Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government's toxic taxes, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government's toxic taxes.

I have to say, as we commence the second half of this year, what an absolute disgrace! This government has been exposed. What kind of a prime minister legislates a widow's tax? Well, sadly for the Australian people, that would be Mr Anthony Albanese. This is a tax that can hit when your spouse dies. This is a tax that can hit when a marriage breaks down. But, worse, it's a tax that can hit victims of domestic violence trying to rebuild their lives. That is why this matter is urgent and that is why the Senate should suspend its standing orders.

We need to hold this government to account—a government that likes to laud itself as standing up for women, a government that likes to laud itself as being the only people who can save those who are less fortunate. Yet, at the same time, don't worry about what comes out of their mouths; look at their actions. They have legislated a widow's tax, they have legislated a tax that hits victims of domestic violence and they have legislated a tax that hits Australians when their marriage breaks down. As I said, that is why we should support the suspension motion.

This is not theoretical. As we have now seen, there is a domestic violence survivor in Australia who has reportedly now been unable to refinance because of Labor's new tax laws. That is just an absolute disgrace. She is potentially now being forced to sell an asset she has spent more than 15 years building. Think about what that means and think about it in the context of this procedural motion to suspend the standing orders. This is a woman trying to rebuild her life after domestic violence, and now, because of the Albanese Labor government, because of those opposite, she may face another financial penalty because of the tax law imposed by those opposite.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't care.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; they don't care. And why do we know that? Because this was raised with the government prior to the legislating of this tax. That is why this matter is urgent. This is why I implore the Senate to support the procedural motion to suspend the standing orders.

Widows face the same uncertainty as this domestic violence survivor when property changes hands following the death of a spouse. That is an utter disgrace. Those opposite were actually told this prior to legislating. These concerns were raised—they laughed. They said it would never happen. Well, guess what? It did happen. I would have thought today you would be prepared to suspend standing orders to bring in a bill to clean up your mess. Yet what have we heard? Absolute silence from those opposite. I can assure you, Deputy President, if those opposite won't help themselves, the coalition absolutely will. This cannot wait.

This is the whole purpose of suspending standing orders. This is a mechanism that allows the Australian Senate to say: 'This matter is of such urgency that we all agree that we will put aside the ordinary course that is set out in the Senate order of business for today. This matter is so urgent that we will join together and suspend standing orders to actually deal with the urgency of this matter.' How can anyone on that side think this is not an urgent matter? This cannot wait. A widow, sadly, can't put the death of her husband on hold; she is now being financially penalised because of your widow's tax. A family going through a divorce can't simply suspend a property settlement; they will now potentially be hit with your tax. A victim of domestic violence—and this is the real-life example, and shame on those opposite for not coming in here today and being prepared to deal with the mess that they've created—can't put her financial independence on hold while the Albanese Labor government works out how to clean up the mess it's created. You were warned, you ignored the warnings. Australians are now dealing with the consequences. This is urgent and this matter should be supported by the Senate.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to support the suspension motion from Senator Cash on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition. The government tries to tell the Australian public that they've got it all under control, that they are on the side of Australians doing it tough, that they've got Australian women and children's backs during this cost-of-living crisis, yet here we are, I don't know how many weeks after that hopeless budget from Jim Chalmers was handed down, trying to help the government clean up a mess of its own making. And why are we doing this? Not because we want to show you up for the pathetic economic managers that you are, but to actually mean that the men and women, and the children, who are going to be subjected to severe economic detriment because of your failed policies.

You knew prior to that budget that this widow's tax, this divorcee's tax, would impact those people, yet you did it anyway, because you thought no-one would notice, because you actually don't care. Women who are entering divorce and doing the difficult financial settlement end up economically worse off. They also end up having to care for the children of that relationship, typically. And here they are going to be subjected to less in their financial settlement as a result of your government's derelict legislation.

We want to help you fix this. I have looked at the Red. There's not a lot on here that can't be delayed to actually fix this appalling neglect from your own budget so that not just widows but also the millions of Australians who are going through financial settlements as a result of relationship breakdown are protected. It is typically women who end up homeless post divorce because of the lack of money coming out of the financial settlement. I know Senator Cash went to the details of women fleeing domestic violence who need our support.

