Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Monique Ryan

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

The crossbench received this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, five minutes before the government briefed us yesterday morning—five minutes! The government introduced this legislation to the House one hour later. Members of the crossbench sought the call during the second reading to raise our significant concerns about it, but the government denied us the opportunity to speak. This bill was drafted for introduction only 10 days after the war began in Iran. The explanatory memorandum claims that this bill is designed to maintain the integrity of our migration system. Integrity requires proper consultation, transparency and debate, none of which have occurred on this bill. If the government is serious about integrity, it should start by upholding the integrity of this parliament and of our legislative processes.

This bill seeks to introduce significant changes to Australia's migration regime. It empowers the minister to suspend classes of temporary visas held by people offshore through so-called arrival control determinations. This is a sweeping power, one which could affect thousands of people who have already followed our migration rules in good faith and who have already obtained temporary visas in good faith. The amendments I have circulated in my name seek to strengthen the test for making these arrival control determinations to ensure that the minister will satisfy a higher and more proportionate threshold before exercising this extraordinary power. My amendments will ensure that determinations meet both limbs of the test under section 84B, ensuring that there is a reasonable probability that a controlled determination is actually necessary.

There are still significant issues with the drafting of this legislation. I'm concerned that the government's arrival control determinations are not disallowable instruments; they should be. They will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; they should be. I'm concerned that the minister can re-issue control determinations seemingly indefinitely. That is wrong. There is no upper limit on the number of times a class of temporary visitors might have their visas suspended. That shows contempt to people who have legally obtained temporary visas to visit this country. It means that those offshore who already have a valid visa may be deprived of any possibility of ever entering this country. Just think about the individuals affected by that. And there's no sunset clause on this bill, which would be a very appropriate parliamentary safeguard for legislation which has been rushed through to this extent.

We know what has prompted this legislation. Today there are more than 7,000 Iranians holding visitor visas. Many of them cannot safely return or remain home due to ongoing conflict and instability in their country—conflict and instability to which we are potentially contributing. Under this bill, their temporary visas, which they have obtained validly, often at considerable personal cost, could be suspended overnight. These are people who have already spent years waiting for the chance to visit family or to reunite with their loved ones, yet this temporary visa subclass 449 followed by a temporary humanitarian concern visa subclass 786 approach has removed the dignity and integrity from our migration regime.

Instead, today, thousands of people who are overseas face the prospect that their already granted visas may be rendered unusable overnight, sometimes in circumstances where they don't feel that they can safely return home. If the government is committed to integrity in our migration regime, it should commit to special migration arrangements to those who are affected by this bill.

Julian Hill

I'll just address the new issues raised, because some of it goes to matters which I've addressed on the previous amendment, and we don't want to become the goldfish going round in the bowl, repeating ourselves all morning. I'll just address one procedural point. I wrote down the words; I think I got them right. The member indicated that the crossbench had been 'denied the call' yesterday. I'll just make the point that I don't think that's fair or accurate. There was none of the crossbench in the chamber when the bill was debated. No-one was denied the call; it moved on.

Hon. Members

Honourable members interjecting—

Julian Hill

Well, I make the point: we could've moved the third reading yesterday, and the bill would've been in the Senate by now. We're here debating it in good faith, but I just need to correct the record: no-one was denied the call. You were not in the chamber.

I do appreciate the genuine concern and intent, and I'll just address the new issue raised. The first amendment would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied of both criteria in b(i) and b(ii). By itself, that would require the minister to be reasonably satisfied both that a noncitizen of the kind specified and an instrument may overstay and, if the event had been occurring when the visa application was made, the visa may not have been granted. But, when coupled with the next two amendments, it would render the provision practically and likely unworkable. Changing 'may' to 'would' in (i) and (ii) would lift the threshold for the test to a definitive view—that is, the noncitizen would overstay and the visa would not have been granted. At the very best you could say that would require a high degree of fact finding and evidence re individuals to be put to the minister. But, in practical terms, as I made the point in the previous amendment commentary, that's a threshold which is rarely if ever passed in any visa grant. Every visa that the Department of Home Affairs grants—literally millions and millions a year for people to come and go in a globalised economy and society—relies on a risk based judgement about the likelihood of someone overstaying.

