Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask a couple of questions of the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy about this. But, before we get there, it is worth reflecting on where we are in the process of this debate. Yesterday, without notice, the government moved to crunch debate on three very important bills—three bills that relate to a superannuation system worth $3 trillion; three bills that go to the financial interests of every working Australian; and three bills that, in combination, have the potential to disadvantage three million Australians by as much as $240,000 at retirement, a consequence of shoddy drafting, shoddy policy work and an ideological obsession with supporting their mates in the financial services sector at the expense of the evidence. I think it is a pretty pathetic indictment of this government that a system as important as Australians' superannuation system is the subject of endless petty partisanship.

For eight years, every bill on superannuation that has been brought before this parliament has been marred by a fixation with an ideological war, at the expense of the evidence. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation is in the national interest. Nothing this government ever does in relation to superannuation relates in any way to the interests of working people. It is just one endless petty culture war after the other. It is a fixation driven by people on the other side who cannot bear the idea that industry super funds even exist, that this system, which is the envy of people all over the world, exists and works, and that this system allows businesses and workers and their representatives to direct their own financial interests, make investments and make some contribution to the structure of business and of capital investment in this country. This system, which works so well, has delivered for so many people and has lifted so many people into a dignified retirement, is the thing they can't bear. And why not? It is because the idea that ordinary people might have a say or might have a seat at the big table is anathema to these people. These people think that that right ought to be preserved for the merchant bankers—the business people in the really nice suits. It's not for the working types, not for people who do an ordinary job, nor for the people who get up early, go to work and do hard labour. It's not for them and their representatives; it's just for people like those on the other side.

I had actually thought it might come to an end when Ms O'Dwyer left the portfolio. I had thought that perhaps things might get better. But the performance yesterday and what I expect to happen today don't suggest that anything has changed at all under this minister, because Minister Hume is stubbornly persisting with a program of legislation that everyone has told her is flawed. When you've got Innes Willox—not a notorious socialist—from a key employer group, out begging the government to put aside ideology and look at the evidence, it should be a signal to you, Minister, that you have a problem. When you've got Innes Willox saying that people like Andrew Bragg, who likes to chat a lot on this topic, might need to put aside the eight years of hostility to superannuation that he built up during his time at the Financial Services Council, it might be an indication that the government has a problem, because your credibility on super is shot.

Every time a superannuation bill comes before this chamber, the one thing that we can be absolutely certain of is that the interests of ordinary people won't be in play. There'll be a weird set of interests from the Liberal Party. There'll be a weird set of internal stakeholders who've got some nutty conspiracy theory about how industry superannuation works. There'll be Andrew Bragg with an entirely misconceived idea about how industry super's investments work. There'll be the Financial Services Council, who've got a particular set of views that you're always ready to listen to. But there'll never be an examination of the evidence. There'll never be an engagement with the findings of Commissioner Hayne, who was very clear about which parts of the superannuation system required particular and additional attention and which parts were working okay. There won't be an engagement today with the evidence from the Productivity Commission that there is a whole section of the superannuation industry that will be left unregulated by this bill and that is letting workers down. None of that is to be engaged with, if we are to take at her word the contribution the minister made last night.

The thing is we don't know what we're really dealing with today, because a deal has been done. Last night Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and Senator Griff gave their vote to the government to crunch all this through, to make sure that the terms of the debate today would be very narrow, that the time for the debate would be very narrow, that senators in many instances would be in a position where they were voting on amendments that they had only just seen and where the time allocated for discussion was very, very limited indeed. Why is this government so allergic to scrutiny, Minister? That might be something that you address in your first contribution.

