her colleague who just made a contribution before me and in the eight minutes that she had—I think she spent about six minutes in total speaking.

All of it was that profoundly intense, negative, breathless, hate filled, divisive, disasterspeak that has so characterised the Liberal and National parties as they seek to echo the fear and alarm that are being driven by other parties in this place. Let's get to the reality of what this proposal—this private senator's bill from Senator Hume, who is a significant finance leader and economic thinker in the Liberal Party—is, and let's look at what she wants to do.

The proposal in this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill, would primarily support high-wealth couples. It's not a bad thing if you've been successful and you're a high-wealth individual. Good on you.

Australia is full of migrant families like mine that came here to create a great life, to do what they could and to work hard in the jobs that they have. If they have entrepreneurial capacity, they can go out, build a business, employ other great Australians, build the dream and become wealthy. But I've never, in the communities that I've been part of, been with people who once they make money and become a high-wealth individual want to push down on other Australians.

The Australians that the Labor Party represent are the Australians that I think we are—people who don't mind receiving a fair day's wage, paying a fair day's wage and getting the benefits of all Australians' tax earnings, tax spend, that go into the things that matter to them. These are things like being able to get their kids into a great school, like being able to go to the doctors when they need to and like being able to show up at an urgent care clinic and get the health care they need when they need it for their family, instead of having to traipse up to Maitland Hospital and sit there for seven hours before their child can be seen.

Australians want these things for their families, and they don't mind paying a fair amount of tax. They definitely don't like what's proposed in this bill by Senator Hume, because this bill, designed for 130,000 high-wealth individuals, is a structure to help them undertake greater tax planning and avoidance to reduce their tax burden. Having made a whole lot of money, this is about making sure that they never have to share that.

They're driving along the same road where I live at Erina. These high-wealth individuals are driving along the same road as the single mother who's going up to work at Coles. It's not okay for somebody who's working at Coles or in a mine in the Hunter or the Pilbara or for anybody who's doing a normal job and paying their fair tax.

They're driving on the same roads that are invested in by the Australian people collectively. Australians absolutely still believe in fairness. This proposal from Senator Hume is not about fairness.

It's an advantage-building bill for those who already have the most. The current rules that govern contributions to super are very generous. Working aged Australians are able to contribute up to $30,000 in concessional contributions and $120,000 in non-concessional contributions to their superannuation, and they can do that each year.

The TBC is actually currently at $2 million. Now, most Australians, not this special 103,000 that Senator Hume is trying to do a special deal for with this bill, don't go anywhere near those limits. People would be absolutely delighted to be able to put $30,000 into their super.

That reflects a wage like everybody who's sitting here, Senator Hume, myself, all the senators here—we're going to hit that cap every year because our superannuation on our wages is now hitting that cap. But we don't struggle—we have decent wages—like people who are out there really doing it tough. As one of these people who isn't struggling, I do not believe that anything that Senator Hume is offering is advantageous to ordinary Australians.

Remember, the Liberal Party have revealed who they are. They're here for 103,000 high wealth individuals. This proposal from Senator Hume would not benefit single people, and it certainly wouldn't benefit single older women, who are the most disadvantaged and the most at risk of poverty in retirement.

What Senator Hume is proposing, what the Liberal-National Party are proposing, in this super special bill that they put out to show their credentials is that they want to give couples the scope to roll over their existing superannuation savings from the high balance member of a couple to the low balance member to optimise the tax treatment. That's code for high wealth individuals pay less tax.

Let's create a bill. This is the goal, taking up the time of the Senate. This is the big thing they've invested their energy into, bringing in this private senator's bill.

The Liberal-National Party vision for Australia's is to make rich people pay less. At the same time, we've seen debate in the chamber this week where they've screamed black and blue and fought tooth and nail against a tax cut for 13.3 million Australians. I don't know—helping 103,000 people who are already wealthy pay less tax or creating a tax framework that's fair and helps 13.3 million Australians.

That's the Labor way. Compare and contrast, guys. The Liberal-National Party haven't got anything for you if you're an ordinary, hard-working, decent Australian.

