I just want to run you through some certain issues. This is obviously about getting access to some of your super, and it's not all your super. It's a portion of your super for a portion of time, because we firmly believe in One Nation that your super is not a national asset, it's your asset. One of the classic examples of where we've seen the government bereft of control over people's private assets would be in the Shield and First Guardian issue. I bring this up as an example because quite often I see the Assistant Treasurer going to the dispatch box talking about the sanctity of super, and what they've missed is that $1.2 billion was stolen from super. People were left with no money.

I want to give you an example of one. There's a company called Sequoia. It owns InterPrac, which is a licensed adviser for First Guardian and Shield. Now, here's an example of what has happened under this government's watch. There's a gentleman, Mr Richard Orr. He's 53 years old. He's terminally ill with cancer. He most likely won't make it till February. Instead of accessing his super to make his final memories with his wife and children, he is forced to battle Sequoia and InterPrac to have any of his super returned. Sequoia had sold InterPrac a fortnight ago to their former CEO who registered a new company, Bellbird, just one day prior to the sale. The sale means Sequoia's parent company of InterPrac are no longer liable for debts owed to victims like Mr Richard Orr, who is terminally ill with cancer. Investors like Melinda Kee are left to fight this injustice while these companies make a mockery of our government and the financial industry. These people have no money. They are broke. If the Labor Party believes in super so much, why don't you give these people who have been nurses and who have been teachers back the money that was stolen from them? They do not have the resources to pursue these people. They're making it so hard for Mr Orr to even get access to the court, just playing the game till Mr Orr dies.

That is why One Nation says this is your personal asset, a personal asset that must be protected, and an expression of a personal asset is your capacity to have access to it when you need it, when you're under the pump, when it looks like you might lose your house or be kicked out into the street because you can't pay your rent—a portion of it for a portion of time. Now, if you believe absolutely philosophically that this should never happen, well, you already allow it to happen. You already allow it to happen under items of distress. In fact, record numbers under this current economic environment are getting access to it, but it's so convoluted and it's so restricted.

There is an implication that it's the government's asset, the national asset. The great fear that so many people have as the government gets further and further and further into debt is that they'll look for a way to try and pay the debt off. And there's this big cherry sitting out there, $4.5 trillion in super. To pay off their trillion dollars in debt, they'll start reaching into the super. And you might say, 'That's paranoid.' No, it's not. They've already started. They've already started the legislation to get access to your super, changing the tax rates, changing the capacity for you to get [inaudible]. They changed it for people over $3 million, and they changed it for another level for people over 10. And you say, 'That's just the edge.'

So what we are doing here in this amendment is reinforcing our belief that super is actually an asset of the individual. It comes from their money that they earned. It's not from the taxpayer. If the government believe their protection of super and how they look after it is so paramount and that you should never get it out, then I challenge them to go to those people who were in First Guardian and Shield who still have not got a cent from the government, have not been paid out, are still bereft and are going to go into their retirement after being a teacher or a nurse their whole lives without a cent. Somebody in this building has got to stand up for these people. I intend to do that. I intend to do it deliberately. I intend to do it consistently. This is yet another example of reinvesting in the individual. It's their asset. If the government believes that they've got the greater protection on it, then it should go out and protect those people.