Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of Labor's super tax bills from the Notice Paper, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the Notice Paper.

Colleagues, super tax bills are exactly what the coalition is against. Let's recall what the Prime Minister said prior to the election. He looked the Australian people in the eye, like he did on so many occasions, and he promised no changes to superannuation. Yet what has he done with the Australian Greens? What has he done? They have a bill on this Notice Paper that will take more money from the pockets of Australians, as if Australians were not doing it tough already under this government.

You promised the world to Australians prior to the last election, and the only thing—the only thing—that you have delivered to them is a cost-of-living crisis. On top of that cost-of-living crisis, you now have the audacity to say to hardworking Australians, who go into work every day, who work hard and who are putting money away for their retirement: 'It's not your money. It's the Labor Party's money and it's the Greens' money. And it doesn't matter how hard you worked. Guess what? We want it. It's a pot of money, and we are going to take it from you.'

Let me be very, very clear. This is an election issue, and the coalition proudly stands with hardworking Australians—mums and dads, small-business people—who go into work every day, who do a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. They put money away for their superannuation. Our fundamental principle is: your money, your super. We will fight this government and the Australian Greens every single step of the way to ensure that they do not get their dirty little hands, their little mitts, on your hard-earned cash.

Let's look at the detail of what they want to do; it gets worse. They tell Australians—it's simple, seriously—80,000 people will be affected. Actually, their own figures, from the Treasurer's own department, show it is not 80,000 people. More than two million Australians under the age of 25 today will be slugged with Labor's latest tax grab. So to all those young people out there who might be thinking, 'I'm going to vote Greens,' I say: just remember you will be working hard for many decades to come. You will be putting money away into your superannuation for your retirement. And guess what? There are not 80,000 of you. The Labor Party and the Australian Greens are going after literally one in 10 Australians to take their hard-earned money. Think about that carefully before you vote, because, even if they voted to discharge this from the Notice Paper today, guess what? You've done a dirty deal today to kill off gas, to stop gas—and we know you need to pop more of that into the market—with the Australian Greens. The end result is that Australians will now pay more for their energy under this dirty little backroom deal that has been done by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your preference mates!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, their preference mates. It's not only that—and I hope Senator McKenzie gets to speak to this motion. I think one of the most offensive parts of Labor's super tax on the Australian people is the taxing of unrealised capital gains. Do you know what that means for all of the retirees and all of the farmers out there? They will pay tax on money they haven't even made yet. Farmers have warned the Australian Labor Party—this is what they've told them: 'You rely on us each and every day to feed Australians. We are doing it tough as it is, and now you are going to tax our unrealised gains.' It is unfair. It sets a dangerous precedent.

On behalf of mum-and-dad Australians and all the young people who are going to be working hard for decades to come, we will vote to discharge this bill from the Notice Paper. It's a clear commitment to the Australian people: we will not tax your super. On the other hand, Labor and the Greens cannot wait; they're salivating at the prospect.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the suspension or the motion. I do find it rather amusing that Senator Cash gives such a passionate statement about protecting people's super when those opposite oppose super. They oppose superannuation every time. They've voted against superannuation from its inception to now, when they continue to look at ways to undermine it because they cannot stand working people having access to capital to fund their retirement. That's ultimately what this is about. You cannot bear it. You can't bear the size of the superannuation industry. You can't bear that industry funds actually have resources in this country to invest on behalf of their members.

Nobody thinks you're serious, Senator Cash—that you have some concern about people's superannuation. It's not about that at all. All of this term, you have sought to undermine every effort we have taken to provide cost-of-living support and help to Australian families. You walk in here, at the end of a sitting fortnight, to pull a stunt that you argue is trying to protect people's superannuation. It is Labor that built superannuation, it is Labor that has ensured that it works in the interests of working people and it is only Labor that will continue to do that. I accept that you, in seeking to discharge this, do not agree with the position the government has put in the legislation. I accept that you don't support a very modest change that allows high-balance superannuation—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This is a five-minute contribution, but I've had to call order at least half a dozen times. You are being disrespectful to me. The minister will be heard in silence. Otherwise, you can leave the chamber.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say, the louder they shout the more I feel like my points are being well made. You make a good point; the volume goes up.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, I've just called order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite—let's just be clear—the government accepts that you don't support lowering the concessional tax rate for those with balances higher than $3 million in their superannuation account. I would say to you that the average super balance is in the order of $270,000 at retirement age. The average working Australian retires with about $270,000.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it indexed?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's unrealised.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume and Senator Henderson, I've called you to order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The average working woman, of course, retires with a lot less than that. This is about lowering the concessional rate. It's still very concessional, in the tax system, but just lowering it for high-balance superannuation accounts. I accept that you don't agree with it, but this stunt today, seriously, under the guise that you're trying to protect people's superannuation balances at the same time that you have Senator Bragg there grinning at the thought of dismantling the superannuation system—nothing gives him greater joy than the idea that he might be able to systematically undermine superannuation in this country.

