|
representatives vote 2019-11-28#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-01-10 11:01:48
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019; Second Reading- Treasury Laws Amendment (Recovering Unpaid Superannuation) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Disagree with bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Jason Falinski</p><p>As I was saying, the member for Whitlam came in here yesterday and wouldn't take an intervention. The intervention was to answer the question of where he gets some of his figures from. Indeed, I wanted to know where his research is from that shows moratoriums don't work. What we've actually found out is, just one Google search away, there are 312 academic articles on the impact and effectiveness of moratoriums, everything from protecting rainforests in Indonesia to improving tax collection and, indeed, gun collection. Not all of those articles, because overnight I did have to sleep for a few minutes, but the vast majority of articles that I could acquaint myself with all point to one thing: that moratoriums work.</p><p>Given that we have a single-touch payroll being introduced, given that academic articles demonstrate that moratoriums work, given that, according to industry super, there are tens of billions of dollars' worth of superannuation ready to be collected and given that businesses, in anticipation—trusting the word of this parliament, trusting the word of those both on this side and those opposite that a moratorium would be announced—have come forward to actually review their accounts and to pay those moneys. It seems to us quite reasonable that this parliament would not only pass this bill but do it with absolute speed so that we could create certainty and start collecting the money that those opposite say they're so concerned about employees having.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-11-28.36.2) introduced by Whitlam MP [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"the House:*
- >
- > *(1) declines to give the bill a [second reading](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/);*
- >
- > *(2) notes that the Government is not doing enough to combat the blatant theft of workers' entitlements by dodgy bosses;*
- >
- > *(3) calls on the Government to help protect Australian unions protect Australian workers from superannuation theft; and*
- >
- > *(4) further calls on the Government to end policy uncertainty on superannuation and ensure Australians can enjoy a comfortable retirement by committing to the legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee".*
<p>Why is it that those opposite are opposed? Could it be that some of the people who are not in favour of this are some of their largest donors? I don't know. I'm not in the boardrooms. I don't get invited to those boardrooms the member for Whitlam gets invited to, so I would have no idea what goes on inside those hallowed wood-panelled walls with the deep blue carpet on the 60th floor of some CBD office building. Indeed, it's difficult to know whether some of these associations would even know what their members thought. Because as the member for Goldstein pointed out, and I can't believe he is not here to hear this speech, but that would be typical—we all have to listen to him! When he asked industry super representatives, as they propounded to us what their members are thinking, how they knew, their answer was: 'Well, we conduct advertising.' Yes, we understand that you tell them what they should be thinking. Then the member for Goldstein asked: 'But how do you know what they want?' And they said, 'Well, we advertise to them and then we do research to find out whether our advertising is having an impact on their views.' In other words, the very people who are informing the member for Whitlam how he should stand on this bill are the very same people whose idea of consultation is talking at people through television sets.</p><p>So I wonder, truly wonder, if we were really here in the interests of workers and employees who have not had their superannuation paid by employers—people who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to pay this or didn't realise that they were meant to have paid for these things—whether we would be voting against this or whether we'd be voting in support of it or whether we would be coming into the parliament and making the umpteenth joke about a World War II movie that hasn't screened since the 1960s? Because that's what goes for policy on that side of the House when it comes to these important issues.</p><p>If those opposite really care about workers and their entitlements, if you really care about reuniting them with the money that they're owed, if you really are genuinely concerned about getting the right outcome for everyone involved in this process, then you wouldn't move motions that the speaker no longer be heard, you wouldn't be playing parliamentary games and you wouldn't be making references to World War II movies and somehow alternating between 'dirty dozens' and 'unseemly dozens', and who knows what else. You wouldn't be trying to make a joke of this; you'd actually ask members what they really thought. You wouldn't say that consultations are just advertising to them and you would start to make a real effort to pass legislation like this that allows and enables employers to get on with the job of paying money back and that allows the ATO to get on with the job of prosecuting those who won't.</p> <p class="speaker">Karen Andrews</p><p>Firstly, I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The government is acting to improve the integrity of the superannuation guarantee. With the introduction of near real-time reporting on superannuation guarantee obligations and payments, the ATO is able to detect and act on the nonpayment of workers entitlements much more effectively going forward. The SG Integrity Package also gave the ATO greater enforcement powers to collect SG charge liabilities from unscrupulous employers. But these measures do not address historical noncompliance.</p><p>To address this problem, this bill offers a once-off opportunity to employers to come forward, pay their workers what they are owed and wipe the slate clean. Employers have from 24 May 2018 until six months after this bill receives royal assent to voluntarily come forward and disclose their historical noncompliance without being subjected to penalties. This is the only chance employers will get to come forward and receive concessional penalty treatment. After the amnesty concludes, the ATO will take a dim view of those employers that could have come forward but failed to do so. Those employers will be subjected to penalties equal to at least 100 per cent of their noncompliance. I commend this bill to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.</p><p>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</p>
|