David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his comments and I thank Senator Xenophon for his amendment, which, as I understand, probably was a fairly last-minute thing. But I think it does raise some important issues and attempts to deal with them in a way which I believe is reasonably flexible. A lot of the issues raised by the minister can be dealt with by the method and the construction of the instrument that the amendment refers to if it is passed.

I found it interesting that the minister is referred to the principle that it is not appropriate or it not the purpose of the system to subsidise people not living in Australia. I do not agree with that as a general proposition. Essentially, we allow people to come here—we give them a visa entitling them to work here. I would have thought the Labor Party, of all the parties, would be inclined to ensure that their rights arising from the work that they do in Australia would be protected and supported. They earn the money here, contributing to Australian society and contributing to our economy.

In many cases, these people are here because we have a shortage in particular skills sets and we have supply constraints in the labour markets. They come here and they help us out. They get paid superannuation in accordance with Australian law. It is paid into an account. Some of them—and I acknowledge that, often, it is those who are in higher earning jobs—contribute voluntarily over and above the amount of the superannuation that is being placed into their superannuation accounts on the expectation that they will be able to access that, up until this point, at 60 when they retire. And if they choose to take it out earlier, they would acknowledge that they would have to pay the penalty tax, the DASP. So I do not accept that principle.

If we are going to invite people from outside Australia to come here and contribute to our economy and to work here under our laws, if superannuation is paid to them whilst they are in Australia for work whilst they are here, the concessions that apply to superannuation, when that is paid, should continue to apply to them even if they move out of the country. I also do not agree with the suggestion by the minister that this has wide-ranging implications, because it is the situation that currently applies and has applied for many years. I do not think it has flowed over into other areas during the years that it has been applying up to this point.

I also take slight objection to his suggestion that there is an ongoing cost. I would think that there is a one-off cost here. If this amendment is passed, there is an opportunity cost that is lost in terms of that proportion of temporary residents’ superannuation that does end up being elected to stay in the super funds. But it is not an ongoing cost; it is a one-off thing. It can be quantified, as the minister says, but I also note that he mentioned earlier that he is not sure what proportion is actually lost and what proportion is not.