Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because the Bill contains provisions which make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations, and notes that this is yet another attempt by the Government to undermine Australia's superannuation system".

Our approach to this legislation is guided by one objective above all: to see that Australian workers get paid the super that they need and deserve on time. It says it all about this government that they dismiss the fair and timely payment of superannuation as 'red tape' to be discarded with the full stops and commas of another so-called repeal day. It says it all about this government that, when there is a serious and growing problem with the nonpayment of super in this country, they impose unnecessary and unwarranted changes which will actually make the problem worse. It says it all about this government that, when given the choice between doing the right thing by Australian employees and a shady deal that duds workers, they go for the latter whenever they can. That is what the core of this bill is all about.

Labor does not and will not support the attack on the super payments Australian workers are entitled to by law—payments that are so important to their prospects for a secure retirement.

It is obvious to anyone who comes to this issue in an objective way—in an open-minded way; in a fact based, evidence based way—that there is a problem with employer compliance with superannuation guarantee obligations. This is not an opinion; it is a fact. This is not just something that Labor says about this issue. The government's own auditor, the Australian National Audit Office, found in 2015—earlier this year—that between 11 and 20 per cent of employers could be noncompliant with their SG obligations. The Australian Taxation Office described noncompliance with super guarantee obligations as 'endemic'. I congratulate Cbus for the research they have done on this issue, which has put the serious problem we have with compliance in Australia on the agenda. That research by Cbus said that Australians are losing $2.6 billion a year in super. That figure is growing at around five per cent per annum, with 6.8 per cent of the workforce—something like 690,000 Australian workers—affected in some way by unpaid superannuation.

But, with all this evidence available to them, what is this government's response? On being elevated to the cabinet and given this task, the new Assistant Treasurer gathered her staff and the officials around the table. She was presented with all the evidence about noncompliance with super obligations. She was told about 690,000 workers being dudded, about the $2.6 billion in super that people are missing out on every year and about the growth rate of this problem. She was told that it is not just a big problem now but a growing problem. And what is this government's top priority? It is to weaken the penalties imposed on employers who do not pay their super on time.

This is not made up; it is not a joke; it is a problem. It is a problem which would be wilfully and intentionally exacerbated by a stupid, badly-motivated policy change. Incredibly, on this legislation, when the Assistant Treasurer was asked about this issue, she said that the government's priority is improving super compliance. They are taking people for mugs. Their actions in this area remind me of that saying, 'Things are never so bad they can't be made worse.' That saying applies to this situation with the noncompliance of super. There is only one possible outcome from the changes that the government is proposing in this chamber: to make it easier for employers to dodge their obligation to pay fair super on time.

As I said, it speaks volumes about this government that amongst its highest priorities in our super system—a super system which is the envy of the world, but still imperfect—is to make it easier for people to dodge their super guarantee obligations to their workers. It is insulting enough to Australian working people that their government considers fair payment of super, as I said, as 'red tape' to be discarded with the commas and hyphens of the government's repeal day farce.

The Assistant Treasurer added insult to injury when, four days after this legislation to lower the penalties was introduced, she said in the Fairfax papers, 'The government is focused on making sure employees get super guarantee payments.' The Assistant Treasurer should come into this place and fess up that the intention of schedule 1 of this bill is actually the opposite to what she has said publicly. The effect of this bill would be to make a bad problem with super compliance worse. The bill will make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations.

The Assistant Treasurer also claims, again dishonestly, that the changes in her bill are 'specific to the period in which penalty interest is charged'—again, wrong. The fact is that her legislation not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated; it has far more substantial and wide-ranging effects, which will make it easier for employers to pay super late. The Assistant Treasurer really should know this. Embarrassingly for her, unfortunately, it has not been her only gaffe.

The Assistant Treasurer is so distracted by her ideological obsessions against representative superannuation boards that she cannot even get the basic facts straight right across the superannuation system. For example, when asked about tax breaks at the top end of the superannuation system, the Assistant Treasurer said:

This idea that people can amass multi-millions of dollars in their superannuation funds is just simply not correct, it's simply not correct to say that.