They're quite open about it. We have conversations about how the Liberal Party doesn't support superannuation. I think you should just say it. You don't support super, you've never supported super and you will never support super. But the thing that you didn't support, the superannuation guarantee going up for working Australians, you wanted to keep at 9½ per cent. You tried to undermine it there. You don't like the fact that it's getting to 12 per cent. Yet you'll fight tooth and nail to stop this legislation passing, about lowering a concessional rate slightly for balances over $3 million.

Let's just be clear what's happening here. Whilst you're trying to get rid of it for everyone else and dismantle it and lower the standards and ensure that more people are pushed onto the age pension than need to be, instead of living a dignified retirement, you will go into bat to make sure that those who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million get a slightly lower concessional tax rate. That is what you are saying here.

We don't agree. We don't agree with the suspension, we don't agree with your attacks on super and we will always stand against it.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just highlight, Senator Gallagher, that you're actually incorrect when you say that the Liberals have always opposed superannuation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't give me that!

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear me out. Vocally, they will oppose it in the chamber and talk about how it is all bad, but, in the dead of night, 'Little Johnny Howard' and Peter Costello ran down to the sewer with their mates from the banks, CBA, National Australia Bank, Westpac and ANZ. CBA did a joint venture with Colonial Mutual. National Australia Bank did a joint venture with National Mutual. Westpac took over Bankers Trust and ANZ did a joint venture with ING. Colonial Mutual's return on equity, when they were owned by the Commonwealth Bank, was 66 per cent.

So don't believe it when you think the Liberals don't support superannuation. I pleaded with the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, not to lift the superannuation levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent. He didn't block it, because, at the end of the day, the banks love superannuation. You know why? It increases the mortgage. If you can't pay your mortgage off quicker, because your money's tied up in superannuation, it means you've got to pay more interest on your mortgage.

That's why the banks love superannuation and that's why the Liberals love to pretend they hate superannuation. But they don't. Had they been serious about it, they would have listened to me when I was secretary of the finance backbench and pleaded with them to enable people to keep their own wages. Senator Gallagher just belled the cat again, because she said the average balance of superannuation is $267,000. Guess what the threshold is for the full pension, to start getting off the full pension? It's $312,000. That means, after almost 33 years of superannuation, it hasn't shifted the dial.

I'll accept it's not fully matured yet, but guess what? This is what's going to happen when superannuation becomes fully matured. You are going to get people to start withdrawing a lifetime's worth of savings, you're going to get someone pulling out 40 years worth of savings and you're going to need 40 people coming in to replace those savings. You're going to start to see withdrawals exceeding contributions. You're going to see forced asset sales, which is going to induce a liquidity crisis, and then you'll see the government having to step in and solve the problem.

I've approached a number of Labor people and said, 'If you got rid of the tax on the unrealised gains, I'd consider the legislation.' But here's the thing: the whole taxing of superannuation is fundamentally flawed. It was Howard and Costello that ramped up superannuation from four per cent to nine per cent. They should have killed it stone-cold dead when they got elected in 1996. They didn't, but I will acknowledge former senator Richard Alston, who did a great job in 1992 when it was introduced. He tried to oppose it, and the Liberal Party then opposed it. But, of course, Howard was always the bankers' servant—and Costello—and he rolled over on superannuation. To listen to the Liberals come in here and slag off superannuation—I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. You had your opportunity to kill it stone-cold dead, and you didn't.

Here's the other tragedy about superannuation: today, 40 per cent of people retire with a mortgage, and those 40 per cent are the low-income workers. They are pulling out their superannuation and going on the pension anyway, so we're wasting $40 billion a year on fees for the financial engineers in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne. Here's the other tragedy with superannuation: last year's MYEFO exposed that superannuation now costs $60 billion a year in tax concessions. It goes to the upper 20 per cent, the very people—and I'm one of them—that don't need the pension and were never going to go on the pension anyway. It costs $60 billion. You could give 14 million workers a $4,000 tax cut and you could lift the tax-free threshold to $50,000 if you abolished superannuation. That would enable young people to save up for a mortgage quicker.