The final thing I want to come to is the amendments that are before us to the bill that we are now dealing with. Senator Hanson has circulated three amendments. One of them goes to improving tax concessions for a small number of very wealthy people. Curiously enough, the age at which this measure kicks in is 67. Senator Hanson was willing to give the government the support to bring all this on last night, and it happens, if we're to believe Wikipedia, that Senator Hanson herself has only recently turned 67. What a coincidence. The question I have for you, Minister, is: will you be supporting her amendment? Is this the deal that's been done? We know a deal's been done, but we don't know its terms, because you haven't been willing to be upfront about that. So I'm inviting you now to tell us the terms of this deal and, in particular, to tell us what the government's voting position will be on each of the amendments that have been circulated on this bill in this chamber in the name of Senator Hanson.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McAllister, for that contribution. There are a number of amendments that are going to be put forward today from right across the chamber on all three bills. The government has a different position on each one, as you would expect. On the three amendments that are coming from Senator Hanson today, there are two that the government will be supporting and there is one that the government will not be supporting.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite the minister to be transparent about which of the amendments she intends to support.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be supporting the amendment on sheet 1005, it will be opposing the amendment on sheet 8983, and it will be supporting the amendment on sheet 8997.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I've asked you to lay out the terms of the deal that you've made with the crossbench. Will you do that now?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, as you'd know, the government makes negotiations with the crossbench. All negotiations are done in good faith, and that will continue to be the case.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for that. It's a very obtuse answer to my question. We can assume that you've secured the support of three senators for crunching your legislation through. What are the terms on which you have secured their support? What have you offered them, what can the Australian people expect, and what do senators need to know before they make their position clear on this bill?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, as you'd understand, this legislation has merit in its own right. When we speak to members of the crossbench—and, indeed, members across the chamber—we do so in good faith. We listen to what their concerns with the bill are, and we potentially support or reject amendments as appropriate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you've indicated support for sheet 1005. What is the effect of that amendment?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020 would remove the excess concessional contributions charge, which is known as the ECC charge, for people who exceed their concessional contributions cap. The ECC charge is just over three per cent—3.01 per cent is currently applied to the tax liability on excess contributions to super that are in breach of the concessional contributions cap. Removing the ECC charge to excess super contributions will help simplify the superannuation system and also cut red tape. It's imposed on people even when they breach their cap through no choice of their own, such as in situations where their employer pays more than the 9.5 per cent superannuation guarantee rate. Twenty-six per cent of employees are currently on agreements where their employer pays in excess of 9.5 per cent. The proposed amendment would remove the ECC charge but leave intact the existing integrity arrangements which ensure that any excess contributions continue to be taxed appropriately at an individual's marginal tax rate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, is it correct that this amendment will deliver a benefit to senators?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment will deliver a benefit to anybody who is paid in excess of the superannuation guarantee rate of 9.5 per cent, particularly for those whose employer pays more super than that rate without any choice of their own.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's a tough gig, isn't it, when your employer pays your super, without any choice of your own, in excess of the minimum rate! It sounds tough! Is that the situation Senator Hanson finds herself in?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong senator for that.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you not aware of the general terms on which senators are employed, Minister Hume?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's entirely irrelevant to this piece of legislation, Senator McAllister. We know that, when we speak to crossbenchers and they tell us their concerns with a particular piece of legislation, we would always negotiate in good faith.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So this has been the subject of negotiation between yourself and Senator Hanson? It is a change which delivers a benefit to high-income people who get paid more than the standard superannuation rate. That sounds exactly like the situation of most senators. Why is it that Senator Hanson can come in here—she's not even here, actually. She can't be bothered to come and defend her own amendments. You're here carrying the can for her, Minister. But you've agreed to this. Why is it that you think that approving an amendment that directly benefits Senator Hanson is appropriate?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will support changes that help simplify the superannuation system and reduce red tape.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I understand that the government intends to support this change. I'm inviting you to tell the people of Australia why people who go over the cap, which is quite generous at $27,000, a little bit over, need a tax cut. Because, honestly, if I think about the people that I know in my community, there aren't many tipping more than 27,000 bucks into their super every year. That is a very elite group of people. How many Australians are going to benefit from this, Minister? Why is it that the remainder of Australians, who don't benefit from this, should bear the costs of the change that you're proposing?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of those who breach this cap do so through absolutely no choice of their own. Removing the excess contributions charge simply removes red tape and simplifies the superannuation system.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the fiscal impact over the forwards of voting for this amendment?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an amendment that's been put forward by the crossbench. It's not an amendment that's been put forward by the government, so the fiscal impact has not been analysed.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, your advice just now is that you are in here committing the government to vote for an amendment that will benefit a very small group of Australians and that will cost the budget, and you've got absolutely no idea by how much?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An update will be provided on the costings at the next budget update.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concede, Minister, that that gives you a generous period of time to get around to this. But is this the new standard that we're going to see for governance? You come in here, you do a deal with Senator Hanson to ram your bills through, and the price of that is an amendment of uncertain cost that you're willing to tick off on despite the fact you've got absolutely no idea about the consequence for the budget? This is the problem with the way you are dealing with superannuation. It is a toy. It is a thing for endless political games. It is the subject of deals which you're very reluctant to discuss, but you can't even do the basics.

