|
senate vote 2022-08-03#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-19 14:22:24
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.19.1) to read the bill for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea, which means they can now discuss it in more detail.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.19.1) to read the [bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1343) for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea, which means they can now discuss it in more detail.
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- In her second reading speech, ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.19.1) the bill:
- > *repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.*
- >
- > *The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.*
- >
- > *The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.*
- >
- > *Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.*
- >
- > *The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.*
- >
- > *At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.*
- >
- > *Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers nor employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.*
- >
- > *A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.*
- >
> *Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.*- > *Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2022-08-03#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-08-12 15:41:05
|
Title
Bills — Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading- Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.19.1) to read the bill for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea, which means they can now discuss it in more detail.
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- In her second reading speech, ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labor) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-08-03.19.1) the bill:
- > *repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.*
- >
- > *The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.*
- >
- > *The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.*
- >
- > *Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.*
- >
- > *The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.*
- >
- > *At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.*
- >
- > *Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers nor employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.*
- >
- > *A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.*
- >
- > *Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.*
<p class="italic">That this bill be now read a second time.</p><p>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <i>Hansard</i>.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p class="italic"> <i>The speech read as follows—</i></p><p class="italic">PUBLIC SECTOR SUPERANNUATION SALARY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2022</p><p class="italic">SECOND READING SPEECH</p><p class="italic">The Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.</p><p class="italic">The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.</p><p class="italic">The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.</p><p class="italic">Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.</p><p class="italic">The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.</p><p class="italic">At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.</p><p class="italic">Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers or employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.</p><p class="italic">A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.</p><p class="italic">Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.</p><p class="italic">These outcomes would be a consequence of the reliance by all relevant parties on a view that rent-free housing at the time it was provided did not form part of superannuation salary.</p><p class="italic">Retrospectively repealing paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will regularise the past administrative practice of Commonwealth employers and employees by effectively restoring the position with respect to rent-free housing that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian public sector superannuation schemes since 1986.</p><p class="italic">The repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will commence from 1 July 1986, the date of the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime, and therefore regularise the change in practice that seemingly occurred after that time.</p><p class="italic">As the purpose of the retrospective repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations is to regularise the longstanding practice of employees and employers, the bill makes provision for cases, if any, in which paragraph 5(e) was applied historically in particular employer relationships in a way that included the value of rent-free housing in superannuation salary.</p><p class="italic">The bill does this by excluding a limited cohort of individuals from the effect of the repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations where no-one was acting pursuant to a mistake as shown from the actions of both Commonwealth employers and employees as evidenced by contributions having been made on the basis, in the period 1 July 1986 to 28 February 2022 that the value of the rent-free housing received by the employee was included in their superannuation salary.</p><p class="italic">The exclusion end date of 28 February 2022 reflects that paragraph 5(e) of the regulations was repealed with prospective effect from 1 March 2022.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I note that the provisions that this bill seeks to amend are currently the subject of an action in the Federal Court of Australia, and so I will limit my remarks out of respect for that process. Schedule 1 of this bill repeals section 5(e) of the superannuation salary regulations with effect from 1 July 1986. This will regularise the past administrative practice of the Commonwealth employers and employees by, effectively, restoring the position, with respect to rent-free housing, that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian Public Sector Superannuation Scheme since 1986. Schedule 2 of this bill contains exemptions that will ensure that individuals where explicit arrangements were in place about the treatment of rent for salary purposes will not be affected by the repealed provisions.</p><p>I note that the quantum of financial impacts is presently unquantified and that the administrative task involved in quantifying the financial impacts is prohibitive. However, based on the briefing that we have received from government, we accept that the quantum would involve a significant unintended cost to the federal budget, a significant unintended cost to the taxpayer. So, in putting on the record the opposition's support for this bill, I would like to note that the government has provided assurances that this is the most preferred option to resolve this unintended anomaly, that it is not a precedent for retrospective legislation or for such legislation to be rushed through the parliament and that this is the earliest possible that this legislation could be considered, with an urgency that it must pass before we head into a four-week break between sitting weeks.</p><p>I thank the government very much for making officials, from the Department of Finance, available to brief the opposition on this legislation and the cooperative way that they have approached this matter, particularly the minister and her office. I commend this bill to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Barbara Pocock</p><p>This is not my first speech. I rise to speak on this bill to make a few comments from the perspective of the Greens. I appreciate the briefing we had yesterday from a group of public servants who attempted to illuminate the complexity that is before us, but it was a very short presentation—less than 35 minutes—and it illuminated a number of elements in this bill that illustrate its complexity. So I rise to express and reinforce the concerns that my friend Senator Hanson-Young has put before us.</p><p>This is a very rushed consideration of a complex question. It's one of the first bills that I've had the opportunity as a new senator to deal with. I'm surprised that we didn't have before us an analysis that showed, as they suggested, there would be some people who benefited from this bill but others who would be disadvantaged. The general analysis about how those numbers would fall and what the characteristics were, of people affected, weren't put before us. So I am surprised that the analysis was thin and inadequate for the complexity of the matter in front of us.</p><p>Superannuation is complex. The schemes that we are dealing with, several of them, are complex. So I am resisting the notion that this is an urgent question which doesn't allow consideration of the proper facts, the full facts, before us. We don't have adequate information about the bill. We don't know who will be benefited and who will not, who will be disadvantaged, and we need that full analysis for the consideration of bills in this place and certainly on this issue. So a rushed process, lacking a fulsome briefing, is problematic. Secondly, it's not clear to me why this needs to be rushed through with such urgency. What's the reason? We haven't had a full explanation, and I think that setting a precedent for the urgent and very quick consideration of this matter is a mistake.</p><p>We've been here in this parliament, in this sitting, for a week and a half. To find ourselves suddenly dealing with this, at this pace, is a mistake—an issue that's been around, certainly in the court, for over two years, we heard yesterday. That's long enough for us to have had a proper briefing around it, and it hasn't arrived. The bill is retrospective for 30 years. That's a long time. And it's a real concern to us that that will create some retrospectivity and a precedent around an important piece of legislation, one that we still don't understand the negative or unforeseen implications of. The bill, it seems, will overturn, possibly, a court outcome in a case that's not yet been concluded. It's important that government doesn't interfere with the courts and that we have a deliberate and clear separation of powers in what we're doing.</p><p>We understand, here, in the Greens, the importance of superannuation. It's a really important issue that affects the lives of so many Australians, and we care about making sure that system works properly, especially in this case, and works well for the hardworking public servants, over many decades, as this bill would affect them. So we're unable to support this bill, given that Labor haven't given us enough information about how it would affect people, especially our public servants.</p><p>We want to ensure that those who do all of the work in the public sector, with their commitment to service, are not inadvertently disadvantaged through the rapid progress of a bill that's not well understood, even in this place. Our public sector has been cut to the bone. We have to make sure everything we do rewards and supports and protects public servants, increases their pay and conditions, and does no harm.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|