Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:32): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Expansion of the National Sea Simulator at the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science is proposing to expand the National Sea Simulator—SeaSim, as it's known—to meet the forecast increase in demand for research to support the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. SeaSim is a unique research aquarium facility for tropical marine research located near Townsville. It directly supports research into the sustainable use of Australia's tropical marine estate, including coral reef adaptation and resilience strategies for the Great Barrier Reef.

The proposed works include the expansion of experimental spaces and seawater processing systems as well as other site services infrastructure upgrades. The estimated cost of the works is $27.5 million excluding GST, and the works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of the parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activity is expected to commence in March 2022, with completion expected at the end of 2023. I commend this motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (09:34): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Report by statement: a review of regulations listing Sonnenkrieg Division as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.

Mr DREYFUS: by leave—I'll make some brief remarks about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's statement for the review of regulations listing Sonnenkrieg Division as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995. This marks the first time that a right-wing extremist organisation has been listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia. Labor members of the committee join with our colleagues on the committee—I note that the member for Berowra, one of my colleagues on the committee, is present in the House—in welcoming the government's decision to list the Sonnenkrieg Division. But as my colleague Senator Keneally said in the Senate last night on the tabling of this report in the Senate, the fact that it has taken so long for the government to take this step is striking, and it is troubling. As ASIO has told this parliament time and time again, the threat posed by right-wing extremism to our country's safety and to the safety of its people is very real and very serious, and it's growing. Last month, ASIO's director-general told the Senate that countering the threat of right-wing extremism now constitutes almost 50 per cent of ASIO's counterterrorism workload. Three years ago it constituted 16 per cent.

We can see the dangers with our own eyes and read about it day after day in our newspapers. We have seen the images and read the reports of dozens of neo-Nazis openly burning crosses and chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans at a popular Victorian tourist destination. Hate speech targeting Muslims continues to be a massive and growing problem in Australia, especially online but also on the streets of our communities. The Christchurch massacre did not occur in a vacuum. As the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network noted in a recent submission to the parliament:

Before the attack in Christchurch, much of the broader population were not aware that anti-Muslim propaganda already permeated right-wing discourse online, or in part, inspired the Oslo terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, who murdered seventy-seven (77) people in 2011.

Anti-Muslim content is considered to be a gateway to 'gradually introducing more racially and politically extremist messages to a large audience of potential supporters'. Canadian, Australian, US, and UK research has found Muslims to be a favoured 'out-group' around which radical right-wing activism or extremism coalesces.

That's what the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network had to say.

We as a community must take the rise in right-wing extremism seriously. We as a parliament must take the rise in right-wing extremism seriously. And it is incumbent on the government—especially the government—to take the rise in right-wing extremism seriously. Lives depend on it, as the Christchurch massacre, which was perpetrated by an Australian, so tragically demonstrated. Yet the Morrison government has not been taking right-wing extremism seriously, not by a long shot. In February of this year, we had the immigration minister contradicting ASIO and, without evidence, asserting that there had been no rise in right-wing extremism at all. In January of this year, following the extreme right-wing attack on the US Capitol, the Prime Minister refused to condemn or offer even the slightest criticism of the outgoing US President, Donald Trump, for Mr Trump's role in inciting the attack. Worse, the Prime Minister of Australia refused to even comment on, let alone criticise, social media posts by members of his own party that peddled dangerous right-wing extremist conspiracy theories about the attack on the US Capitol. This is the same Prime Minister who is now refusing to answer questions about his relationship with a prominent Australian proponent of the dangerous far-right conspiracy theory QAnon, Tim Stewart. Let me be clear: this is not about who the Prime Minister is friends with. As my colleague the member for McMahon said in the House the other day, the Prime Minister is not accountable for the political views of his friends, but when the Prime Minister allegedly gives a prominent proponent of far-right conspiracy theories which the American FBI has labelled a 'domestic terrorism threat' access to Kirribilli House, that is a problem, and there are legitimate questions to be asked—and the Prime Minister must answer them, not least of all because, as we heard on Four Corners this week, Mr Stewart's family has twice contacted the National Security Hotline to express concern about his behaviour.