Figures published by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, ASFA, in April this year reveal how completely wrong she was in making that statement. More than 200,000 people have superannuation balances in excess of $1 million. Half of those—100,000 of those—have more than $2 million in superannuation, and there are 475 people with account balances over $10 million. Remember, this Assistant Treasurer said it was not possible to accumulate millions of dollars, despite the overwhelming evidence that thousands and thousands of Australians have done so. It is not too much to ask the Assistant Treasurer to be across very basic details like this. She should spend more time getting across the details of her portfolio and less time on ideological rants which do nothing to improve the super system in this country.

Facts matter in this debate, and fund members—Australian workers—matter most; they matter above all. What everyone needs to understand—particularly those opposite, who are about to vote for these changes which will make it less likely that people will get their super on time—is that, where employers do not pay adequate SG contributions to an employee's nominated fund on time, they may be liable for a superannuation guarantee charge. The SG charge currently consists of the amount of superannuation not contributed, which is called the shortfall; an interest component, which is currently 10 per cent a year; and an administrative fee of $20 per employee per quarter.

This bill lowers the base of the calculation of the SG charge; decreases the period over which the interest is calculated, moving the start date from the start of the quarter to the end of the quarter plus 28 days, and moving the end date from the date of lodging SG statement to date of payment; and removes the $20 administrative fee, replacing it with the tax office general interest charge, which would be substantially lower in most cases. The Assistant Treasurer should come clean and admit that her legislation—the legislation that everyone on the other side of the House supports—will make it easier for bosses to avoid paying super on time. It will not improve compliance, as she claims, but it will make a big and growing problem in our economy much worse.

Labor has a strong record of making it easier for small businesses to meet their SG obligations. We set up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House in 2010, which is a free one-stop facility for small businesses to pay their super. This is how you get superannuation right for the small business sector in this economy: you make it easier for them to make their payment. You do not make it easier for them to dodge their payment, which is the effect of this bill. Unlike those opposite, Labor does not believe that workers receiving fair super on time amounts to 'red tape'. I say again: Australian workers deserve to be paid superannuation contributions correctly and on time. That is why Labor is not able to support the bill as long as it includes schedule 1. We have sought to move an amendment to this bill to remove the weakening of the superannuation guarantee charge. I have moved:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading because the Bill contains provisions which make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations, and notes that this is yet another attempt by the Government to undermine Australia's superannuation system".

I will not go through all the other ways that the government is undermining super in this country—we do not have all day. But I think it is well known to members—it is certainly well known in my community and around the country—that the government is abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution, which will impact 3.6 million Australians, 2.2 million of whom are women. It is well known in the community that, over and over again, the government has frozen the increase in the superannuation guarantee. The Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer have been going around the country to these conferences saying, 'We really care about the gender gap in superannuation; we really care about adequacy,' and these sorts of things. I urge the Australian people to remember and to judge the government not just on their words but especially on their deeds. When it comes to superannuation, their record is on the table. The policy of the Abbott prime ministership and the Turnbull prime ministership is indistinguishable, with the abolition of the low-income super contribution and the freezing of growth in the superannuation guarantee.

That is the first schedule of the four schedules in this bill. Schedules 2, 3 and 4 contain what we consider to be uncontroversial measures or measures that we support. There is one which makes it easier for people with terminal medical conditions to access superannuation, one to remove duplication in dealing with unclaimed superannuation, one that modifies 'in receivership' disclosure rules and one that repeals inoperative acts and provisions of the taxation law. We have no problem with those. We do not intend to oppose schedules 2, 3 and 4. Our problem is with the first schedule, which will do so much damage to the superannuation balances of Australian workers.

It is our view that the government should not hold hostage those measures for the terminally ill to these other measures about the non-payment on time of superannuation. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the government to try and sneak through nasty provisions like schedule 1 in this legislation by burying them amidst all the meaningless changes in punctuation—commas and all of that. They have done it before. They did it when they attacked the cleaners in this building on one of the earlier repeal-day farces. They got out the red pen to make lots of the sub-editing changes to the legislation, while at the same time they hoped no-one would notice that they were attacking the cleaners in this building. That they would do that says it all really about this government's approach. Here is another repeal day with all this fanfare, all this spin and all this rubbish—at the end of the day, it is mostly punctuation changes to bills with something nasty snuck through. We are seeing that again on this particular repeal day.

