Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. There is nothing particularly offensive about the bill. This is a multischedule Treasury bill that covers a range of unrelated measures—for those who are tuning in and watching Senate time at 6.40 on a Wednesday night. Some elements of the bill are sensible and deserve support. For example, streamlining the process for employees to choose their superannuation fund during their onboarding process is clearly a practical reform that could reduce confusion and unnecessary paperwork. It also gives workers a clearer control over where their super goes, and I think that's a very important element. However, the bill also contains provisions that raise serious concerns about transparency and the priorities of the government.

One schedule in particular that I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to provides tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. This includes income tax and withholding tax exemptions linked to upcoming international events. At a time when Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, many people would reasonably ask the question: why is the parliament being asked to prioritise tax concessions for an international sporting body rather than addressing the issues that everyday Australians are facing—whether that be fuel prices skyrocketing; having childcare deserts, such as in my home state of Western Australia; our government pushing us towards an illegal war; or the cost of living remaining completely unbearable? Parents are having to choose between paying bills, buying groceries and paying for their mortgage and putting a roof over their kids' heads—and the priority of the government is to give tax breaks to World Rugby. I don't understand the rationale. I have no idea why this decision was made.

Another issue I have is the lack of transparency that we're seeing when it comes to the financial impact. The explanatory memorandum fails to estimate the cost to the budget. Instead, it uses vague language such as 'significant' or 'unquantifiable'. I mean, come on! That's simply not good enough. Senators are being asked to vote on legislation without knowing how much it will cost taxpayers. Again, this isn't an isolated situation or an isolated case. We've seen it time and time again, and it's become a pattern of the government. It proposes bills before the Senate without any clear financial disclosure. That impacts our role here, as senators. Our job is to scrutinise legislation very carefully, and that job becomes extremely difficult when the financial implications are hidden by the government behind specific types of vague wording. Transparency is literally the bare minimum standard that our parliament should adhere to. Australians deserve to know what decisions have been made, who they benefit and what the cost is to the public purse.

That's why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) expresses concern that during a cost-of-living crisis that is punishing everyday Australians, the Albanese Government's priority is to provide tax breaks to World Rugby;

(b) notes that the explanatory memorandum for this bill fails to estimate the impact these tax breaks will have on the Budget; and

(c) condemns the rise in explanatory memoranda for government bills failing to quantify their financial impact and instead cloaking the cost of measures in secrecy by using words like 'significant' and 'unquantifiable', leaving the Senate in the dark as to what effect the measures they are voting on will have on the Budget".

The amendment does three very simple things: it expresses concern that, during a cost-of-living crisis, the government's priority includes tax breaks for World Rugby; it notes that the explanatory memorandum does not estimate the budget impact of these measures; and it calls out the growing practice of hiding costs behind vague language, leaving the Senate in the dark. This amendment does not block the bill; it simply asks the parliament to acknowledge the problem of transparency that many across the crossbench and the coalition have been raising time and time again. If the government believes that these tax exemptions are justified then it should have no problem showing us the costs and being upfront about the costs. Good policy requires good scrutiny, and we cannot have good scrutiny without honest information at the table for everyone to see. That's the least that we can provide to the Australian people, and that's what they expect from us, because they've sent us here to make sure that we've crossed our t's and dotted our i's.