To return to where I began, the intelligence and security committee welcomes the listing of the Sonnenkrieg Division as a terrorist organisation. While the committee found that Australians had little direct involvement with the Sonnenkrieg Division, its reach into Australia via its online activities poses a threat through the potential to radicalise Australians and to incite terrorist attacks. As my colleague Senator Keneally noted in the Senate last night, the pandemic has shifted more of our interactions online and this, along with the economic and social impacts, anxieties and uncertainties of the last 18 months, has intensified the spread of extreme right-wing narratives. But as Senator Keneally also noted, there are people in this very building who have been publicly entertaining these insidious and dangerous views and to date those people have been tolerated and, in some cases, even defended by the Prime Minister himself. From the Prime Minister down, the Morrison government must publicly and consistently disassociate itself and condemn those who promote and give comfort to conspiracies and far-right views, even—or perhaps especially—if that means turning its focus to the coalition's own party room. The listing of the Sonnenkrieg Division is a start but it is a very modest start.

The SPEAKER (09:41): The immediate question before the House is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (09:42): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (09:43): I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) these changes are necessary due to the tens of thousands of Australians who remain stranded overseas, including many Australian pensioners; and

(b) Australian pensioners stranded overseas have been let down by the Government due to delays in the vaccine rollout and lack of specialist quarantine facilities; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) do more to bring Australian pensioners stranded overseas home by accelerating the vaccine rollout and establishing specialised quarantine facilities; and

(b) not cut the pension".

Pensioners have worked hard and contributed all their lives. They deserve our respect. The age pension is a proud Labor legacy. The first iteration of the age pension was introduced by the Deakin Labor government in 1908. It sought to ensure that older Australians could live with dignity. I was raised by pensioners. They taught me the value of respect. They taught me the value of hard work. They taught me the value of money, the importance of saving, planning and budgeting: a penny saved is a penny earned. That's what pensioners do. They've worked hard. They've helped create the fundamental way of life that we know in this country today. They've looked after us, whether we're children or grandchildren. They budget carefully and they deserve our respect.

Labor will always work to strengthen and improve the pension. Over the last eight years, Labor has sought to protect the pension from the government's relentless cuts to it, and relentless attempts to cut it. Retirement can be an anxious time. All of us understand that. The past year has been a time like no other, with extra health precautions, lockdowns, more time spent at home, reliance on food and grocery delivery services, and the need to purchase additional health products. It's been a particularly hard year for pensioners in meeting their added costs of living, especially those in Victoria—Melbourne, in particular—but, of course, right across the country.

Australian pensioners should be able—and are able—to continue to receive their pension overseas, should they wish. To that end, pensioners with 35 years of Australian working-life residence can receive the full base rate of the pension while overseas indefinitely. One of the great things about the social security system in Australia is its portability. Pensioners with less than 35 years of Australian working-life residence will receive a proportional rate after 26 weeks overseas. Recent events—the COVID-19 pandemic—have seen Australian pensioners stranded overseas through no fault of their own. Temporary arrangements were introduced to allow extensions to pension portability, meaning pensioners could continue to retain the full rate while overseas for longer than 26 weeks. The changes in this bill would enable these arrangements to continue, by providing the secretary with the discretion to continue the full rate in prescribed circumstances. It is the kind of commonsense flexibility that should be built into our social security system.

These changes are necessary for the tens of thousands of Australians who remain stranded overseas, including many Australian pensioners. Australian pensioners stranded overseas have been failed by this neglectful government due to the severe delays in the vaccine rollout and failure to establish specialist quarantine facilities. They are the responsibility of the federal government. Labor has consistently called for the establishment of specialist quarantine facilities. Over a year since the beginning of the pandemic these facilities have still not been delivered. For over a year, the government stubbornly refused to acknowledge—inexplicably refused to acknowledge—its responsibility in quarantine. It has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept this responsibility. This is a government that has simply not treated the vaccine rollout with any urgency.

The Prime Minister said it is a race. Well, it is a race. In fact, I've just come from the Aboriginal medical service here in Canberra, having had my second vaccine. It is a race against further variants. It is a race to save lives and it is a race to save livelihoods, as my colleague has just agreed. It is a race that Australia is losing. Stranded Australians are paying the price, including Australian pensioners who are particularly vulnerable during this pandemic due to their age and health status.