I'll finish on this point. Despite some of the hyperbole in the media commentary by others outside this chamber, this bill is a sensible step. It's necessary to maintain the integrity of the visa system. It's not a radical proposition. It's core to the entire operation of the migration system that, when someone is granted a temporary visa to Australia and they come to Australia on a temporary visa, the Australian community is confident that they intend a temporary visit. A temporary visa means a temporary visit. In circumstances where it becomes manifestly obvious that large numbers of people would not or may not intend a temporary visit, then the government needs the ability to respond, and currently the minister has the power to respond visa by visa, individually reviewing or cancelling individual visas. The government maintains that this is a sensible, necessary measure and, frankly, it avoids the cancellation en masse of large numbers of visas by simply suspending the ability of the visa holder to enter Australia.

Marion Scrymgour

Member for Clark.

Andrew Wilkie

I'm sure the minister wasn't deliberately misleading the House, but I just would remind the minister that I was present for the debate yesterday.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown

We have to really ask the question, as we're debating this migration amendment bill: who is really benefiting from the war in Iran? It's not you or me or working Australians. It's not the Australian military personnel who will be deployed to the UAE. And it's certainly not the people of Iran. It's indefensible that Australia will help extend this war by sending military personnel and weapons of war to the Middle East, while simultaneously closing the door to anyone left stranded as a result.

While the young women from the Iranian soccer team are safe and will be able to stay in Australia, any other Iranian who currently holds a visa to enter Australia will now be denied access. That is the effect of this bill that is being rammed through this House with barely hours' notice, with the two major parties teaming up for cruelty. These are folks who've already been vetted, and approved to travel to Australia for a range of reasons: for work, for weddings, for funerals. Many of these people are on their way right now, only to be turned back at the airport when they land.

My heart goes out to the Australian military personnel who'll be deployed in the UAE. My heart goes out to every person left stranded, and abandoned, by the Australian government. And my heart goes out to the people of Iran, who are paying the cost of this war. If you thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, here is the clearest example that that is a lie. Labor is actively working against the safety of people from Iran. The cost of this war is not borne by the people who started it. It's not borne by politicians. It's not borne by corporations, billionaires and weapons manufacturers, who will actually profit from it. It's borne by everyday working people.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

No motion text available

Sharon Claydon

The question is that this bill be read a second time.

Allegra Spender

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (after line 19), after section 296-25, insert:

296-26 Exemption — one-off amnesty

If your superannuation balance for the 2026-27 income year exceeds the *large superannuation balance threshold and you are in the accumulation phase, you may make a one-off withdrawal from the account up to the *large superannuation balance threshold.

I want to acknowledge the government's piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, which I support. I particularly want to acknowledge the changes to the legislation which I think have made it a very positive piece of legislation that is appropriately addressing intergenerational inequity at the same time as being, on balance, fair to existing super holders. However, in the current piece of legislation, there are people with high balances who are under 60, so they cannot remove their super from their current accounts. I think that is of concern.

The great challenge of changing super laws is that the money is locked up. You can't touch it unless you're at least over 60 and retired. If you made decisions based on previous conditions in terms of a tax statement and then it is changed materially, I think it is fair to give people the chance to say: 'I wouldn't have made that decision. I'd like to now withdraw these funds.' It doesn't affect a lot of people, but I think, on principle, giving people that choice is important. I do think it's worth noting that the government has doubled the tax rate, and in some cases it has gone from 15 per cent to 40 per cent. That is a material change in the taxation arrangements of superannuation with these high balances. I think that it is appropriate in that case to offer options for removing this.

