|
senate vote 2021-06-17#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-04-15 12:10:54
|
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>It is worth explaining to the chamber, is it not, what just happened? What just happened was that the government voted against reporting their own bill out of the committee stage—the bill they drafted. And why did they do that? It's very unusual. I don't think I have ever seen the government vote against their own bill. As far as I can tell—and I will be interested to see how this unfolds—this was to give Senator Hanson, who was running late and who's now appeared in the chamber, the chance to move her amendments, which benefit her. This is exactly about the government using all of their numbers to protect the financial interests of Senator Hanson. What a disgrace! What an embarrassing abuse of chamber process—to prevent your own bill from exiting committee to help one person on the crossbench move amendments designed to financially benefit her. What a disgrace!</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>Just to follow on from Senator McAllister's contribution, it is the submission of the Australian Greens that Senator McAllister is entirely accurate in what she has just put forward as a rationale for what has just happened, and we collectively join with Senator McAllister and the Labor Party in expressing our utter astonishment that the government would actually vote against the progression of its own legislation through this Senate. I don't know whether this has ever happened before and I'd be very interested to find out. It's certainly not something that I've witnessed either in the Senate or in my many, many years in the Tasmanian parliament. The government has actually voted against the progress of its own bill in order to allow Senator Hanson to move her amendments.</p><p>I want to be very clear: when Senator McAllister was putting to the chamber her theory about what just happened, Senator Hanson agreed with it and said that Senator McAllister was quite right in the assertions that she was making. So there it is: this is simply the result of a dirty deal done between the government and One Nation, and it has resulted in the most bizarre situation where the government has, astoundingly, decided that it should vote against the progress of its own legislation through this place.</p><p>We will now wait and see how this shakes out and how the government votes on Senator Hanson's amendments. I want to be clear, though: these are not crossbench amendments; these are One Nation amendments. They will be not be supported by the Australian Greens. Again, this is <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> stuff from the government here, which just, potentially, historically voted against the passage of its own legislation through this Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>I want to make it very, very clear that these accusations—and that's what they are—are completely false. There is no-one in this parliament more honest than Senator Hanson. I've worked with her. She's completely honest, and I reject those imputations. They're vile and they're wrong.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Is there anybody seeking the call?</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>I might respond to Senator Roberts, if I may.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, Senator Hanson did jump to her feet first, so I will give Senator Hanson the opportunity unless she wants to cede to you, the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>Thank you very much, Temporary Chair Sterle, for doing this. I do admit that what happened was because of me; it wasn't the government holding up the legislation. I admit when I'm wrong, but I will tell the truth, unlike a lot of other people in this chamber. The whole fact is that it came time to actually move the amendments, and I ran to get to the chamber in time to actually move the amendments. So that is the truth. It's got nothing to do with the government whatsoever.</p><p>I do have a concern with one of my proposed amendments. I've just discovered it has not been printed to my wishes correctly. Therefore I am considering what to do with this. Unless I have confirmation from the government that it can be changed, I am of the opinion that I don't think it can be changed. That was the amendment on sheet 8983 revised 2. The amendment says that if you're aged 67 years or over you get $5,000 to put into your superannuation account. That was basically for all Australians, because 67 years of age is the retirement age. We are struggling to keep people in the workforce, so it is basically an incentive for all Australians. It doesn't matter who you are or what work you do—whether you're a truck driver, whether you're someone who works in a retail business or whether you're someone who works in the mines—if you're 67 years of age, it's to have an incentive to put an extra $5,000 into your super.</p><p>What we find now is that a lot of people are actually drawing out their super at retirement age, paying off their homes, going for holidays, spending the money and ending up on the pension. It was an incentive to keep people in the workforce regardless of who they are—for all Australians, those battlers, everyone. But, as I see now, it was supposed to be only $5,000 a year, not increased by $5,000 every year. That was not what I wanted to see written here. Therefore I'm in a bit of a dilemma.</p><p>I still believe that Australians over the age of 67, those older Australians, should be able to put the money into their accounts and stay in the workforce, which we need. Just because you're 67 and you're of retirement age—I'm proud to say I am 67 years of age. I turned 67 yesterday. If Senator Murray Watt thinks that I'm staying here for an extra six years for $30,000, he doesn't know me. I don't need to be in this place with a lot of pusillanimous politicians for the next six years for an extra $30,000. It's about the battlers. It's for people out there to be able to stay in the workforce from 67 years of age, and to give them some incentive for why they should. They're worth their weight in gold. Most of my employees in my office are over the age of 67. I'm proud to say that. The people who worked in my fish and chips shop were also of the older age group, and they are worth their weight in gold.</p><p>This is about the battlers. Those people were given the opportunity to take their money out of superannuation to use in the time of COVID. This is now going to give them the opportunity to put that money back in without any penalties up until 2030. Give those people who have used the money the opportunity to put it back into their superannuation funds so they will have that money when they come to retirement age. Was that Labor's policy? No. They're not worrying about those battlers. The battlers, those hardworking Australians, utilised taking money out of their superannuation accounts thanks to the government giving them that opportunity. But now that they're back in work it's about allowing them the opportunity to put that money back into their accounts. I'd like to see how Labor's going to vote on that one, because they've been knocking back the opportunity for all the battlers to put money back into their accounts.