Each of the four so-called repeal days in the life of this government is more pathetic than the previous one. Given that this is a repeal day bill, it is worth reminding ourselves that, amidst all the fanfare and all the noise, we have had three sets of bills that have totalled $56.8 million in regulatory savings, compared to the billions that are claimed. We have had the repeal of the law related to the registration of mules for Defence purposes; we have had the repeal of the law relating to state navies; we have had changes from e-mail to email and from facsimile to fax. We have had the removal of 40 hyphens, two commas and one inverted comma; we have had two full stops changed to semicolons, and one semicolon changed to a full stop. We have inserted one new full stop, one colon, one hyphen and one comma.

Some of this would be funny, were there not buried amidst all the trivia and sub-editing some genuinely damaging provisions like the one we are debating today. This bill is a sneak attack on working Australians and the superannuation balances they need to retire with dignity. Burying it among these other provisions does not make it any less damaging. It is a badly-motivated ideological change on super system, when there are so many other areas that need attention. Worst of all, as a piece of legislation, it will take a worrying and growing problem with super noncompliance and make it worse by weakening the penalties for employers who do the wrong thing. When 690,000 Australians are missing out on billions of dollars in the superannuation they are entitled to by law—the super they need and deserve—this is not good enough.

If the government wants to fight over the fair payment of super to workers, it can have one. If it wants is to go right around the country explaining to 690,000 Australian workers that it does not support the fair payment on time of the superannuation obligations, then, fine, we will do that. The member for Lalor will do that; I will do that. I will go next door to the electorate of Forde and point out to voters there that the member for Forde wants to weaken the penalties for employers who do not pay superannuation to their employees on time. We will point that out.

But there is a better way forward, before we get to that. The parliament should support my amendment so that we can defeat schedule 1 but pass the other worthy amendments. We do have the opportunity to spare Australian workers a big problem that is getting worse—a problem that will be made much worse by the government's attempts to weaken the penalties on those who do the wrong thing.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Rankin for his contribution and I will say to the member for Rankin before he leaves the chamber that I fully agree with him that Australian business owners should pay the superannuation obligations to their employees on time. I do not think there is a single person in this House who would disagree with that notion. Yet, in respect of this bill, we see a situation where if an employer misses a payment by one day or a couple of days, under the existing rules they get hit with penalties. The purpose of this bill is to recognise the fact that the vast majority of employers do the right thing, but occasionally they may be a day or two late. They are still going to pay some penalties, but not the penalties will not be as punitive as they were. I think that is fair enough that they are penalised for being late, but it is not fair to backdate interest to the start of the quarter. If the payment was only due at the end of the quarter, then the interest payment should be for the period between when the payment was due and when it was actually paid, and not backdated to a date prior to when it was actually due to be paid.

I fully support this bill in the original form in which it was brought to this House and consequently do not support the member for Rankin's amendments. It is interesting to reflect that it has been more than 20 years since the superannuation guarantee was introduced and, as I have already touched upon, the majority of employers comply with their superannuation guarantee obligations. I know from my role as the chair of the Tax and Revenue committee one frequent topic of discussion with the Australian Taxation Office is how to continue to work with both the ATO and businesses to ensure that business is complying with their SG obligations. However, excessive and unnecessary regulation does reduced productivity and investment. It suppresses job creation, creates economic uncertainty and has a negative impact on consumer and investor confidence. This legislation in no way reduces the requirement for employers to pay their SG superannuation obligations on time.