I know that the government has in previous conversations with the Assistant Treasurer noted that there may be constitutional issues in relation to pensions. My question to the government then would be: were there any other options considered for people who might be in their 30s, their 40s or their 50s who would like to take this money out of super because they no longer see the benefit of having it in that arrangement? Were other options that would have been appropriate considered in the legislation? I think it's not an unreasonable request that, if your money is locked up for perhaps 10 or 20 years and the rules for it substantially change, you have a chance to remove that money and deploy it as you wish elsewhere.

Daniel Mulino

The government opposes the proposed amendment. I'm advised by my department that the amendment would raise significant constitutional issues, as it seeks to introduce a new condition of release before retirement, allowing withdrawals for amounts exceeding the large-balance cap. Such a condition of release would be inconsistent with the constitutional support for the Commonwealth regulation of superannuation, as the condition of release would compel or authorise a trustee to provide benefits unconnected with purposes for superannuation regulation. Importantly, the proposed reforms will maintain concessional tax treatment of superannuation for all individuals but make the concessions more sustainable. These are sensible, important reforms that will mean super tax concessions are better targeted for large balances.

Allegra Spender

Thank you very much for the response from the government on this. Really, my question to the government is: did you consider options—because it isn't an unreasonable request. I support the principle of where the government is going on this, and I support the legislation. But, if you take someone's tax rate from 15 per cent to 40 per cent and they cannot touch that money perhaps for a decade or more, it's not unreasonable to ask: in the legislation, could you have looked for ways to give options, at least, to the people who are affected by this?

Daniel Mulino

I indicate to the House that the government undertook extensive consultation over a long period of time—multiple rounds of consultation with many stakeholders across the industry and experts—and we believe that the design of this bill best reflects all of that consultation in achieving the outlined policy goals.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the suspension motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

Claire Clutterham

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill is comprised of six sections touching on a range of different reforms. Today I will speak in relation to schedules 1 and 2—two of those reforms—and how they reflect and further the objective of superannuation as set out in the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024.

The core purpose of this bill is to implement two policy measures to support the transition to payday super. Firstly, the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to support employers to streamline the choice of fund process during employee onboarding. These amendments are intended to provide greater flexibility for when an employer or their agent may request details of an employee's stapled superannuation fund from the commissioner so that the employer or their agent can provide those details to the employee during onboarding to inform the employee's choice of fund.

Secondly, this bill amends the Corporations Act to ban advertising of certain superannuation products to new employees as part of that onboarding process. Schedule 2 will commence on 1 July 2026. The ban under this schedule is intended to reduce the risk that employees are induced or influenced to choose a superannuation product that is not appropriate to their needs, or if it results in the opening of multiple unnecessary superannuation accounts during that onboarding process.

There are many reasons why people have multiple superannuation accounts, and frequent job changes is one of them. It's not uncommon—around four million Australians have more than one—and, of course, you can if you want to. You might want to keep multiple insurance covers, increase your variety of investment options, or, if your super is a defined benefit fund, you might want to retain that benefit. However, there are well documented disadvantages, like paying more than one set of fees, having to keep track of more balances and investments, and retaining and paying for unwanted insurance cover. Plus, you're at risk of ending up with lost super accounts.

The key drawback, though, is that having multiple super funds involves increased charges and fees. We know that most super funds charge a range of fees related to someone's superannuation account, and, if you have more than one, you're most likely paying these multiple times. Super funds will also often provide you with automatic default insurance cover like life insurance—also called death cover—as well as total and permanent disability insurance and income protection insurance if you meet certain eligibility criteria. You might also end up paying multiple premiums for cover that you might not actually need or might not be eligible to claim under.

Another drawback of multiple accounts is increased administration, including with respect to nominated beneficiaries, reading multiple annual reports and having multiple different sets of performance to track. There's also the potential for lower retirement savings, because having your super spread out across multiple accounts can make it harder to track the growth of your fund or to make good investment choices. That's on top of paying all the extra fees and insurance premiums. This can leave you at risk of lower retirement savings, and, as we know, the higher someone's retirement savings are, the better.

