Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of my colleagues senators Kakoschke-Moore and Griff , I indicate that we do not support this amendment. I understand and commend Senator Whish-Wilson for moving this amendment but I think we should see how these changes operate. There is nothing to preclude a review or an inquiry by the Senate economics committee towards the end of next year. If I could be indulged very briefly for 60 seconds or 90 seconds: we have not supported the other amendments and I foreshadow that we will not support the amendments moved by the Greens and the ALP for these reasons. We think the government has come up with a compromise package of an extra $3.1 billion in revenue. This is a very vexed and hard-fought area. Of course, the ALP, as the alternative government, can take these matters to the people at the next election.

In terms of the catch-up contributions, to allow catch-up contributions for up to $500,000 is not unreasonable. In terms of the flexibility measure—what some colloquially put as the tradies measure—work arrangements in Australia have changed very much over the years. There are 800,000 people that this would apply to that are contractors in addition to a full- or part-time job where they are getting an income. This would make it easier for them to get to that $1.6 million benchmark or threshold.

The government is already reducing the high-income super threshold from $300,000 to $250,000. I think they have stepped out in a reasonable way. I think there is always scope to improve. We do not support the Labor amendment lowering the high-income super threshold from $250,000 to $200,000, or limiting the after tax contributions to $75,000 from $100,000. We think that a compromise has been struck. Of course, these issues can always be reviewed, but $3.1 billion in revenue will be raised from this and I think that that, on balance, strikes an appropriate public policy response at this stage. But, of course, these are things that ought to be looked at.

In terms of housing affordability, Senator Gallagher is right: these are major issues that need to be addressed. I think it will take not a bipartisan but a whole-of-parliament approach to address these issues. It is not just about super; it is about capital gains and other measures that we need to look at for housing affordability, and even some innovative measures we have seen overseas, including one that none other than Ronald Reagan—that right-wing conservative warrior—introduced in the eighties. Successive administrations, including the Clinton administration, have embraced that measure, and it has had a dramatic effect on low-cost affordable rental accommodation for many hundreds of thousands of Americans. That is the sort of innovative approach we need to look at.