What government would come in here and ask senators to support a proposition where you've got absolutely no idea of the fiscal impact? The superannuation system does actually have a pretty substantial impact on the budget. You won't see this side of politics wandering out there making propositions about super without thinking that question through. It astonishes me that you would come in here and give government support for something that was dreamt up by Senator Hanson, in her own interest, without even bothering to cost it. Will this be the standard you'll be setting for all of the other amendments that are before us today?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, I think I can safely say that we haven't costed your amendments either. I'd be interested to know if you have costed your amendments. That said, as I said before, we negotiate with the crossbench in good faith at all steps of the way to make the best legislation possible.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, you haven't bothered on the fiscals, but I ask you: how much will a senator here on a backbencher's salary personally benefit from the change you are proposing to endorse by supporting the amendments on sheet 1005?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't costed these amendments and I haven't costed your amendments, but, if you have costed your amendments, I'd be interested to know what they are going to cost the budget as well.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you don't know. Senator Hanson has come in here, popped something in and proposed it to you. It removes a charge that affects her personally—it affects a lot of people here personally actually—and you haven't bothered to find out what the individual benefit is. You weren't even curious when Senator Hanson put this proposal to you.

Senator Hume interjecting—

My question to you, Minister, was: were you not even curious about the impact of what was being put to you on high-income earners in this chamber?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, in your own words, this affects a very small number of people. If we can make legislation better, we will certainly always consider how to do so.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It certainly does affect a very small number of people and a lot of people in this chamber. Do you think this is what the Australian public expect from us? Do you think they expect us to come in here and spend time debating amendments that, in your words, affect a very small number of people and provide a benefit to a very small number of people, most of whom earn very generous incomes? Do you think they expect you to just tick that off without looking at the impact of the cost on the budget or without thinking through the kind of benefit that's going to be offered to the people sitting around you?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Australian people expect a superannuation system that serves them rather than the superannuation funds that administer it. The government uses its quite considerable constitutional powers to compel Australians to sequester nearly $1 in $10 of everything they earn potentially for up to 40 years, and yet they do so in a highly inefficient system. Everything that the government has done in its entire time in this parliament has been to improve the efficiency of the system through reducing the number of duplicate accounts out there—having duplicate accounts means there are two sets of fees and two sets of insurances—ensuring insurances are appropriately applied and can be claimed on; ensuring that there is competitive tension that drives fees down; and ensuring that the long tail of underperforming superannuation funds that people languish in for years and years is eliminated from this system. Indeed, the bills that are before us now are about making superannuation more flexible, specifically for older Australians who haven't had the benefit of compulsory superannuation throughout their working lives. We will continue unapologetically to do so.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to pick up on some of the questions Senator McAllister has asked. Minister, you've said that you do not know what the cost to taxpayers will be of agreeing to the crossbench amendments. Are we talking millions of dollars, billions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars? Do you have any idea how much you're about to sign taxpayers up to as part of your deal with the crossbench?

The CHAIR: Senator Watt, you need to be speaking from your spot.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, as is the usual practice when an amendment passes on a piece of government legislation, the cost effect of that amendment will be published in the next budget update, which in this case will be MYEFO.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does it not concern you, Minister, that you are potentially signing taxpayers up to many billions of dollars as a result of supporting these crossbenchers, because you don't know what the cost is? You say we should wait for the budget update, but today's the day when you're about to put people on the hook. If we're about to see the parliament deliver tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds to a very small number of people, I would have thought we were entitled to know that.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will always make a decision on amendments based on their individual merits. Indeed, in regard to the cost of those amendments, it would be very helpful to government if those who were proposing amendments would do their own costings. For instance, I understand that there is an ALP amendment to this legislation that's before us now. Again, I don't know what the cost effect of that would be. Should the government have chosen to support that amendment, again, the costs would be outlined in MYEFO, as is usual practice.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't the difference, though, Minister, that, as is my understanding, the government is not supporting any of the Labor amendments—or is supporting a very small number of them at best—but it's the government that is choosing to back in crossbench amendments? So isn't it a little bit more relevant to have some idea of the cost of amendments that are going to pass with the government's support than of any other amendments that anyone might be moving that are going to go down? That's the issue.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government makes decisions about whether to support or not support amendments that are made by the crossbench or, indeed, the opposition very carefully and considers the effects on the underlying legislation. The opposition have put forward their many amendments to these three bills today. If they have provided any costings themselves attached to those amendments, then the government might take them more seriously.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just return to amendment No. 8983, which is, as I understand it, the amendment Senator Hanson has moved to give herself a nice little pay rise. When was that amendment presented or first discussed with the government?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry, I can't answer that, Senator Watt. What I can say is that the government is not supporting it, so the question is irrelevant.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the ALP has circulated an amendment on sheet 1025. We won't be proceeding with that amendment this morning.