I think what's particularly galling is the fact that you did receive advice about this impact and you willingly and knowingly chose to ignore it. That shows a careless and callous disregard for those people who are going through divorce, separation and the financial fallout of those situations—particularly on women and children—and for those who are dealing with the death of a spouse. When an estate has to be sold and those proceeds dispensed, you literally passed legislation that will mean the recipients of that estate will receive less money, and you don't care.

I hear a lot from those opposite about the care economy and about compassion. I hear, 'Why are the conservatives so callous?' Well, here we are, wanting to stand with those who are going through bereavement, whom you're wanting to tax, and those who are going through divorce and separation, which is the most traumatic thing a family can go through. The fallout impact on the children as a result of the financial losses is significant and long-term and something that we as a society have to end up dealing with.

We are here saying there is nothing on the Red today that cannot be put aside to help us help you—not because we want to embarrass you for your failures and your incompetence on economic management but to actually stand with those Australians who are negatively impacted by your flawed economic policies. So I would commend this motion to the Australian Senate and implore the Australian Greens to stand with the opposition to seek to suspend this chamber's work until we can actually help the government help themselves and make sure that divorcees, widows and those fleeing domestic violence won't be having negative financial impact as a result of Labor's legislation.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders.

Thank you. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Thanks for the offer of help from those opposite, but, as you know, draft legislation has been released, which we have—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

How many weeks has it been?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, last time the Senate met, there was a lot of concern about the time to get it right and you wanted more consultation. And now, in the interests of political opportunism, you are saying, 'Raise it.'

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a draft out now for consultation that's due to close on 21 August. We have made it clear—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what I said, Senator Cash. You can continue to repeat it, but it's not what I said. We have a piece of legislation out for consultation—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, could you resume your seat. The previous two speakers were heard in silence. Minister, you have the call.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Deputy President. The legislation has been released. It was released on 4 August. The consultation closes on 21 August. We've said from the beginning that this would be dealt with in addition to a number of other issues, as is standard practice for tax legislation. When new GST legislation was introduced, there were 30 bills that followed and were passed to implement that tax reform. We have made it clear there would be—

Deputy President, please!

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Nobody voted for this.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

We were clear there would be subsequent pieces of legislation that the Senate would deal with, and that is the process that we are following.

In addition, Treasury has been talking with all of the major lenders, as well as the Customer Owned Banking Association. They are clear about the policy intent, and the banks have confirmed they can take account of the policy decision in the decisions they make without the law having actually passed the parliament. This goes to the point of urgency. We have had those discussions. We have made it clear that this particular issue will be picked up in draft legislation that is out for consultation, and we will deal with it, as we had foreshadowed after the first tranche was released.

I hear the concerns from those opposite around marriage breakdown and family and domestic violence, and I accept that that is an issue that the government and indeed the parliament should be dealing with. All of our measures that we have to deal with that, you have opposed. If, as you say, that is your driving concern, then you should also have supported all of the other programs that we are doing to deal with women, safe accommodation, supply of accommodation and supports for women who are in that situation, Senator Mckenzie.

Let's be clear to everybody: you didn't support the tax reform that we introduced, and this is another way for you to continue that argument now, when you know that this legislation and the issue that you raised through your attempt to suspend standing orders are being dealt with. The government, both in that debate and indeed afterwards, committed to dealing with this in subsequent tranches of legislation. That legislation is out for consultation. I'm sure you've all read it. I'm sure you're all across it. That will close on 21 August, and legislation will come back through this parliament—through the House and into the Senate—for passing, and we look forward to when that legislation is ready.

When that legislation is ready and has passed the House of Representatives, we would imagine that there would be absolutely no hold-up to that legislation passing this chamber, because of the position that you have taken today. The minute it comes to this chamber, that legislation should be supported and should be passed, if the arguments that you have put forward this morning are genuine. In the absence of that, a political stunt—a suspension of standing orders, which the Senate gets into at the beginning of every sitting day—isn't actually going to deliver the change. The change will come through the legislation that this government is leading, and when it has come through the House of Representatives, I look forward to the unanimous support of this chamber to get that legislation done as quickly as possible.

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

The term 'widow's tax' has emerged in relatively recent times to characterise impacts of the tax package that has recently passed through this parliament on a cohort of Australians that is actually far broader than widows. I just want to make that point first, although I'm happy to refer to it as the widow's tax for the purposes of this conversation. There is an emerging consensus in this chamber that those impacts that have become known as the widow's tax do need to be addressed. Certainly, the Australian Greens are of the view that these matters need to be looked at, and I look forward to that occurring in due course.