At People First, we're not going to base your tax on how much money you have in superannuation; we're going to give you a tax-free threshold of $25,000 in superannuation and $40,000 outside of superannuation so that your first 65 grand a year is tax free. We're going to fund that because we're going to abolish those absurd tax concessions in superannuation, we're going to get rid of the financial engineers, and we're going to bring back the civil engineers, the mechanical engineers and the electrical engineers to start building infrastructure in this country, not paper castles in the air based on the sand of superannuation, the lies of superannuation, the rorts of superannuation and the dead carcass of corruption.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you—

Senator McKenzie, the tradition is government, opposition and then around the table. Senator Cash has spoken. I'm going to go to Senator McKim.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The precedent—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, you're not in a debate with me. I've just told you what the custom is. I've given the call to the opposition. I'm going to go to Senator McKim.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can shorthand the contribution we've just heard from Senator Cash and the contribution we were just about to hear from Senator McKenzie: won't somebody think of the wealthy superannuants in Australia? Let's be very clear here. The legislation that is the subject of this motion applies not to the wealthiest one per cent of superannuants in the country but to less than half a per cent of the wealthiest one per cent of superannuants in this country.

There are plenty of people in Australia who think we should blue-shell the one per cent. But that's not what Labor is proposing to do. They are proposing to increase—not by very much, I might add—the tax burden on the wealthiest half a per cent of superannuants. That is who the Liberal Party are coming in to bat for here. If you have $3 million in your superannuation fund, you are an extremely wealthy individual. Let us be abundantly clear here. The latest ATO data shows that just 0.6 per cent of people in Australia with a super account have a balance greater than $2 million. So that 0.6 of one per cent of people owns 14 per cent of the total value of superannuation balances in this country.

Just to be clear, the bill that the Liberals are going to die to destroy—politically speaking, of course—doesn't even cover all of that tiny, bloated cohort of people who make up 0.6 per cent of the superannuants in this country. Of course, that 0.6 per cent relates to people who have super balance accounts of over $2 million, but the bill would actually impact only on people who have superannuation accounts of above $3 million. And all it does is subject them to an additional 15 per cent capital appreciation tax.

The Liberals have come in here today basically to ask us to think about the bloated, tiny cohort of wealthy superannuants with balances of over $3 million. I'll tell you who the Greens are going to think of; we're thinking of people who can't afford to get their teeth fixed at the dentist. We're thinking of people who don't go to the GP, because they can't afford to see a doctor. And we're thinking of them because we believe big corporations and billionaires should be forced to pay their fair share of tax so that we can actually put dental care into Medicare and so that we can ensure people can visit a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. Instead of supporting the Greens on those principles and those policies, the Liberal Party have come in here today to die on the hill of defending wealthy superannuants—the top half of one per cent, who have over $3 million in their super accounts. They are the absolute top of the pile of wealthy superannuants, and they are the people the Liberal Party has come into this place today to defend.

That is not the priority of the Australian Greens. We are here to support people who can't afford to get their teeth fixed and are living with teeth literally rotting in their mouths because dental is not a part of Medicare. We are here to support people who make the agonising decision to not see their GP, because they know they're going to be faced with massive out-of-pocket expenses. Instead of supporting us on those things, the Liberals have come in here today to defend wealthy superannuants—less than half of one per cent of people in this country.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the irony of ironies that, as the sitting fortnight comes to a close, of all parties we see the Liberal Party and the National Party now holding themselves up as the people who want to stand up for superannuation.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party has not spoken.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, if you seek to speak—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have sought to speak.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in the course of the contribution from the person who has been called, you are out of order. I'm calling your attention to the standing orders. Hold your fire, and give Senator Watt the call, as it has been directed. Senator Watt, you have the call.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I say, it is ironic that the two parties who've done most to oppose superannuation ever since it was introduced, by a Labor government, 20 or 30 years ago are now the parties who want to hold themselves up as those who want to defend the rights of people with superannuation. How absolutely laughable! Having spent the last 30 years doing everything they possibly can to oppose superannuation, they now say they want to protect the superannuation rights of Australians, but only those with balances of over $3 million. So they've actually never cared about average working Australians and their superannuation. Let's remember this: when it took for a Labor government to introduce superannuation, what did the Liberal and National parties do? They opposed it. While a Labor government has repeatedly sought to increase superannuation contributions so that average working people can have a dignified retirement, what have the Liberal and National parties done? They've opposed those increases in contributions. They have never once supported superannuation for the average working person in Australia.

