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 consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026 as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice 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 consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026.

I have to say this is possibly one of the most urgent suspensions to ever come before the Australian Senate. The Albanese government openly admit that they have imposed a tax on women escaping domestic violence. They now openly admit that they have imposed a tax on Australians going through divorce and relationship breakdowns. They have openly admitted this. They know they have a problem. They stand up here day after day telling us how they are the party for women in this country, yet they then sit back and are emasculated when it comes to bringing in a change to this.

Well, guess what? The opposition is going to help the government. We have today introduced into the parliament the Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026. It is a very, very simple bill. It basically cleans up the mess that the government itself has created. The government has had Tuesday of this week. The government has had Wednesday of this week. The government has had today, Thursday, of this week to introduce a bill to clean up its mess. It has sat on its hands and it has done nothing.

All the Senate now has to do is agree to this suspension so that, at three o'clock today, we will not interrupt any government business time. We will end question time in an orderly way. We will then join together as the Senate to debate the bill that has now been introduced into the Australian Senate and, after 30 minutes, do you know what we'll do? The Labor Party, the great defenders of women in Australia, and the Australian Greens—I think they're even greater defenders of women in Australia—can then be judged by their actions and not their words. There is now a bill that is able to be brought on at 3 pm today. As I said, it is a very, very simple bill. It cleans up the mess that the government itself has openly admitted it created, and that's what the sad reality is here.

The Labor Party, when they rushed their tax hikes through the Senate, already knew that they were imposing a tax on widows and on those fleeing domestic violence situations. As we all know, there is a woman out there now who is personally, at this point in time, feeling the impact of this tax hike on her. They were imposing a tax on Australians going through one of the most difficult times of their life, and that, of course, is divorce and relationship breakdown, but they proceeded anyway. They then had weeks and weeks during the parliamentary winter break to bring forward legislation. There has been Tuesday of this week, Wednesday of this week and, now, Thursday of this week, and they have failed to do so.

The coalition are ready, willing and able to work with the government. All the government needs to do is acknowledge that this is an urgent matter. They failed the Australian people, they've worked a tax hike on them in the most shocking of situations, and they failed to do anything about it. All the government needs to do is agree this matter is urgent, as it is. They need to agree that we, at three o'clock, will suspend the Senate standing orders, we'll agree to the suspension, and, instead of moving to take note, we will move to consider for 30 minutes the Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026. It is there now. It has been introduced.

I have to say, when this goes to a vote, I hope it goes through. It's a very simple one. I hope it goes through. You are dealing with here a woman who loses her husband. You are dealing with here a woman who escapes a violent partner. You are dealing with here a marriage that breaks down. You are dealing with here a family that falls apart. You've made a mistake. You admit the mistake. You admit you stuffed up badly. You admit that you are hiking taxes on these people. There is a woman now who has been directly affected by this as a result of a domestic violence relationship. And this bill now can actually go through at 3.30 today. The government won't take any action, but the coalition will.

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

Obviously, there is an issue here. We, the Greens, have said publicly that we think there's an issue that needs to be resolved. The government has acknowledged that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. I expect there's very close to a unanimity of views in this chamber that there is an issue that needs to be resolved regarding the tax treatment of dwellings acquired by surviving spouses and what happens when there is a relationship breakdown between co-owners of dwellings. This area of tax law is complicated, and I do note that the introduction of this bill, which was originally scheduled for yesterday, was postponed by the co-sponsors of this bill until today. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that that was because there were drafting issues with the version that they were proposing to table yesterday. That should be a salutary lesson to us. We shouldn't rush reform in a complex area of tax law. And we saw—

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

You voted for the tax hikes.

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

I'll take the interjection from that side of the chamber. I don't know what the words were, because there were two or three people shouting. But what I do know is the point they were trying to make, about their allegation that the previous reforms were rushed. But I will make the point, although that may be a valid point, that the counterargument can as well be made, which is that you have rushed your introduction of this bill—

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

We're fixing the mess which you acknowledge in your speech you created—

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

Order!

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

Let me just say the Greens are here—

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

Senator McKim, resume your seat. Senator Canavan.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just raising the standing order of making comments through you as chair. I think it was getting a bit disorderly, making comments across the chamber here.

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

Thank you. I will remind the chamber that Senator Cash was heard in complete silence and I expect that same respect to be afforded to Senator McKim. Senator McKim.

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

Thanks, President. This is a complex area of tax law. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I will make the point that the version of the bill that has been now tabled and to which this motion refers we saw well less than an hour ago. So I want to place on the record that we will take a constructive approach to resolving this issue—we will do that, and that's a commitment I'm very happy to place on the record on behalf of the Greens—but we're not going to do it in a rush because it suits the political agenda of the opposition for that to happen. On that basis, we won't be supporting this motion.

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

We won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders either and for similar reasons, noting it's a political stunt. We can take that as given. The second point is that we were only provided with this bill less than an hour ago, I would think, when it was introduced. From what we can see, it deals with one area that we were aware of, but it also has other amendments. That includes a schedule around capital gains tax which is new and that we have not had any knowledge of prior to it being moved. It's dealing with employee share schemes as well. So I think it is completely unrealistic to consider that we are in a position to consider this bill today.

The third point I'd make is that we have draft legislation out for consultation that will finish on 21 August that deals with this and a couple of other areas. Again, as we've said from the beginning, we did some big tax reform in the last sitting, with the support of the Greens party, and we made it clear that that was the overarching legislation and that there would be subsequent pieces of legislation that would then follow up to deal with some of the more complex areas of tax law. I remind those opposite that, when the GST was done, there were 30 bills that followed that tax reform. It needs to be done in a methodical, orderly way, with proper consultation. As such, we won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders. I move:

That the question be put.

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

The question is that the motion by Minister Gallagher to close this suspension debate be agreed to.

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

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