I am proud to say that I am part of a government that has worked very hard over the past two years to reduce the red tape and regulation in our economy, and we have achieved some $2.5 billion worth of regulatory savings in those two years. This bill forms part of the government's commitment to repeal counterproductive, unnecessary and redundant legislation through the four schedules in the bill. The focus of the debate has been the changes to the superannuation guarantee charge. The superannuation guarantee charge was first introduced in 1992. It was quite a punitive measure designed to encourage employers to comply with their new SG obligations. The charge, imposed on employers who do not comply with their SG obligations, seeks to recoup the outstanding SG for employees with nominal interest to compensate employees for lost earnings. Administrative charges also apply and the Australian Taxation Office can levy penalties of up to 200 per cent of the SG charge for noncompliance.

In particular, the nominal interest was designed to be punitive. Nominal interest is calculated from the beginning of the quarter—instead of 29 days from the end of the quarter, which is when SG becomes outstanding —until an assessment is raised by the ATO. This means around four months of nominal interest was imposed for noncompliance with SG obligations. The SG charge is also calculated on a different and broader earning base than the SG, which adds another complexity for employers. I am sure we have all had in our office small business people complaining about SG charges of one form or other. Many deserved to be charged that SG charge, and I would not support their efforts to reduce it. But there was the odd one who missed a date. The current superannuation guarantee charge regime can be very punitive for employers who inadvertently pay their SG contributions late or short-pay by a small amount, and this can ultimately have a significant impact on the small business.

Key superannuation and industry bodies were consulted during this process and stakeholders generally supported reforming the SG charge to reduce the complexity of the regime and make the charge more proportionate to the noncompliance. As a result of this extensive consultation—there was often no consultation whatsoever when those opposite were in government—the government is making changes to the SG charge to make it more proportionate. The government is committed to employees receiving their superannuation so that Australians can save for their retirement. However, it is important to right-size the regulatory environment where appropriate.

Changes to the SG charge will include: aligning the earnings base for calculating the SG charge with the earnings base for calculating SG contributions—aligning them will reduce costs and confusion for employers; making the SG charge more proportionate to the noncompliance by aligning the interest component of any SG shortfall with the period contributions are outstanding—this is fairer and less complex for business; and removing the additional penalties under the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 and aligning them with the administrative penalties under the Taxation Administration Act. This change will simplify penalties under the superannuation guarantee charge regime by having penalty rules which are consistent with those applied to other tax obligations.

These changes balance simplifying the SG charge and making the penalty more proportionate to the noncompliance while retaining significant penalties to encourage employers to comply with the superannuation guarantee regime. Administrative penalties of up to 75 per cent of the SG charge as well as administrative charges will apply to encourage employers to comply with the SG charge regime. Also, the SG charge remains non-deductible, which is considered a significant penalty by employers. While these changes will simplify the SG charge and make the penalty more commensurate with the breach, overall they will provide adequate incentives for employers to comply with their SG obligations in the future.

This bill is focused on achieving our commitment to the Australian people of reducing red tape and regulation because we recognise that it stifles job creation and economic growth. But let me make this abundantly clear to employers in this country: in no way whatsoever does this legislation give you a free pass that ameliorates your SG superannuation obligations. You are responsible for paying your SG superannuation obligations on time for your employees. That is your responsibility. I commend this bill to the House.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin to the motion that the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 be now read a second time. As was so clearly outlined by the member for Forde, this legislation is something that Australians should be worried about—hence our moving the amendment. Whenever you hear a member of the government use the term 'simplification', it is cause for worry if you are an Australian worker. 'Simplification' in this place is code for cutting back protections for workers, and it has been for some time. I note the member for Forde suggested that the legislation as it stands, without the amendment, would make penalties more commensurate with the breach. That is like suggesting: 'This is not a serious problem, so we will lessen the penalty for those who breach this.' I know workers in Australia who are in the position right now where they have not had their superannuation paid by their employer, and they would not consider a lessening of the penalty to be anything but unfair.

The government is trying to reduce the financial penalties for employers caught out not doing the right thing—not paying super and not meeting their obligations under the superannuation guarantee. The government has decided to frame this as 'fighting red tape'—extraordinary. It is extraordinary what the term 'red tape' has come to mean to this government, and I will talk about that a little later. The essence of this bill is really important. Noncompliance in superannuation payment is a huge problem, and this bill seeks to make it easier for employers to shirk their obligations. What possible benefit is there in reducing the penalties to, effectively, zero on employers who do not meet their super obligation to their workers? What benefit could there possibly be in this?