</p><p>The next point is about the concessional contribution of money into your superannuation. If you are over the $26,000 or $27,000 that you put into your super at the moment from your employer—anything over that and you're paying the full tax rate on that money. And then you have the opportunity to pull it out. But, again, you are taxed at three per cent for drawing your money out. You're drawing out money that you paid full tax on and they want to hit you again for another three per cent. It's about getting rid of that three per cent, considering you've already paid your tax on it.</p><p>If you think that I'm moving this is because of me, and for $30,000—come on, mate, you just don't know me. I've probably paid more tax in this country than you ever have. I've done more work for the people of Queensland, and I have actually achieved more for Queensland in the past five years than some of the Queensland senators in this parliament. I am fed up with the lies, the misrepresentation and the people who put a spin on so many issues here. Talking about the casualisation of those in the mines: it was One Nation that actually got the government to get rid of casualisation, allowing those Australians to actually turn around and ask for full-time employment after 12 months of working in a job. That was One Nation. That was me. That was not Labor. That was not Labor and it definitely wasn't Murray Watt pushing for that.</p><p>It's about looking after those people and giving them the opportunity. My focus in this parliament has been a fair go for all Australians. It's up to you how you want to vote for this. If you want to play your politics in this place—I'm sick and tired of it and so are the Australian people. Stop damn well twisting and saying anything.</p><p class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</p><p>Oh, it's election time? You know what, Senator Watt? I'm actually going to put that video up where you praised me for my work ethic and the work I've put into Queensland. You praised me on the floor of parliament. It suits you when politics is in the air. That's right: we're up for election. Murray Watt's up against Pauline Hanson. You won't get re-elected on your abilities at all. You will get re-elected purely based on the fact that you're top of the ticket. Senator Chisholm might do a far better job than you.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>I will remind senators to put their comments through the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I'd like to begin by wishing Senator Hanson a happy birthday. I didn't actually realise it was your birthday yesterday, Senator Hanson. That even further explains your actions in moving this amendment. When I spoke on this last night I realised that you were 67 and that that was the reason you were trying to move a tax benefit for people who are 67 or older. What I didn't realise was that you were moving the amendment to benefit 67-year-olds on the day you turned 67. That is ingenious! How long did you spend working out how you could manipulate the system to give yourself a pay rise on your birthday? I've heard of a lot of people out there who like to buy themselves a birthday present on their birthday because they're not sure what they're going to get. I've never heard of a politician coming down to Canberra to move an amendment to use taxpayers' money to give themselves a birthday present on their birthday, but that's what Senator Hanson did just yesterday, on her birthday. That is extraordinary!</p><p>Senator Hanson, you said that you ran down into the chamber. I can understand why you ran down into the chamber, because you were so desperate to move this amendment to give yourself a birthday present—not only a $30,000 pay rise but a $30,000 birthday present at taxpayers' expense. If I were going to do that, I would be running down to the chamber as well. But do you know what's different about you and me? I don't run down to the chamber to give myself a pay rise. I didn't get elected to Canberra to give myself a pay rise. I got elected to actually look after battlers, not bullshit to them like you do, constantly.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Order, Senator Watt! Order, order, order. This may be strange coming from me—</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I withdraw.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Watt, but I would encourage you to put your comments through the chair.</p><p>Mr Temporary Chairman, unlike Senator Hanson, you and I did not get ourselves elected to Canberra to give ourselves a pay rise. We don't run around our respective states misleading people and pretending that we care about them only to get ourselves elected and give ourselves a pay rise, like Senator Hanson has done. The truth about what we've just seen this morning is that Senator Hanson has been caught out. Senator Hanson has been exposed as the fraud that she always has been, in claiming to support battlers but, in fact, only trying to help herself. She has been shamed into coming down into this chamber—running down into this chamber, by her own admission—to try to fiddle with this amendment that she put together yesterday, because she's been caught out trying to use taxpayers' money to give herself this pay rise.</p><p>Those of us who are from Queensland and have been watching Senator Hanson in action have been used to her having her snout in the trough for a very long time. She has had her snout in the public trough for over 20 years. Usually it's to try to access electoral funds that are meant to go to her party to use instead for her own personal benefit. What's different this time—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt—</p><p>is that she's got her snout in the trough to benefit herself personally.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt. Thank you. Senator Hanson.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I take offence at that. I rise on the point of order that he's referring to electoral funding, which has got nothing to do with this debate. On top of that, it's a bloody lie, and I'm not going to sit here and put up with this rubbish that comes out of his mouth.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hanson. Look, Senators these—sorry, Senator Roberts, just let me finish on the point of order. I think, Senators, that we can all get very passionate in this place, and none more than me at times. I would encourage you, Senator Watt, to reflect on your comments there. There are plenty of opportunities to get your point across. Senator Watt, I probably would ask you just to contemplate a retraction. I am asking that. It's entirely your call. Senator McAllister?</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>A point of order on the same kind of question: I wonder if you might reflect on Senator Hanson's language and the assertions she made, in fruity terms, about Senator Watt's contribution. I think she may also considering withdrawing some of her remarks.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McAllister. It is great to have passionate debate, but we've had a number of occasions now this morning where I would ask senators please to reflect. Let's—sorry, Senator Roberts, just let me finish please. I will come to you. I would ask both senators if they would have the ability to contemplate a retraction of accusations across the chamber. I can't control your doing that, but I'm asking. Senator Watt.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I withdraw anything that was offensive, Chair.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator Hanson, I would ask the same question of your good self too.</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=2021-06-17.53.3) "*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.*
-
-
|