I note the beseeching plea from members of the coalition for the Greens to support this motion, which seeks to suspend standing orders so that the Senate can more promptly consider those issues. I want to be very clear that this motion is drafted in such a way that the Greens couldn't possibly support it, and members of the opposition know that full well. It's a bit rich for them to come into this place and ask us to support something that they drafted deliberately in such a way that they knew the Greens could never support it.

There are a few examples of that, but the starkest example is provision (c), which calls on the Albanese government to immediately axe the very tax changes that were brought into this place and supported by the Greens, and which addressed the outrageous gift of the capital gains tax discount, which went, overwhelmingly, to some of the wealthiest, most privileged people in this country. As if the Greens are going to support that position. So don't come in here and ask us to support a motion that you drafted so that we couldn't support it. That's what's going on here. Everyone needs to be very clear about that.

The changes to capital gains and negative gearing tax arrangements in Australia have delivered a long-overdue correction to the housing market in this country. Finally, wages are going to get a chance to catch up with the housing bubble. Finally, young people have got a glimmer of hope that one day they might be able to afford a house and a home to live in in Australia. That is what the Greens' decades-long campaign against the capital gains tax has delivered: a housing market that, over time, now should become more affordable—a housing market that young people can dare to hope they might be able to get into one day.

That is a good thing. The correction in housing prices is a good thing. It has finally taken away one of the most generous tax concessions, overwhelmingly accessed by the richest and most privileged people in this country. It has finally given young people and people who are not so advantaged economically hope that one day they might be able to afford to buy their own home to live in and access the great Australian dream of homeownership. Those are good things. The correction in the housing market is a good thing, and, here in the Greens, we are proud of the role that we played in delivering that.

For the opposition to come in here and ask us to support a motion that would put us in a position of winding back those benefits is simply ludicrous. You knew we couldn't support it. Please, by all means, draft whatever motions you like, but don't come in here and sanctimoniously ask us to support them when you actually drafted them so that we couldn't.

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

It's quite interesting listening to Senator McKim's comments. I want to put on the record that One Nation does support this motion. As we've seen in the chamber before, Senator McKim's only drawn our attention to provision (c), which he cannot support. If he really wanted to, he could split the vote, take provision (c) out of it and vote for the rest—if the Greens really believe that this is an injustice to the people out there. I don't believe what the Greens have said here at all, although Senator McKim might want to change his mind and take provision (c) out of it, and we can have a vote on it. That might be an answer to it.

Another point is that we've constantly seen in this chamber, time and time again, legislation being put through that has been guillotined and that has not been debated. Many times we've seen the government's legislation. We've had numerous amendments to their own legislation because they've never consulted properly with the community and the Australian people about their bills, and they've put them forward in this chamber. They rush their legislation through all the time.

Look at what happened with this widow's tax on capital gains and what they're doing here. They knew that was an issue. They knew it when they brought their bill onto the floor of parliament, yet they did nothing to address the issue and make changes to it, bring amendments to it, at that time. I listened to the minister say that it's now going to be a 10-day consultation period. That consultation period should have happened before the legislation came here to the floor of parliament. That should have been done. It absolutely disgusts me that you call out to say that we don't support women's issues or funding to women's sports. You call out women when it suits you. Where is the issue of transgender men in women's sports? You don't want anything to do with it. You call out women when it suits your agenda—not right across the board with everyone. This needs to change.

This was only a tax grab by the government, which is failing to control its own spending. You have been out of control with it. This is a $77 billion tax grab by the Labor government—that's what it is—on ordinary Australians. It's a load of rubbish to say that you're catching the billionaires out there who are making a lot of money out of capital gains tax. A lot of the investments that are made in this country are made by small business. That's a big investment. They build up their businesses. They put in a lot of hard work that they don't get paid for. They're going to sell it at a cost, and you're going to take it off them. You want their benefits taken from them or for them to pay extra tax.

A lot of the young people want to get into negative gearing and capital gains tax to buy their properties, and you're actually denying them. You say that you've allowed more Australians—the younger generation—to get into owning their own homes. What a bloody farce that is! That is ridiculous. It's not the case. We've found that more of them now are out of reach of owning their own home because of this government and the laws and legislation that you have imposed here.

