Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—In relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Bill 2016, I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7980:

(1) Schedule 2, item 15, page 61 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute: 15 Section 293-1

Omit "$300,000", substitute "$200,000".

(2) Schedule 2, item 17, page 61 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:

17 Section 293-10

Omit "$300,000", substitute "$200,000".

(3) Schedule 2, item 18, page 61 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item, substitute:

18 Subsections 293-20(1), 293-155(1) and 293-200(1)

Omit "$300,000", substitute "$200,000".

(4) Schedule 2, item 19, page 61 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item, substitute:

19 Subsection 133-15(1) in Schedule 1 (note)

Omit "$300,000", substitute "$200,000".

We also oppose schedules 3 to 6 in the following terms:

(5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 63 (line 20) to page 65 (line 2), subsections 292-85(3) to (6) to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 5, page 77 (line 1) to page 78 (line 29), Schedule 5 to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 6, page 79 (line 1) to page 80 (line 25), Schedule 6 to be opposed.

With regard to senators having the opportunity to consider these amendments, I acknowledge that they were circulated quite late this morning. I would say, however, that these amendments go directly to the position that the Labor Party announced publicly when we considered the revised government bills, once they had been released. I would like to draw senators' attention to item (5):

Schedule 3, item 2, page 63 (line 20) to page 65 (line 2), subsections 292-85(3) to (6) to be opposed.

Item (5) relates to non-concessional contributions. There is an error in that item. The item as drafted seeks to oppose subsections 292-85(3) to (6). I would like to amend that amendment to reflect opposition to subsection 292-85(2)(a). That is a fault of ours. I am sorry if that is not very clear.

Taken as a group, these amendments implement Labor's position, which seeks to lower the higher income superannuation contribution threshold to $200,000, from the government's proposal of $250,000. We believe there is further room to reduce the higher income cap to that level and also to lower the non-concessional contributions cap to $75,000, to oppose the introduction of the catch-up concessional contributions and to oppose the changes to tax deductibility for personal superannuation contributions. Again, this reflects our view that a system that currently sees half of all superannuation benefits flowing to the top 20 per cent of earners is a system that clearly needs reform.

While the government's superannuation package—and we acknowledged this in the second reading stage—goes some way to reforming these concessions, they could go further. Labor's proposed changes are fairer than the government's and deliver more substantial budget repair. In fact, if our amendments were to be successful they would improve the budget by $1.4 billion over the forward estimates and by $18.9 billion over the medium term. We believe these are sensible. They ensure that superannuation will be fairer and that superannuation tax concessions are targeted to reduce the overwhelming benefit that is provided to higher-income earners and, again, as we said, in the time that we are trying to ensure that there is structural budget repair, that they would contribute more to that, certainly over the forward estimates but also over the medium term. I hope people have been able to follow my amended amendment.