Senate debates
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
Bills
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014; Reference to Committee
1:27 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source
I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Conroy, and I do so because I think the eight million Australians whose superannuation will now be frozen for seven years are probably entitled to know a bit about it before this Senate votes on it—because that is what this bill does. That is what this dirty deal, which was thrown on the table just a few minutes after the Senate came to order, does. This deal asks us to vote on it straightaway. That is what this deal does. Amidst all the colour and movement and all the procedural shenanigans—the Treasurer and Mr Palmer were in here a few moments ago to watch the deal being delivered—there is a fundamental single proposition here. One thing Australians need to know is that this government and the crossbenchers—Senator Day, Senator Leyonhjelm and PUP—have agreed to freeze your superannuation for seven years. That is the one thing Australians need to know. What I would say is: I don't recall that policy before the election. Does anybody remember Mr Abbott giving that commitment?
Opposition senators interjecting—No!
In fact, I remember Mr Abbott giving a commitment that there will be no adverse changes to superannuation. I think the millions of Australians who have been subjected to this deal, without any opportunity to talk to the people who are trading their money away, without any opportunity to talk to these senators and to hold them accountable for the money that they are trading away, would probably think that having their superannuation frozen for seven or eight years is probably an adverse change.
You know what: it is the change that dare not speak its name. It is the change the government actually does not want to expose to scrutiny. This is so recent a dirty deal, so secret a dirty deal, that what they are putting to the chamber now is different to what they rammed through the House of Representatives yesterday. I tell you what: this is not calm and methodical government, is it? It is government by deal-making and government by Mr Palmer. That is what it is: government by deal-making behind closed doors and government by Mr Palmer. He is making you break an election commitment: no adverse changes to superannuation. And you do not even have the spine to actually expose this deal to some scrutiny, to actually talk to Australians, because it is their superannuation savings you have traded away in order to get a political win.
The contempt with which this government clearly hold the Australian people has been on display every day since they were elected and certainly in the budget and subsequently. Day after day after day they break their promises and then they even have the temerity to tell Australians: 'Oh, we're actually not breaking our promises. We're actually not. I know that looks like a cut to health. I know that looks like a cut to education. I know it looks like a cut to the pension. But it's not, really. We're keeping our promises.' This should go to a committee for inquiry, because I think millions of Australian are entitled to know what the rest of this deal is.
Senator Lazarus got up and said: 'We're keeping things. They get the money now. That's what they need.' What the Palmer United Party have done, despite the fact that they went out so hard on the schoolkids bonus, the income support bonus and the low-income superannuation contribution—I hate to break it to you—is that they are still voting for repeal. They are still voting to cut those things, just a few years later. Senator Lazarus, if I have got it wrong, you stand up and tell me, because I have just looked at the explanatory memorandum and it talks about the date of repeal of those things. So it is a couple more years on repeal but you are still voting to repeal it. You have got a deal where you froze the superannuation of millions of Australians and you are voting to cut the things you said that you would defend. Well, I would like to know and I suspect many Australians would like to know: what else was part of this deal? So far it does not sound like a very good deal. It sounds like a deal that a lot of working people who voted for Palmer United, who voted for senators on the crossbench, would probably reckon is a pretty bad deal.
No comments