Unless you're a high wealth individual, they're not interested in you. It reminds me of some shows that I watched when I was a kid, shows coming in particularly from the BBC, British shows like Upstairs, Downstairs, old shows about old money and new money and the battles between those. How ridiculous is it that those who have wealth, those who are advantaged, 103,000 people, should be the focus of this legislation instead of 13.3 million Australians.

Now, the bill before me— Senator McDonald: Class warfare at its best. Senator O'Sullivan: Where's this class warfare thing coming from? That's not like you.

Senator O'NEILL: I will take that interjection. I know there's been a lot of shouting from the other side over there, but I will take the—Yes, how dare they? Exactly.

But I will take the— Senator O'Sullivan: Have you read the bill? Senator O'NEILL: Have I read the bill? Yes.

I've had a look at the EM too, and, sadly, it's time I won't get back. But the reality is, yes, I have had a look. I've had a good look.

This is what's wrong with the bill that is being proposed by your people. There's a problem with this bill that goes to something that I'm particularly interested at the moment, and that is when bad legislation that doesn't look forward enough and that doesn't go to looking at the consequences of its design causes a big problem, a moral hazard. One of the things that's a problem with this bill is that it would potentially construct the gaming of preservation rules and social security payment eligibility.

Now, setting up a fraudulent structure that allows the Australian people to be ripped off is absolutely not an outcome that ordinary hard-working Australians or anyone who's running a successful small business, or a large business for that matter, would think is good. We've seen that before. When John Howard brought in the rules that changed the number of partnerships from 20, to allow places like PwC and KPMG to have up to a thousand partners, Senator Conroy, my former colleague in this place, rose to his feet and said that it was creating a moral hazard.

Boy, was he right, because now we see in the full light of day how, when you don't think carefully about fraudsters, legislation gets created that allows fraud. Decent, hardworking, taxpaying Australians at all levels of the income spectrum pay a price for careless legislation, and this is certainly that. I wish I had more time, because I can't get through everything that is actually going on to support women.

The mischaracterisation of this bill as a support for women is just another joke from a party that has barely a woman in the House. I won't say that about the Senate; I respect the election of the women who are here in the Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with them in the national interest on committees, and I will always acknowledge and respect their roles.

But there's barely a woman amongst them on the far side. There are no women inside speaking up loudly. Women can't get through a preselection process in the Liberal-National party.

That's why they are where they are. By comparison, we have women everywhere in our party, women everywhere in the Senate and women everywhere on the Labor benches in the other chamber. Because of that, and because of our longstanding commitment to equity and to women, we are taking practical action.

So since 1 July last year, parents of newborn and adopted children have been eligible for superannuation to be paid on their government funded paid parental leave. These payments commence next week, from 1 July 2026. We did that.

It's real, and it's going to help millions of Australians. It's not to help 103,000 high-wealth individuals avoid tax. We said that we were going to pay super on Commonwealth government funded paid parental leave to benefit around 180,000 Australian families every year.

Ninety-five per cent of Commonwealth parental leave pay flows through to women. That's real stuff—real money in real Australians' pockets helping them to get ahead—not tax benefits for the very, very wealthy. The Super Members Council estimates that super on paid parental leave will narrow the gender super gap by about a quarter.

Super Member Council CEO Misha Schubert said: We're not talking baby steps here—this is a huge stride forward to tackle women's retirement inequity. So that's where we've started, to help women on leave get the superannuation on that pay so that it goes into their account. With compound interest, that makes a big difference.

That's what superannuation does and that's why we are making sure it's fit for purpose, making sure that it supports women to grow their wealth and to grow their opportunity to live a fantastic and dignified retirement in this wonderful country of ours. Paying super on paid parental leave is going to provide a boost to the retirement savings for those receiving Commonwealth parental leave pay, and it will particularly—significantly—help low-paid and vulnerable workers.

So if you're not one of the 103,000, if you're a low-paid or vulnerable worker, if you're an authentic, decent Aussie who believes in fairness, this bill is not your kind of bill. This bill has got 'Liberal-National party' written all over it. It's only about the few people in the country that they want to make more wealthy at your expense.