They've invented all sorts of different schemes that have enabled or forced working people to raid their superannuation to deprive themselves of a dignified retirement. But today we see this road-to-Damascus conversion from the Liberal and National parties, saying that they want to defend the rights of Australians to have their superannuation preserved—but only if you've got a balance above $3 million! That's only if you're fortunate enough to be in the less than half a percentage of Australians who have a superannuation balance above $3 million. If you're an average working person with an average balance of around $267,000, the Liberal and National parties don't care about you. They'll vote to let you raid your superannuation and deprive yourself of a dignified retirement. They'll vote to block every possible increase in contributions towards superannuation, but, if you're fortunate enough to be in the less than 0.5 per cent of Australians with a superannuation balance of more than $3 million, then the Liberal and National parties are for you.

That says all you need to know about the Liberal and National parties. We see this play out in every single policy area we ever debate in this parliament. If it's about superannuation and if you're an average working Australian, they're against it. If you're a very, very, very, very wealthy Australian with a superannuation balance above $3 million, then the Liberal and National parties are in your corner when it comes to superannuation. That's just as we've seen over and over again throughout this term of the Albanese government when we've changed workplace laws to benefit average working Australians. Every step we've taken to support working Australians to get pay rises has been opposed by the Liberal and National parties. Every step we've taken to ensure more secure jobs for working Australians, promoted by the Albanese Labor government, has been voted against by the Liberal and National parties. When we proposed same job, same pay laws and pay rises for average working people, you could always count on the Liberal and National parties to be voting against it, just as they did when they were in government and just as they have promised to do if they win the next election. For those privileged few with superannuation balances of over $3 million, the Liberals and Nationals are in your corner, fighting for you.

Now, I am a very well-paid individual, as is every person in this parliament. But, even with the very large amount that I earn and the relatively large superannuation balance that I enjoy, I do not have a balance anywhere near $3 million. That puts into some perspective the kinds of people that the Liberal and National parties are in to bat for here, even the highly paid politicians working in this parliament don't have superannuation balances above $3 million. There might be a handful because of former business wealth that they've developed, but even highly paid politicians in this parliament don't have superannuation balances of more than $3 million. That's who the Liberal and National parties are going in to bat for today, just as they've done on wages, job security and every other policy matter that we've discussed over this term of parliament, and they're in there doing it again today.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate and to observe yet again two things. One is that the opposition are desperate not to get to the electricity legislation that the Senate previously agreed to resolve before one o'clock, and so we got a bit of sour grapes from Senator Cash and her team, who didn't like the fact that they lost the amendment before and that the Senate will deal with the electricity legislation before one o'clock. So they've come up with this great idea to come into the chamber and try to blow up the chamber so we don't get to that legislation. So let's be very clear about the tactical reason for this. It is because they don't want to vote on the electricity legislation that the Senate has previously agreed to resolve in the next 15 minutes. At least be upfront about it. At least be honest with the Senate.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, order!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie and Senator Cash, that is the case. We know that they don't like it when they lose a vote. They don't like it when they have to vote on a bill that they oppose. They certainly don't like renewable energy—we know that—particularly under Senator Cash, now that Senator Birmingham is gone.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, you have been called to order over a number of infractions. You are continuing to yell at another senator across the chamber in a manner that is entirely unfit for this place. I have called you by your name. I will say to you to retain your silence for the rest of the contribution of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. You have the call, Minister Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I appreciate your protection, Acting Deputy President. I really do, because the reality is that those opposite are running this as a tactic, and they should be honest about it.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Cash's motion to suspend be agreed to.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement for no longer than five minutes.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a farce we have just seen in the chamber for the last half an hour, as the Labor Party sought to silence rural and regional Australians having their say on the superannuation changes. They've clearly done a deal with the Greens to get this through parliament. It isn't, as the future 'Minister McKim', Minister Watt or Minister Gallagher outlined, some microcosm of Australians—these big, fat wealthy fat cats sitting on these billion-dollar superannuation balances. It's every small-business owner and every family farmer in this country. That is why the National Farmers Federation is so against this change. It's because you are taxing unrealised gains on the family farm. I'm sorry; you're not getting wads of cash running through your bank account every week to pay your tax bill and your superannuation as a family farmer or small-business owner. The NFF has raised the issue that they will have to sell family farms in order to pay the tax bill that is being imposed by Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. It is no wonder—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that Paul Keating—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, refer—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

thinks this is an—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie! Three times I had to call you. You refer to others in the other place by their correct titles.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This disaster of a Prime Minister and his hapless Treasurer have put a bill—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie! Senator McKenzie, that's a reflection; withdraw.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. And I thank Madam President and the Labor Party for giving me 28 seconds to put the fervent view and strong position of the nine million Australians who do not vote for the Labor Party, who do not vote for the Greens and who produce the food and fibre in this country, about the disastrous impact of your superannuation tax grab—cruelling succession planning on family farms and farms having to be sold to pay tax bills because you are such hapless managers.