Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the motion as to whether the bill should be brought on, I think that the points made by the Attorney-General need to be answered. Standing order 179 deals with a bill which deals with a tax matter. Clearly this bill does not deal with a tax matter and it is for that precise reason I did not include in the bill a provision that would enable any superannuation payments made to a person over the age of 75 to become a tax deduction. Instead, I am proposing to move that as an amendment to an existing government tax bill, as I am entitled to do, which would grant a tax deduction for that payment.

As the law currently stands, when an employee turns 70, the employer may elect to pay or not pay the superannuation guarantee charge. I believe that to be ageist and sexist as well because it does apply very often to women in that context. But the ageism is very patent. The fact of the matter is that every employee in paid employment should be treated exactly the same and not be disadvantaged because of their age. As the law currently stands, when one turns 70, as I said, the employer does not need to pay the superannuation guarantee charge. If the employer elects to do so then it is a tax deduction up the age of 75. Thereafter, it is illegal to pay the superannuation guarantee charge and therefore there is no provision for it to be a tax deduction.

My proposal is that the age limit of 75 be abolished on the basis that it is discrimination against people on the basis of age. This government are introducing a commissioner for ageist issues, so they are being hypocritical in the extreme in trying to vote down this bill. As I said, the question of tax deductibility for the very small number of people who presently are in that category of working over the age of 75 will be dealt with by amending one of the existing government tax bills.

But now I go to the question of why the existing bill is not a tax bill. I will go to some advice which I have received from the Parliamentary Library. I will direct your attention to the questions that were dealt with in estimates. Nobody in the library is prepared to pay a registration fee for their practising certificate. Although they are qualified lawyers, they do not hold practising certificates and therefore they give advice on legal matters without determining it to be legal advice. I will read out the advice I was given. They were asked whether in their view this was an appropriation bill. The advice was given by Morag Donaldson from the library. She said: 'It does not appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. It simply abolishes the age limit of 70 years from the calculation of the shortfall component which is used in assessing superannuation guarantee charge payable when an employer fails to make superannuation payments by repealing paragraph 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.'

This advice, like many legal authorities, says that the bill is not a tax bill. It does not change the scope or any charge. While the bill may have consequences for the revenue, it is only if the government is to pay moneys to meet the shortfall in superannuation payments. On the face of it, the bill does not impose, increase or decrease a tax or duty. It specifically says that, because the bill is not an appropriation, section 56 of the Australian Constitution does not apply. Just to remind people, section 56 says that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money shall not be passed unless the proposed purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message from the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. That has not occurred.

To state again what this bill is about: it is a question of age discrimination. The law currently says that for someone between the age of 70 and 75 who is in the paid workforce their employer is not obliged to pay—

See this speech in context