The highest possible accumulation of superannuation is the purpose of our world envied superannuation system. This purpose is set out in the objective of super in the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024. It states that the objective is to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. Both the elements 'equitable' and 'sustainable' are equally important. Schedules 1 and 2 to this bill are compatible with that objective. The superannuation choice-of-fund requirement is a foundational feature of our superannuation system in Australia, and it operates to ensure that employees can choose which superannuation fund they want their superannuation contributions paid to. They should be able to do this, because the accumulation of funds in a superannuation fund belongs to the person making that choice.

The first principle of our system is simple. The employer must contribute to a fund chosen by the employee. If the employee does not make a choice, the employer can then make a request to the commissioner to determine if the employee has what is called a stapled fund. If the employee has a stapled fund, the employer will generally be required to pay superannuation contributions to that stapled fund. If there is no chosen fund or no stapled fund, the employer may contribute to a new, default fund for the employee. Typically, an employer must give a standard choice form to an employee within 28 days of commencement in order to obtain relevant superannuation fund details for that employee.

Stapling in superannuation is where an employee's existing super fund is 'stapled' or linked to them for life, following them if and when they change jobs, and operating to prevent the creation of multiple, unnecessary super accounts when changing jobs, therefore reducing account fees and protecting retirement savings. The objective of stapling is to reduce this unintended creation of new default fund accounts, where employees already have existing superannuation arrangements. This has the effect of reducing unintended duplicate fees and insurance premiums that erode member balances.

Currently, requests for stapled fund details can only be made after an employee does not make a choice of fund selection. Schedule 1 rightly amends the stapling provisions to clarify that employers can request stapled fund details before, at the time or after the employee is given a standard choice form. The effect of this is to assist employers to provide stapled fund details to the employee during the employment onboarding process to help inform their choice of fund.

Employees benefit from this. Under this reform, it will be easier for employees to see, consider and select their existing fund when starting a new job and it will reduce the potential for employees to create unintended duplicate accounts and then pay the fees and insurance premiums that erode their balance. Employers will also benefit because they will receive accurate fund details quickly, reducing the prospect of delays and mistakes. This change will, therefore, help to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement for working Australians. This is entirely consistent with the objective of superannuation as set out in the act.

Like schedule 1, schedule 2 is also compatible with the objective of superannuation as set out in the act, because it will operate to preserve savings to deliver income for that dignified retirement that all working Australians deserve. It will also ensure that onboarding service providers can continue to deliver value for employers, but in a way that is safe, equitable and sustainable for employees.

With some limited exceptions, schedule 2 operates to amend the Corporations Act to impose a ban on advertising certain superannuation products to employees during the employee onboarding process. If employee onboarding software platforms are paid to advertise superannuation products, then the policy objectives of the choice of fund and stapling provisions may be compromised. Employees sometimes forget about super funds that they have, and the advertising of superannuation products during onboarding can not only cause confusion but act to pressure employees to select the fund that might not be in their best interests or to open yet another fund that they don't need.

There is no doubt that onboarding software is a critical productivity tool for employers, but consumer harm may be the result if superannuation funds are advertised on these platforms during the onboarding process. With choice of fund and stapling provisions available, such advertising is not really necessary. This ban will protect employees from being influenced into making quick and uninformed decisions, opening inappropriate products and unintentionally creating duplicate accounts. The exceptions to this are to show employees their stapled fund and also the employer default fund.

Schedule 2 therefore is also consistent with the objective of superannuation as set out in section 5 of the act, because it helps to prevent the evaporation of fund balances, helping members to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement. Employees stand to benefit from greater savings that compound over their working lives through fewer unintended multiple accounts or through funds that are not fit for purpose or not in their best interests.

