|
senate vote 2021-06-17#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-04-15 12:13:34
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020; in Committee- Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Report the bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I rise to ask a couple of questions of the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy about this. But, before we get there, it is worth reflecting on where we are in the process of this debate. Yesterday, without notice, the government moved to crunch debate on three very important bills—three bills that relate to a superannuation system worth $3 trillion; three bills that go to the financial interests of every working Australian; and three bills that, in combination, have the potential to disadvantage three million Australians by as much as $240,000 at retirement, a consequence of shoddy drafting, shoddy policy work and an ideological obsession with supporting their mates in the financial services sector at the expense of the evidence. I think it is a pretty pathetic indictment of this government that a system as important as Australians' superannuation system is the subject of endless petty partisanship.</p><p>For eight years, every bill on superannuation that has been brought before this parliament has been marred by a fixation with an ideological war, at the expense of the evidence. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation is in the national interest. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation relates in any way to the interests of working people. It is just one endless petty culture war after the other. It is a fixation driven by people on the other side who cannot bear the idea that industry super funds even exist, that this system, which is the envy of people all over the world, exists and works, and that this system allows businesses and workers and their representatives to direct their own financial interests, make investments and make some contribution to the structure of business and of capital investment in this country. This system, which works so well, has delivered for so many people and has lifted so many people into a dignified retirement, is the thing they can't bear. And why not? It is because the idea that ordinary people might have a say or might have a seat at the big table is anathema to these people. These people think that that right ought to be preserved for the merchant bankers—the business people in the really nice suits. It's not for the working types, not for people who do an ordinary job, nor for the people who get up early, go to work and do hard labour. It's not for them and their representatives; it's just for people like those on the other side.</p><p>I had actually thought it might come to an end when Ms O'Dwyer left the portfolio. I had thought that perhaps things might get better. But the performance yesterday and what I expect to happen today don't suggest that anything has changed at all under this minister, because Minister Hume is stubbornly persisting with a program of legislation that everyone has told her is flawed. When you've got Innes Willox—not a notorious socialist—from a key employer group, out begging the government to put aside ideology and look at the evidence, it should be a signal to you, Minister, that you have a problem. When you've got Innes Willox saying that people like Andrew Bragg, who likes to chat a lot on this topic, might need to put aside the eight years of hostility to superannuation that he built up during his time at the Financial Services Council, it might be an indication that the government has a problem, because your credibility on super is shot.</p><p>Every time a superannuation bill comes before this chamber, the one thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that the interests of ordinary people won't be in play. There'll be a weird set of interests from the Liberal Party. There'll be a weird set of internal stakeholders who've got some nutty conspiracy theory about how industry superannuation works. There'll be Andrew Bragg with an entirely misconceived idea about how industry super's investments work. There'll be the Financial Services Council, who've got a particular set of views that you're always ready to listen to. But there'll never be an examination of the evidence. There'll never be an engagement with the findings of Commissioner Hayne, who was very clear about which parts of the superannuation system required particular and additional attention and which parts were working okay. There won't be an engagement today with the evidence from the Productivity Commission that there is a whole section of the superannuation industry that will be left unregulated by this bill and that is letting workers down. None of that is to be engaged with, if we are to take at her word the contribution the minister made last night.</p><p>The thing is we don't know what we're really dealing with today, because a deal has been done. Last night Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and Senator Griff gave their vote to the government to crunch all this through, to make sure that the terms of the debate today would be very narrow, that the time for the debate would be very narrow, that senators in many instances would be in a position where they were voting on amendments that they had only just seen and where the time allocated for discussion was very, very limited indeed. Why is this government so allergic to scrutiny, Minister? That might be something that you address in your first contribution.</p><p>The final thing I want to come to is the amendments that are before us to the bill that we are now dealing with. Senator Hanson has circulated three amendments. One of them goes to improving tax concessions for a small number of very wealthy people. Curiously enough, the age at which this measure kicks in is 67. Senator Hanson was willing to give the government the support to bring all this on last night, and it happens, if we're to believe Wikipedia, that Senator Hanson herself has only recently turned 67. What a coincidence. The question I have for you, Minister, is: will you be supporting her amendment? Is this the deal that's been done? We know a deal's been done, but we don't know its terms, because you haven't been willing to be upfront about that. So I'm inviting you now to tell us the terms of this deal and, in particular, to tell us what the government's voting position will be on each of the amendments that have been circulated on this bill in this chamber in the name of Senator Hanson.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>Thank you, Senator McAllister, for that contribution. There are a number of amendments that are going to be put forward today from right across the chamber on all three bills. The government has a different position on each one, as you would expect. On the three amendments that are coming from Senator Hanson today, there are two that the government will be supporting and there is one that the government will not be supporting.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I invite the minister to be transparent about which of the amendments she intends to support.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>The government will be supporting the amendment on sheet 1005, it will be opposing the amendment on sheet 8983, and it will be supporting the amendment on sheet 8997.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Minister, I've asked you to lay out the terms of the deal that you've made with the crossbench. Will you do that now?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>Senator McAllister, as you'd know, the government makes negotiations with the crossbench. All negotiations are done in good faith, and that will continue to be the case.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Minister, thank you for that. It's a very obtuse answer to my question. We can assume that you've secured the support of three senators for crunching your legislation through. What are the terms on which you have secured their support? What have you offered them, what can the Australian people expect, and what do senators need to know before they make their position clear on this bill?