(Quorum formed)

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill be reported.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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.

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 Alice in Wonderland stuff from the government here, which just, potentially, historically voted against the passage of its own legislation through this Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there anybody seeking the call?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might respond to Senator Roberts, if I may.

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.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Senator Watt interjecting—

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.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind senators to put their comments through the chair.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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!

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.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Watt! Order, order, order. This may be strange coming from me—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Watt, but I would encourage you to put your comments through the chair.

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.

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—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt—

is that she's got her snout in the trough to benefit herself personally.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt. Thank you. Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

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.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw anything that was offensive, Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator Hanson, I would ask the same question of your good self too.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have nothing to withdraw with regard to his performance and what he does for Queensland. I have not gone into a personal matter, as he did when referring to my electoral funding, so, therefore, I will not withdraw what I have said.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson, there was some colourful language that I pulled up Senator Watt on, and I ask that you withdraw the colourful language, please. It was something along the lines of 'bullshit'—

No, I never said that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: or 'bloody'. Sorry, the 'BS', which was from the opposition side, was withdrawn.

That's the Irish coming out of me—saying 'bloody'. I withdraw it if it was offensive to anyone.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: There are truck drivers present in the chamber that may take offence to some of the language! I'm not one of them. Senator Roberts.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And coalminers. But we wouldn't take offence to it either! We just witnessed from Senator Watt a statement that was deliberately misrepresenting what Senator Hanson said immediately prior. That is not acceptable behaviour in this Senate, and it's done repeatedly. Misrepresentations, let's be clear, are an attempt to control, and always beneath control there is fear.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: As I see it, as I sit here in the chamber, Senator Watt did retract whatever was offensive. I think it's now time that we get back on track. We're here to do a little bit of work. Senator Watt, you have the call.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to wrap up my contribution, for those who haven't been following exactly what is being proposed in the amendment that Senator Hanson tabled yesterday on her birthday, the day she turned 67, the purpose of that amendment is to give a very generous tax concession to high-income earners who are aged 67 or older. It won't apply to people earning $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year, because—Senator Hanson might not realise this—people earning low to middle incomes don't generally have so much money set aside that they can make extra voluntary superannuation contributions. But those of us who are fortunate enough to be working here or in other high-income occupations do have that opportunity. So the amendment that Senator Hanson has moved will only benefit high-income earners, like Senator Hanson, who turned—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Watt, but Senator Hanson is on her feet. No amendments have been moved yet. Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: he said I have moved the amendment. I have not moved the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, Senator Hanson, I picked that up. Senator Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment that Senator Hanson circulated yesterday had one objective, and that was to give a generous tax concession—in other words, in ordinary people's language, a pay rise—to high-income earners like Senator Hanson who are 67 or older. As I say, Senator Hanson didn't just circulate this amendment on any day; she circulated it on the day she turned 67, the day she qualified for this extremely generous pay rise.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, on a point of order.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is misrepresentation. Senator Watt said I circulated this on my birthday. My birthday was last month. This was not circulated on my birthday, so it's basically misrepresentation; he told a lie.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can help. Sorry, Senator Hanson, but the Senate did hear you say yesterday it was your birthday.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday was not my birthday, so you are wrong. I'm sure you've realised that. I said my birthday was last month.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson, thank you for clarifying that. We can now correct the record. I would urge your office to pull up the record. There are no points of order. Let's get back on track. Senator Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering whether it was within the standing orders to take a point of order to correct when your birthday is, but we're used to seeing strange things here in the Senate.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, if you could, continue.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the purpose of this amendment that Senator Hanson circulated yesterday, which we now learn was not her birthday, even though she told us 10 minutes ago it was her birthday—certainly she circulated this amendment after she had turned 67—is to provide a very generous tax concession to high-income earners who are 67 or over. Of course, Senator Hanson, unlike most people in this chamber, just happens to tick each box: high-income earner and 67. What a nice wicket!