With respect to human rights, schedules 1 and 2 engage with the right to social security as set out in article 9 and article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the right to a standard of living and security under article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognises the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health, and acknowledges the importance of adequate social benefits in reducing the effects of poverty. Article 11 of CEDAW recognises the right to social security, particularly in cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity, old age and other incapacities to work as well as the right to paid leave. These human rights are prosecuted by schedule 1 and schedule 2 of this bill because they enable employers to identify the appropriate fund in which to make timely superannuation contributions for new employees.

The prohibition on advertisements in onboarding software platforms during the onboarding process protects new employees from making uninformed or inappropriate decisions around the opening of new superannuation products because of advertising. It reduces confusion and it reduces pressure on employees during the commencement of a new job, which is often an inherently stressful time in an employee's life.

The effect is that these amendments help bolster an employee's social security at the retirement stage by ensuring new employees are paid super contributions on a timely basis and into the most appropriate fund for them, avoiding any procedural delays that may arise in the onboarding process or through the influence of advertising. With respect to the right to a standard of living and security as set out in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this article acknowledges that everyone has the right to a standard of living which is adequate for the health and wellbeing of them and their families and the right to security in old age, which we all hope we get to. Schedules 1 and 2 will similarly prosecute this right by streamlining the process to identify the appropriate fund in which to make superannuation contributions so new employees will receive their contributions quickly and not make disadvantageous decisions due, again, to the influence of advertising.

Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill are consistent with the objective of the superannuation system in Australia, which is a dignified retirement for working Australians. Our superannuation system is the envy of the world. Labor is the party of workers and the party of superannuation. I commend this bill to the House.

Long debate text truncated.

Zali Steggall

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 7 — Minor questioning warrants

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

12 After section 34JE

Insert:

34JEA Minor questioning warrants

(1) The Attorney-General must not issue a minor questioning warrant after 6 March 2027.

(2) Before 7 March 2027, despite any other provision of this Division:

(a) a minor's representative must be present at all times during the questioning of a minor; and

(b) questioning of a minor must not take longer than 8 hours.

Following the division we've just had on the member for Curtin's amendments, this amendment seeks to raise a further concern—and I should say, for the record, I strongly support the sunsetting clause remaining in this legislation. These are very significant, extraordinary powers, and oversight in this place is essential to ensure the proper operation of those laws, to make sure that they continue to be applied properly but also that they are required and necessary.

I note the minister's comment earlier that, unfortunately, these powers are still needed. I don't dispute that; we are not here saying that these powers are not from time to time needed in a period where geopolitical tensions, terrorism, threats and harm are there and prevalent. But, from our community's perspective, we've also seen in recent times protests in Sydney, and many are concerned about overreach by law enforcement and the importance of having good accountability when extraordinary powers are granted to agencies, especially when they then override human rights.

The amendment I have proposed is very simple. Top of my overall concerns with these wide-ranging powers is how they apply to children, to minors. The amendment I propose demands extra safeguards in relation to children, where these powers involve children. These powers include the right for compulsory questioning. Compulsory questioning of someone under 18 can involve apprehension, and they are significant constraints on liberty and movement. Even the bill's own human rights analysis recognises these rights are engaged.

The amendment that I have proposed applies additional safeguards for minors. A minor's representative must always be present during questioning and is a person who can act in the best interests of that child, and the duration of questions should not exceed eight hours. The amendment also sunsets the powers in relation to the compulsory questioning of minors so that it can come back before this House for review if it is considered to continue to be necessary.

To put this in context, I accept that we have also received information and briefings around the concerns of greater radicalisation of young people and that these are sometimes minors, so these powers may well be needed. I note, though, that ASIO has not, to date, needed to utilise these powers. That does beg the question: why are we putting a 'set and forget' on these very broad and, I would say, extraordinary powers? These were introduced following the 9/11 terror attacks and were considered extraordinary at the time. The permanence of these powers has been controversial for years, because these powers were originally sold as a last resort and have been repeatedly renewed in terms of the sunsets.