This government has warped priorities, and this piece of legislation demonstrates that. They have warped priorities when it comes to superannuation. It is yet another attempt to undermine Australia's superannuation system, and we have been down this road before. We have a government who cut the low income superannuation contribution. And who did that hurt, mostly? It hurt women, mostly.

There is a theme here with this government and women. We know that from the 2014 budget where, for the first time in years, the Office for Women did not review that budget—did not put a ruler over that budget to check its impacts on women. Similarly, the low income superannuation contribution being scrapped was not looked at in terms of its impact on women until after it was determined by this government to be good policy. And yet again, with the superannuation guarantee and the changes that are before us, it will be low income earners who are most likely going to be affected by this change, because it is low income earners who are most often the victims in a scenario where an employer shirks their responsibilities and does not pay that superannuation.

We know that this is a government that wants to act to hurt low and middle income earners, while at the same time protecting high income superannuants. We know that they have not seen any legislation on superannuation that they would not seek to change. Some of those changes are extraordinary: they are seeking to change governance arrangements—fiddling with industry superannuation, even though they are the best performing superannuation products.

Research by Cbus has found that Australians are losing $2.6 billion in superannuation annually, and that that figure is growing at around five per cent per annum. We have identified that there is a problem and we have identified that it is costing $2.6 billion in super for what will probably be low income earners and that it is growing at a rate of five per cent per annum. So, with penalties in place, it is growing. This government thinks it is a good idea, therefore, to remove the penalties, because they would like to see it grow. One would assume from their actions that they think growth in this area is an important thing.

This legislation seeks to hurt workers—6.8 per cent of the workforce or around 690,000 Australians are affected by unpaid superannuation. This is not a small thing. This is not a trivial thing. It is this year's nasty in the Repeal Day pack. As we said, amongst the commas and misplaced parentheses, they are sneaking this one through, thinking that those on this side might not be alive to changes in superannuation. Again we have demonstrated that there we are always alive to this government's tricks and the secret nasties they put in the name of repeal.

In 2015 the Australian National Audit Office found that as many as 11 to 20 per cent of employers could be noncompliant with their superannuation guarantee obligations. The ATO describes noncompliance with superannuation guarantee obligations as 'endemic'. As a school teacher and a school principal in a former life, if a problem, such as wagging school, was endemic then the last thing I would do would be to reduce the penalties; I would increase the penalties to see if I could get people to be compliant. But not this government—it seeks to reduce the penalties for those people doing the wrong thing.

Australian workers deserve to be paid superannuation contributions correctly and on time. It is insulting enough that the government considers on-time payment of superannuation as red tape to be repealed. It says it all about this government, and it says it all about this new Prime Minister that we have yet another change in this chamber that will impact negatively on workers and yet another change being introduced to superannuation—this time under Prime Minister Turnbull, showing once again that they may have changed their leader but they have not changed the sentiment and they have not changed the intent of this government. We have a government that considers fair payment of super as 'red tape', to be discarded along with all those other things in their red tape repeal days. Many people are affected each year by the late payment or nonpayment of their superannuation guarantee payments, and it affects up to 20 per cent of employers. And this government thinks that that is something that they should bring into this House, sneak into their repeal day, and change things.

We know what 'red tape' means. Although 'simplification' in this place is code for 'be careful, workers', 'red tape' is code for fairness and safety. On one of the earlier repeal days, I heard a speech about early childhood education where educators doing paperwork, which is actually planning for the learning of the children in their care, was described in this place as 'red tape'. So we on this side are now very suspicious of repeal days and very suspicious whenever this government describes something as 'red tape'.

We need to stop and think. Australians make assumptions that things that exist exist to make life fairer. We are the nation of the fair go, so they assume that WorkCover, Fair Work Australia and the superannuation guarantee mean that there are things in place that will protect them.