It's a tax grab by an incompetent government that can't control its own spending. You constantly put your hand in the pockets of ordinary Australians who are trying to survive, make a living for themselves out there and own homes. If you don't have those investors, you won't have rental accommodations. That's what it's about. Can I give you some advice? Forget about a tax grab off people. Cut back your immigration into this country. That might help. Then we might have housing for the Australian people and families in homes, instead of them being homeless on our streets here. But you can't even admit that. You keep saying you're going to pull back, but no-one trusts you anymore. People are sick and tired of your lies. You're constantly lying about what you're going to do, and you never do it.

You're constantly accusing One Nation of not supporting your policies, whether it's in housing or whatever. Let me tell the public this: your policies have hidden agendas which we cannot support because they're lying to and cheating the Australian people. Put up good legislation and One Nation will back it. Put up legislation that's denying the Australian people—lying and cheating and trying to take what you can off them—and we won't support that. You've been hopeless in government. You cannot put up decent legislation. You're ruining this country day in, day out with your policies. You're driving people into the ground out there. They can't afford to live anymore. Their standard of living has dropped. Their way of life has dropped. I hope they throw you out on your ear at the next election.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today to support the suspension by Senator Cash that would enable her to speak about something that is urgent. It's very urgent. Ask Australians what's urgent. What is urgent is the fact that they can't afford to pay their bills. They've seen the value in their houses absolutely fall through the floor. And we know that there are many people out there concerned about the impact of this so-called widow's tax.

At a time in someone's life when they are at their most vulnerable, at a time in someone's life when they have got so much to deal with, this government knowingly allowed a piece of legislation through this place—they forced a piece of legislation through this place—that contained elements that actually made victims of victims. I don't know how the Labor Party could not have had the decency to fix the problem before they shoved that piece of legislation through here.

The question the Australian people should be asking of this government is: what sort of government, what sort of prime minister and what sort of treasurer would knowingly put a piece of legislation through this chamber that says to a widow or widower who has lost their partner to death, or to somebody who has gone through the trauma of a marriage break-up and has had to separate children, pets, assets and the like, or to a woman—most likely; anyone, for that matter—escaping a domestic violence situation and fearing for her life, 'We want to financially penalise you for that'? That just seems an outrageous thing for any government to do. For that reason, I believe it is absolutely urgent that we are able to debate this very point.

I also take on a point that Senator Hanson raised in relation to the contribution to this place from Senator McKim. Senator McKim quite clearly is happy—I would imagine, on the basis of his contribution—to say about this widow's tax that has been legislated that they will support the amended legislation if and when it eventually comes through this place to fix the problem that they have legislated. If Senator McKim is so determined to have his and the Greens' position on the record reflecting that, why don't the Greens actually seek to amend the motion that has been put forward by Senator Cash—this urgent motion that is incredibly important to Australians who are in a time of great stress? Remove part C of this motion, and let's vote on that. But I doubt that that's what they're going to do.

The fact of the matter is that this is just another example of the egregious behaviour that we continually see in this place from this government. They go to their people and tell them one thing. They make a whole heap of promises to them about things, but apparently promises are things that are now able to be broken. One doesn't have to keep one's promise in the lead-up to an election; one can just change their mind after the election. Contained in the legislation that included this toxic tax was a broken promise—a litany of broken promises—that this government made to Australians before the last election. Now, because Jim Chalmers's bottom line ain't looking so good, they have decided they are going for a tax grab from Australians but particularly from vulnerable Australians, which is why this particular piece of legislation is so important.

Also, they are pushing the legislation through knowing the fundamental flaw in this legislation that we are talking about today and saying: 'Okay, just trust us. We'll come back and fix it.' Every time we see a piece of legislation stuffed through this place, a great big headline piece of legislation that they can go and write a press release on and hold a press conference, all the details are in the subordinate legislation. Once again it's, 'Just trust us; just trust us.' I, for one, have to say that I do not trust this government because time and time and time again when legislation is put through here, when the details are eventually revealed through the subordinated legislation, you will find that the rules or the so-called changes that they promised they were going to make are fundamentally flawed. Just ask older Australians right now about that—the older Australians who've had their assessments for their aged-care needs stuffed through a computer generated algorithm and have been told that, while they needed a level 4 care package last week, the algorithm doesn't think they need a care package any more.

This is an urgent motion, and I urge the chamber to support Senator Cash's suspension so we can debate it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.