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

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Yesterday, in defending her understanding of the government's misleading argument against Labor's sensible reform of excess dividend imputation cash refunds, the minister said:—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right.

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

'More than half of all refunded franking credits are paid to individuals who earn less than the $18,200 tax-free threshold.' Given the minister's explanation was clearly wrong, can she explain how superannuation payouts and drawdowns of savings other than superannuation to fund retirement are treated? How does this impact on the misleading argument the minister attempted to make yesterday?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann on a point of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left, Senator Watt, Senator Carr, Senator Bilyk.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would invite you to consider whether the question that was at the end of the question was actually related to the minister's portfolio. I would put it to you that it wasn't.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left. I will hear from Senator Wong now.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, we are referencing a statement she made in question time yesterday, and the question goes directly to the statement she made, which was wrong. If she'd like to correct it without us asking a question, we're open to that.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, whatever was referenced in the preamble, it was not what the question was about. The question did not relate to the minister's portfolio responsibilities.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will hear from Senator Wong and then I will rule.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear precedent that a minister can be asked about statements she or he has made. Senator Cormann, listen to the question. It was directly relevant to the misleading statement that she made yesterday.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I'm prepared to rule on this. Ministers are allowed to be questioned about statements they have made, including in the chamber. That part of the question was entirely in order. The question was substantial. Ministers are entitled to address parts of the question as they see fit. I cannot direct a minister how to answer any part of a question. But I remind senators that the question was lengthy, and the minister is entitled to address parts of it. I cannot direct her to address all of it. Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the only thing that's misleading is you and your policy, where you have declared war on pensioners and retirees, many of whom will be thousands of dollars a year worse off. You plan to double-tax pensioners and retirees in a bid to bail your leader out of a budget black hole that he cannot pay for. But guess what? There are exemptions. And despite taking money off pensioners and retirees, he is exempting union slush funds connected with the CFMEU and other Labor-aligned bodies. This means that groups associated with big unions will continue to receive franking credit refunds but many pensioners and retirees won't.

Labor's latest tax grab does not target wealthy retirees. More than half of all refunded franking credits are paid to individuals who earn less than the $18,200 tax-free threshold, including pensioners and self-funded retirees. Ninety-seven per cent of people who receive franking credit refunds have a taxable income below $87,000—people who have worked hard, saved hard and paid tax.

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

Stop lying.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Watt! You asked the question. Senator Reynolds on a point of order.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sitting directly behind the minister and I cannot hear what she's saying over the noise.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am now going to be strict in calling senators to order. That is the second request from a senator in the chamber during question time, in this case in very close proximity to the minister.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's just trying to protect Connie.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please cease interjecting, at least while I'm speaking from the chair.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's policy will hit any person who holds shares in a company and has a low income. That includes all retirees with low incomes and small shareholdings, including pensioners. The changes once again show that the Leader of the Opposition wants to penalise Australians for working hard. New figures released this week show thousands will earn less and be hit by Mr Shorten's tax grab. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, a supplementary question.

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

() (): I refer to the Grattan Institute's report The real story of Labor’s dividend imputation reforms.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're talking about the Grattan Institute?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very authoritative!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right! On this occasion, I would like to hear the question.

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

I didn't realise the Grattan Institute was apparently a militant organisation like the RSPCA.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, you will run out of time if you don't continue your question.

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

I refer to the Grattan Institute's reportThe real story of Labor’s dividend imputation reforms. It states:

These claims are deeply misleading. Taxableincome ignores the largest source of income for many wealthier retirees: tax-free superannuation.

Is the Grattan Institute correct in saying the government's argument is misleading? If not, why not?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was about to make a comment in relation to the premise of that question not being absolutely accurate about the reputation. But I won't go there. As I was saying, the changes once again show that the Leader of the Opposition wants to penalise Australians for working hard.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, a point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On direct relevance, Mr President. This is embarrassing. The minister cannot even answer a question about taxable income. She can't even make a pretence of it. She has to go straight to the Leader of the Opposition. The question is—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is direct relevance! May I be heard, Mr President! I hadn't finished.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Everyone please resume their seats. There was baiting and response around the chamber. I will hear Senator Wong conclude her point of order in silence, then I will hear from Senator Cormann.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I did not raise a point of order on the first question given that—

A government senator: You raised your voice.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear where that was from, but can I please hear Senator Wong in silence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I did not raise a point—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So sensitive!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Seriously! we've had a number of senators say they can't hear question time. Can I please hear the point of order in silence. I will then make a ruling. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. We did not raise a point of order in relation to the first question, given that you had indicated that there were a number of aspects to that question. This question is only in relation to taxable income. It cannot possibly be directly relevant for the minister to stand up and immediately say 'the Leader of the Opposition'.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, on the point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. I recognise your earlier ruling. Nevertheless, any question on taxable income should by necessity be directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. If the Labor Party tactics committee decides to address questions about taxable income to the minister representing the social services minister then they should not be surprised about the answer they get. As you indicated, Mr President, you can't direct the minister to answer the question, and she will answer it consistent with her area of responsibility.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I am prepared to rule. We have had quite a lot of debate on this point of order. Senator Wong, I heard only half of a sentence from Senator Fierravanti-Wells. You have taken the opportunity to remind the minister of the question, and I have the question in mind. But I am not going to rule on a minister not being relevant when they haven't completed a single sentence, because I can't tell where they are going to take it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins was on her feet first. I'll take her point of order, if she wishes. And then I'll come to you, Senator Macdonald.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's moved onto another matter, by the sound of it.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your point of order was on that matter, Senator Collins?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was on the one you've already ruled on.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just thought I'd check, as a courtesy. Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr President: you made a very clear ruling that you would not accept interjections. While you were talking, Senator Wong continually interjected. She is a member of the CFMEU and doesn't think that the—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat. I doubt any of us have a halo in this chamber when it comes to interjections, so I'm not going to judge people by a standard of perfection. I call Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised, in my capacity representing the Minister for Social Services, that figures that were released this week show thousands earn less and will be hit by Mr Shorten's tax grab. Can I just provide some figures?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, please resume your seat. Senator Collins?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. Perhaps I can remind the minister, with respect to this point of order of relevance, the question is: is the Grattan Institute correct in saying that the government's argument is misleading? If not, why not? That is the question.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Due to the noise in the chamber, I didn't have the opportunity to take detailed notes of that question. The minister is allowed to challenge or otherwise address elements of the question. I remind the minister of the question. There are 19 seconds until the answer concludes.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't seen what the Grattan Institute has said, but I will refer the matter to the Minister for Social Services and, if he has any comments that he wishes to make in relation to it, I'm happy to provide the Senate with that response.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A final supplementary question, Senator Watt.

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

Given the minister's ongoing inability to explain the government's policy position, has anyone taken the time to brief the minister on the government's policy, or has she been excluded from discussions about the government's strategy to respond to Labor's announcement?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, your attack on the savings of retirees and pensioners means one million individuals and self-managed super funds will be forced to pay tax twice on what they earn from their hard-earned savings. This will hurt 230,000 pensioners. I was about to tell you where those 230,000 pensioners are who are earning less than $18,000: in New South Wales, 210,000; in Victoria, 150,000; in Western Australia, 50,000; in Queensland, 110,000; in South Australia, 45,000; and, in Tasmania, 15,000. These figures show that these people will learn a lot less as a consequence of your $60 billion tax grab that's going to hit pensioners and retirees.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.