I suggest that, over the Christmas holidays, members opposite go and find people in their electorates and talk to them about those assumptions—for example, find someone who is chasing their superannuation because it has not been paid appropriately. Today, The Age highlighted a case where it had taken six months for someone to recoup unpaid superannuation—six months. As reported by The Age:

Dan Warne thinks it is 'ridiculous and counter-intuitive' that the federal government has moved to reduce the penalties on employers that don't pay superannuation to effectively zero.

This man has faced this issue. The article says:

After six months of 'hassling', the employer eventually coughed up. But it was an 'unpleasant process' and Warne was shocked at how little power he had to force the company to do the right thing.

That is the reality on the ground—that is the reality on the ground when there are penalties in place. What will the reality on the ground be without any penalties in place, without anything to guarantee that superannuation is paid to Australian workers?

The Assistant Treasurer added insult to injury when, four days after introducing the legislation to lower penalties for noncompliance, she said, as reported in the Fairfax papers:

The government is focused on making sure employees get their superannuation guarantee payments …

We just saw the member for Forde look straight into the camera, after seven minutes of defending this legislation and not supporting the proposed amendment, and tell employers that it is their obligation to pay. Remove the penalties and make a speech; that will make sure Australians get their superannuation! That is even though on the ground now that is not the case. That is not what is happening. The reality is that this bill will make it easier for employers to flout their superannuation guarantee obligations.

The Assistant Treasurer also claims that the changes in her Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 'are specific to the period in which penalty interest is charged'. The fact is that her legislation not only changes the interest calculation, as she has stated; it also decreases the base of the penalty calculation and entirely repeals the additional superannuation guarantee charge penalty of $20 per employer per quarter, as the bill's explanatory memorandum makes clear. The Assistant Treasurer should come clean and admit that her legislation will make it easier for bosses to avoid paying superannuation on time, not improve compliance, which she claims is the government's focus.

Schedule 1 of the bill, as I said, is the hidden nasty amongst the commas and the misplaced parentheses. Like the attack on pensioners, like the scrapping of the low-income superannuation contribution, this piece of legislation attacks workers.

Labor has a strong record of making it easier for small businesses to meet their superannuation guarantee obligations, including setting up the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House in 2010, which is a free, one-stop facility for small businesses to pay their super. But, unlike the government, Labor does not believe that workers receiving fair super on time amounts to 'red tape'. Australian workers deserve to have their superannuation contributions paid correctly and on time. They do not deserve to have to spend six months going through what has been described as 'an awful process' to recoup what is rightfully theirs. They deserve to be paid their superannuation. They deserve it because they deserve a decent retirement. This government's actions across its first two years have been damaging to people's superannuation, particularly that of low- and middle-income owners.

The Assistant Treasurer should not hold the good measure of payment of super to people with terminal medical conditions hostage to the passage of these unfair superannuation guarantee charge measures. Again it is typical of this government to have a carrot and a stick in the same piece of legislation.

I strongly support the amendment moved by Dr Chalmers, the member for Rankin, that would see this section of the bill, schedule 1, removed. Let the good things this government wants to do go through this House by removing the hidden nasty in its repeal day legislation which we are becoming so accustomed to going through with a fine-toothed comb to find in such legislation. Australian workers deserve a government that cares about them. Australians deserve a government that will protect their entitlements. Australians deserve a government that will penalise people who do not follow the rules and support people who get up early and go to work and do follow the rules every day of their lives.

I commend the amendment to this House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Contrary to what the member for Lalor said, Australians do have a government that cares about them. Those opposite, seriously, have never seen a business they did not want a picket line out the front of or a business they did not want to bog down with red tape, with regulatory burdens, with taxes. Give the opposition another chance at government and I will tell you what we are going to get: we are going to get the mining tax back; we are going to get a carbon tax. If we thought the carbon tax was bad under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, it is going to be maxed out under the next iteration of Labor. That is all they are interested in—taxing small business, the engine room of our economy, and placing regulation upon green tape upon regulation on our farmers, the people who grow our food and fibre.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you don't understand that, members opposite—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being approximately 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.