My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his own government's legislation currently before the parliament. Is the Prime Minister even aware that it is now government policy to reward dodgy businesses who have robbed workers by failing to pay their superannuation for more than 25 years—by not only waiving all penalties for the businesses but also giving them a tax deduction?

Mr Conroy interjecting—

The member for Wakefield—the member for Shortland, I should say, is warned! Sorry, 'Wakefield' just runs off the tongue so easily. I refer the member for McMahon to the statements I have made to him after previous points of order. Member for McMahon, on a point of order?

It is, of course, completely within the Prime Minister's right to refer the question to another minister.

The member for McMahon will resume his seat. This came up last week, and I'm just going to again refer the member for McMahon to the practice—I'll even dig out the page if he wants. The Prime Minister can refer a question to any minister.

I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, and I refer him to my press release on 24 May 2018. It is very clear that the government is not letting anybody off the hook from paying the superannuation guarantee entitlements that they ought to pay—far from it. This government has put in place a mechanism to allow small- and medium-sized businesses—

Mr Hill interjecting—

Mr Keogh interjecting—

The members for Bruce and Burt are warned!

who otherwise have not paid superannuation guarantee entitlements, to come forward under an amnesty and make good every single dollar that they owe their workers. Why? Why are we doing this? We are doing this because we actually care about the superannuation entitlements of every single worker.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order, members on both sides. The member for Shortland couldn't have had a more public warning. He continues to interject. He'll leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Shortland then left the chamber.

And so why is it that we are doing this? It is because on this side of the chamber we actually care about the superannuation savings of millions of Australians. Unlike those opposite, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, he, with his changes, uncapped fees. He put young Australians—those Australians under the age of 25—and low-income workers into insurance arrangements that would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement. He did that. Why? Maybe it was to support some of his mates in the superannuation sector. Maybe it was to do that. We have announced reforms in our most recent budget where we are reuniting people with their own money.

Mr Keogh interjecting—

The member for Burt will leave under 94(a).

The member for Burt then left the chamber.

That is $6 billion going to more than three million Australians. We are doing this because we recognise that superannuation is not the government's money, the employer's money, the union's money or Labor's money—it is the members' money.