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>Senator McAllister, as you'd understand, this legislation has merit in its own right. When we speak to members of the crossbench—and, indeed, members across the chamber—we do so in good faith. We listen to what their concerns with the bill are, and we potentially support or reject amendments as appropriate.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Minister, you've indicated support for sheet 1005. What is the effect of that amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>This amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 would remove the excess concessional contributions charge, which is known as the ECC charge, for people who exceed their concessional contributions cap. The ECC charge is just over three per cent—3.01 per cent is currently applied to the tax liability on excess contributions to super that are in breach of the concessional contributions cap. Removing the ECC charge to excess super contributions will help simplify the superannuation system and also cut red tape. It's imposed on people even when they breach their cap through no choice of their own, such as in situations where their employer pays more than the 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee rate. Twenty-six per cent of employees are currently on agreements where their employer pays in excess of 9.5 per cent. The proposed amendment would remove the ECC charge but leave intact the existing integrity arrangements which ensure that any excess contributions continue to be taxed appropriately at an individual's marginal tax rate.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Minister, is it correct that this amendment will deliver a benefit to senators?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>This amendment will deliver a benefit to anybody who is paid in excess of the superannuation guarantee rate of 9.5 per cent, particularly for those whose employer pays more super than that rate without any choice of their own.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Well, it's a tough gig, isn't it, when your employer pays your super, without any choice of your own, in excess of the minimum rate! It sounds tough! Is that the situation Senator Hanson finds herself in?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>I'm afraid you're asking the wrong senator for that.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Are you not aware of the general terms on which senators are employed, Minister Hume?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>That's entirely irrelevant to this piece of legislation, Senator McAllister. We know that, when we speak to crossbenchers and they tell us their concerns with a particular piece of legislation, we would always negotiate in good faith.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>So this has been the subject of negotiation between yourself and Senator Hanson? It is a change which delivers a benefit to high-income people who get paid more than the standard superannuation rate. That sounds exactly like the situation of most senators. Why is it that Senator Hanson can come in here—she's not even here, actually. She can't be bothered to come and defend her own amendments. You're here carrying the can for her, Minister. But you've agreed to this. Why is it that you think that approving an amendment that directly benefits Senator Hanson is appropriate?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>The government will support changes that help simplify the superannuation system and reduce red tape.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Yes, I understand that the government intends to support this change. I'm inviting you to tell the people of Australia why people who go over the cap, which is quite generous at $27,000, a little bit over, need a tax cut. Because, honestly, if I think about the people that I know in my community, there aren't many tipping more than 27,000 bucks into their super every year. That is a very elite group of people. How many Australians are going to benefit from this, Minister? Why is it that the remainder of Australians, who don't benefit from this, should bear the costs of the change that you're proposing?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>Many of those who breach this cap do so through absolutely no choice of their own. Removing the excess contributions charge simply removes red tape and simplifies the superannuation system.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>What's the fiscal impact over the forwards of voting for this amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>It's an amendment that's been put forward by the crossbench. It's not an amendment that's been put forward by the government, so the fiscal impact has not been analysed.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Minister, your advice just now is that you are in here committing the government to vote for an amendment that will benefit a very small group of Australians and that will cost the budget, and you've got absolutely no idea by how much?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>An update will be provided on the costings at the next budget update.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I concede, Minister, that that gives you a generous period of time to get around to this. But is this the new standard that we're going to see for governance? You come in here, you do a deal with Senator Hanson to ram your bills through, and the price of that is an amendment of uncertain cost that you're willing to tick off on despite the fact you've got absolutely no idea about the consequence for the budget? This is the problem with the way you are dealing with superannuation. It is a toy. It is a thing for endless political games. It is the subject of deals which you're very reluctant to discuss, but you can't even do the basics.</p><p>What government would come in here and ask senators to support a proposition where you've got absolutely no idea of the fiscal impact? The superannuation system does actually have a pretty substantial impact on the budget. You won't see this side of politics wandering out there making propositions about super without thinking that question through. It astonishes me that you would come in here and give government support for something that was dreamt up by Senator Hanson, in her own interest, without even bothering to cost it. Will this be the standard you'll be setting for all of the other amendments that are before us today?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>Senator McAllister, I think I can safely say that we haven't costed your amendments either. I'd be interested to know if you have costed your amendments. That said, as I said before, we negotiate with the crossbench in good faith at all steps of the way to make the best legislation possible.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-06-17.45.1) "*That the bill be reported,*" which means the Senate can continue to discuss the bill in detail.
- ### What does the bill do?
- The bill was introduced in order "*to enable individuals aged 65 and 66 to make up to three years of non-concessional superannuation contributions under the bring forward rule.*"
- [According to](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2021-06-17.129.1) the Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Whitlam MP [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor):
- > *This is a provision which benefits a large group of politicians but a very small group of Australians. At a time when we are trying to resolve the complex issues around superannuation, it is extraordinary in the extreme that this is the priority of this government—a measure that benefits a large group of politicians but a very small group of Australians who earn over $275,000 a year. It's not a priority and Labor won't be supporting the measure.*
-
-
|