Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson and her colleagues saw the error of their ways, came in yesterday and moved an amendment to try to reverse some of the cuts they had voted for twice when they turned up to the chamber on Monday night. It has been stated over and over again by the minister, both yesterday and today, that, despite that amendment, there will still be roughly 30 people per year who will be worse off as a result of the cuts that One Nation has voted for.

This amendment provides the opportunity for One Nation to fully rectify the mistake they made on Monday night. This amendment provides the opportunity to ensure that not one low-income person—mostly low-income women—whose husband dies will be worse off as a result of these changes. One Nation need to understand very clearly that if they vote against this amendment they will be making at least 30 low-income women around Australia worse off every year. They have the opportunity to stop that from happening. So this will be another test of Senator Hanson's rhetoric and claims that she stands up for battlers. Here are 30 low-income women a year who Senator Hanson and her colleagues can protect from these cuts every single year. Labor's going to be doing it. The Greens are going to be doing it. We'll see what the other crossbenchers have got to say. But if Senator Hanson and her colleagues vote with the government, as they do 85 per cent of the time, against this amendment, then they will be making people worse off.

In her remarks, Senator Hanson tried to draw some analogy with Labor's policy about dividend imputation. Every recognised expert in the country—even the Commonwealth Treasury, an arm of the government—recognises that Labor's policies will overwhelmingly affect wealthy retirees. There is a very small number of pensioners who would be affected, and Labor's position has consistently been to stand up for pensioners. So if Senator Hanson on the one hand is going to vote against this amendment and make 30 low-income women a year worse off, and on the other hand is going to oppose Labor's policies on dividend imputation, which overwhelmingly affect wealthy retirees, then Senator Hanson's absolute rubbish about standing up for battlers will be fully exposed. She will be actively taking the side of wealthy retirees in propping up a tax loophole that costs the budget $5 billion per year, and at the same time she'll be voting to hurt and make worse off 30 low-income women every year.

Senator Hanson, I would respectfully say to you that you should be taking the opposite approach. If you're serious about standing up for battlers, you should be voting with Labor on this amendment to protect these 30 low-income women, and you should stand with us in cracking down on a tax loophole that is overwhelmingly used by wealthy retirees. I wouldn't have thought that they are the people who are supporting you. I would be disappointed if what you have decided is that you're going to become a propaganda machine for wealthy retirees, but that seems to be the decision that you're making.

While I'm on my feet, I might also ask Senator Hanson whether overnight she has reflected on the other cuts that she and her colleagues voted for on Monday night. On Monday night, One Nation voted with the government, with the Liberals, to cut the wife pension, to cut the widow allowance and to cut the partner allowance—more cuts to pensions that are currently aimed at low-income people. So far, the only amendment that Senator Hanson has moved to rectify her cuts from the other night relates to the bereavement allowance. Senator Hanson, will you be bringing forward amendments today that reverse the cuts that you voted for on Monday night to the wife pension, the widow allowance and the partner allowance? Or are you going to stand by and see these low-income battlers hurt by your very own cuts?