There is some dispute about the value of this pay rise that Senator Hanson is seeking to grant herself. We have calculated that, over the course of a six-year Senate term, it amounts to $30,000, but there are other calculations that have been performed this morning which suggest that, in fact, it could be up to the value of $150,000. But let's be generous to Senator Hanson and assume she's only trying to give herself a $30,000 pay rise. What sort of politician, what sort of political representative, sets out, when they're thinking about what they want to achieve in Canberra, that their top priority is to give themselves a pay rise? What sort of person does that? What sort of person goes around to Queenslanders, misleading struggling battlers and trying to tell them that they're on their side, when, in fact, what they do is they secretly come down to Canberra and circulate amendments under the cover of darkness which are intended to give them at least a $30,000 pay rise? I'll tell you what kind of politician does that: Senator Hanson does that, and she has form.

Whether you look back over her recent political career or her longer-term political career, one consistent thing we have seen from Senator Hanson is a laser-like focus on targeting public funds to enrich herself. She's done it before with electoral funds. She's doing it now with taxpayers' funds on superannuation.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want Senator Watt to withdraw that comment, that I've taken money from electoral funds.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll let the record stand for itself on that matter, Chair. In conclusion—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt, just bear in mind section 193 of the standing orders.

Thank you, Chair. I think what we saw yesterday from Senator Hanson will go down in history as one of the biggest attempted rorts and one of the biggest attempted swindles of the public purse that Australia has ever seen from a federal politician. It will go down in history as 'Pauline's Payday'. That's what yesterday was. That was about Senator Pauline Hanson coming to Canberra to give herself a nice, sweet, fat pay rise, which all of those battlers back in Queensland are going to be paying more tax to fund. That's what happened yesterday. And I can understand why Senator Hanson is now desperately running to the chamber to try to tidy up this mess; it's because she's been caught out.

I've said many times before that Senator Hanson should be ashamed of her behaviour. I've never felt it more strongly than I feel it today, because not only is she trying to enrich herself personally but she's doing it at the expense of the very battlers whom she was elected to this parliament to represent. It is a shameful day, even for Senator Hanson. The government is complicit. We know there's been a dodgy deal done between the government and One Nation to get this legislation through, so the government's hands are every bit as dirty as Senator Hanson's. Already, people in Queensland know very well what you've been up to here, Senator Hanson. They're only going to know more about it. You can laugh, if you think it's funny to rip off taxpayers' funds.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt, through the chair.

Chair, if Senator Hanson thinks it's funny and a laughing matter to be ripping off the public to give herself a pay rise, she's on her own, because I don't think it's funny. I think it's a very serious matter that Senator Hanson should be completely ashamed of, trying to rip off taxpayers in this manner.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, as far as I'm aware, there is no question before the committee. The government voted to bring this bill back into the committee stage. There are no amendments being put. Under those circumstances, I move:

That the bill be reported.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8997, by leave, please.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, just a moment; Senator McAllister has asked that the bill be reported, so we're going to have to deal with that first.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill be reported.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8997 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1005 revised 2 together:

SHEET 8997

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 3 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Re -contribution of COVID -19 early release superannuation amounts

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 Subsection 290 -150(2)

After "290-168", insert ", 290-169".

2 After section 290 -168

Insert:

290 -169 Contribution must not be a COVID -19 re -contribution

You cannot deduct the contribution if it is a contribution that is covered under section 292-103 (about COVID-19 re-contributions).