The human rights statement for the bill states that the Attorney-General must treat a child's best interests as a primary consideration when issuing a warrant for a 14- to 17-year-old. I'll just pause here and note we don't even consider children up to the age of 16 as being mature enough to cope with accessing social media, but we are saying ASIO can compulsorily question a 14- to 17-year-old. There is so much inconsistency in what we consider are the protections we should provide children and where we strip away their rights. My amendment supports that duty by ensuring that a child is never left alone in questioning and is not exposed to prolonged interrogation. I find it quite extraordinary that this is not an amendment supported by the government, I've got to say.

The bill relies heavily on the idea that these powers are used proportionately and as a last resort, with oversight and guidelines emphasising proportionality. Time limits and continuous support for minors are exactly the kind of least-rights-restrictive design that explicitly builds proportionality in the legislation. The hard stop in relation to the legislation for minors requires ASIO and the government of the day to rejustify the need for those powers. I think that is important oversight in this day and age. This is supported by the Law Council of Australia. They have emphasised that ongoing independent review ensures the overall bill remains necessary and proportionate. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends allowing the questioning powers for adults and children to sunset.

I would argue this is an important amendment to ensure proportionality and that the rights of children are respected in these very dramatic and drastic rights. This is not to say we are not wanting absolutely to keep Australians safe, but we have to make sure proportionality applies.

Tony Burke

In responding to the amendment, I thank the member for Warringah for both the content and the tone of the debate as well. I respect absolutely that everybody is coming to this place wanting to make sure that we get the right balance in terms of respecting everybody's rights and vulnerabilities while also making sure that we keep Australians safe. I don't for a minute think that that there's anything in this amendment where there is an intention to do otherwise than keep that balance. We just have different views on where that balance lies.

The government won't be supporting the amendment that's been moved by the member for Warringah. It's a deliberate decision of the government to remove the sunset provision. It's been reviewed multiple times. The member is right in saying that, when it was introduced, it was believed that it would be a last resort. It was not believed that we would be in the situation that we're in some 20 years later, where we are again in a situation of the threat-alert level being at probable and where we're in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now happen online, can happen really fast and is increasingly targeting people who are young. The threat environment now is quite different. When you've gone through a situation of doing sunset after sunset, you do get to a point—which the government has arrived at—where there's a genuine belief that the need for this power is not about to go away.

There are multiple safeguards in both the act and the statement of procedures. Minors must only be questioned in the presence of a legal representative, and the minor does have the right to have their representative—a parent or guardian—present. ASIO does have to consider known vulnerabilities. It's highly unlikely that questioning would ever go beyond eight hours. But if there were a situation where that was realistically viewed as a matter of life and death for others, then the flexibility that is currently there should be there and needs to be there. The Attorney-General has to regard whether the warrant would be in the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration.

With respect to the issues of minors, can I give some context as to how the case load for counterterrorism has changed. On our National Support and Intervention Program, we have 230 participants. Half of them are under 24, and 31 per cent are under 18. Of those who were charged with related offences in 2025, 11 out of 19 were minors. Since 2020, operational activity against people under the age of 18—there have been 53 people who have been 17 or younger, with the youngest being 12. Obviously, 12- and 13-year-olds are not part of the powers of this act; it kicks in at 14. We are in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now be really fast. Getting information as quickly as we can is absolutely essential. Sadly, that increasingly involves minors.

I wish these powers were not required. I wish what I believe the Howard government had genuinely thought 20 years ago—that this would be something required for a finite period of time—had turned out to be true. I wish the concept of having to compulsorily question minors never arose. The reality is that the arguments now for these powers are stronger than they have ever been, and I cannot pretend to the parliament that I think they're going to go away. Every indicator we have of the direction now is that these powers are more essential than they've ever been.

Sharon Claydon

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.