3 After subparagraph 292 -90(2 )( c )( iiia)

Insert:

  (iiib) a contribution covered by section 292-103 (COVID-19 re-contributions);

4 After section 292 -102

Insert:

292 -103 COVID -19 re -contributions

(1) A contribution is covered by this section if:

(a) the contribution is made by you to a *complying superannuation plan in respect of you in a *financial year; and

(b) the contribution is made in the financial year beginning on 1 July 2021, or a later financial year ending on or before 30 June 2030; and

(c) one or more amounts (the COVID-19 early release amounts) have been paid to you from a complying superannuation plan, in either or both of the financial years beginning on 1 July 2019 or 1 July 2020, because you satisfied:

  (i) a condition of release specified in item 107A or 207AA of the table in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations1994; or

  (ii) a condition of release specified in item 109AA of the table in Schedule 2 to the Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations1997; and

(d) the amount of the contribution is not more than the total of your COVID-19 early release amounts; and

(e) if you made one or more previous contributions covered by this section—the sum of:

  (i) the amount of the contribution; and

  (ii) the amounts of those previous contributions;

is not more than the total of your COVID-19 early release amounts; and

(f) you choose, in accordance with subsection (2), to apply this section to the contribution.

(2) To make a choice for the purposes of paragraph (1) (f), you must:

(a) make the choice in the *approved form; and

(b) give it to the *superannuation provider in relation to the *complying superannuation plan on or before the time when the contribution is made.

_____

SHEET 1005 REVISED 2

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column headed "Provisions"), omit "Schedule 1", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2".

(2) Page 3 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Excess concessional contributions

Part 1—Amendments

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 Section 26-74

Repeal the section.

2 Section 291-1 (note)

Omit "about a charge you may be liable to pay, and".

3 Section 291-15 (note 2)

Repeal the note.

4 Subsection 995-1(1) (definition of excess concessional contributions charge )

Repeal the definition.

Taxation Administration Act 1953

5 Subsection 8AAB(4) (table item 44Q)

Repeal the item.

6 Division 95 in Schedule 1

Repeal the Division.

7 Section 97-1 in Schedule 1

Omit "and any excess concessional contributions charge".

8 Section 97-5 in Schedule 1 (heading)

Omit "and charge".

9 Section 97-5(1) in Schedule 1

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) If you have *excess concessional contributions for a *financial year, the Commissioner must make a written determination stating the amount of those excess concessional contributions.

10 Subsection 250-10(2) in Schedule 1 (table item 37AD)

Repeal the item.

11 Subsection 250-10(2) in Schedule 1 (table item 135Q)

Repeal the item.

12 Subsection 280-100(4) in Schedule 1

Repeal the subsection.

Part 2—Repeal

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Act 2013

13 The whole of the Act

Repeal the Act.

Part 3—Application

14 Application

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to excess concessional contributions for a financial year starting on or after 1 July 2021.

On sheet 8997: with COVID last year, people were given the opportunity to draw out of their superannuation $10,000 in the first year and another $10,000 in the second year. These amendments will allow those Australians who have withdrawn their money the opportunity to put that money back into their account by 2030. This is a way of saving—for people to put their money back into their account with no penalties. I think it would be great for the Australian people to actually have the opportunity to put it in.

Labor were quite happy to stop this point in the last vote we had; they were quite happy for the bill not to proceed with my amendment. Therefore, I take it that Labor are totally opposed to people being able to put their money back into their account without any penalties over the next 10 years. They are going to vote against those people who had to pull money out due to not having work and finding it financially difficult. It is important to these people back in the workforce now, these Australians, these battlers out there, to get as many savings away into their superannuation as they possibly can.

The second sheet of amendments I put up here is to do with people who have put in amounts past their $25,000 concessional cap. They pay tax on it on the way in. Actually, if they pay over the $25,000 threshold, they are paying full tax on it. They are given the opportunity to pull that money out in a certain period of time after the end of the financial year, but they are penalised another three per cent. Remember that they have already paid their full tax on it, and you want to penalise them again by having them pay another three per cent on that money. This will get rid of that three per cent and they can draw out their money within a specified period of time. So I think it would help a lot of people if they want it to.

I think a lot of Australians would agree that they pay far too much tax in this country, especially personal tax plus also the GST. Those are the taxes we pay, so why tax people again on funds that they have already paid their full tax on? I hope that Labor will actually support the battling Australians on these amendments that I'm putting forward and give Australians the opportunity to put their money back into their accounts and save for their future retirement years.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: There are two lots of amendments that need to be agreed to. I remind the chamber that we are dealing with sheet 8997 (1) and (2) and sheet 1005 (1) and (2). The question is that the amendments be agreed to.