Of course, this is not the first time pensioners have been let down by this government. Pensioners will never forget that before the government took power it pledged not to cut the age pension. But at the first opportunity they had, and over the past eight years, the government has cut, or tried to cut, the pension time and time again. Labor will consistently fight this. Labor has fought every single one of these cuts tooth and nail. Cuts to the pension are part of the government's thinking, part of the government's being and part of the government's DNA. As recently as August last year, the government was caught out by Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 million pensions. Labor fought the government's disrespectful and cruel pension freeze. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation. One is on 20 March and one is on 20 September. The freeze took effect in September, and they made pensioners wait until the October budget before announcing any kind of relief.

We have also seen the government try to short-change pensioners through the pension deeming rates mechanism. Let me assure you, pensioners understand deeming rates very, very well. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets, typically savings, for the purpose of determining their eligibility under the income test for a pension. The upper deeming rate in Australia at this point in time is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is just 0.25 per cent. If you are single, the first $53,000 of your financial assets has a deeming rate of 0.25 per cent applied. Anything over $53,000 is deemed to earn the other rate of 2.25 per cent. If you're a member of a couple and at least one of you gets a pension, the first $88,000 of your combined financial assets has a deeming rate of 0.25 per cent, and anything over $88,000 is deemed at the other rate of 2.25 per cent. With the cash rate nearing zero per cent—it's currently 0.1 per cent—it is impossible to see how pensioners could safely earn 2.25 per cent on their savings. With the government deeming pensioners to earn more than they really are, pensioners are receiving less for their pension. Whilst the minister might disagree with that, it is absolutely the case. Pensioners are being short-changed by the government's unreasonable and unrealistic pension deeming rates.

Pensioners won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. The Liberals and Nationals are obsessed with cutting the pension, attempting to cut the pension in every budget, every year. In 2014, they tried to cut the pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. That is a lot of money, in any terms, and it is particularly a lot of money for pensioners. In 2014, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. In 2014, they axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. In 2014, they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension for around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. In 2016, they tried to cut the pension for around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to just six weeks. In 2016, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. They spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. As social services minister the member for Cook—the current Prime Minister—tried to cut the pension, and we will not forget that. As Treasurer the member for Cook tried to cut the pension, and as Prime Minister the member for Cook has also tried to cut the pension.

In conclusion, there have been eight years of cuts to the pension by this government, and the government has only acted when it's been caught out on its cuts. Our pensioners deserve better than that, and Labor will continue to protect the pension. We will continue to fight the government's cruel cuts to the pension, and Labor will always ensure that pensioners continue to live with the dignity and respect they deserve.

The SPEAKER: Is the amendment moved by the member for Barton seconded?

Ms Collins: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr GORMAN (Perth) (09:57): This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021, is a sad reminder for Australians that the government has failed them. It has left them without a vaccination and it has left them stranded in dangerous and unsafe parts of the world. Without this bill, they would also be left without the financial support which they desperately need right now. That's why Labor supports this bill, but we know that there are huge concerns from the people who this bill affects. People who are trapped because the government has failed to provide them with a vaccine and failed to bring them home deserve so much more from this government.

We can't forget, as the member for Barton has said, that this government cut social security to the bone. It was Labor that gave the largest increase to the pension in more than a century. Over the last eight years, we've seen this government try to cut the pension again and again and again—cut, cut, cut. For more than 20 years, pensioners could expect their pensions to rise as prices rose. That was always something that pensioners could rely on, but not under this government. This government has tried to stop pensioners getting the support they need, freezing their pensions. After pressure from Labor and the community—and pensioners, who don't mind standing up for themselves, because they know that this government won't stand up for them—the government capitulated and gave them two one-off payments. But it's part of a pattern of behaviour from the government when it comes to the pension. The pension payments that we provided to those stuck overseas are more than they would have been had Labor not stood up against this government's mean cuts.

Remember: in 2014, there was the $80 cut from the pension with the removal of indexation; the $900 cut with the axing of the seniors supplement for self-funded retirees; and the $1 billion cut from pensioner concessions. That was just 2014, in the Abbott-Hockey horror budget. But they continued in 2015, because they actually believe in making life harder for pensioners who have worked their entire life. Expecting a secure, stable retirement, pensioners have to worry, every year, about what's going to come from this government in the budget. By changing the assets test, the government cut as much as $12,000 a year for some 370,000 Australians. That wasn't enough. In 2016, they cut the pension for around 190,000 pensioners by limiting their travel period to six weeks, and they cut the pension for around 1.5 million pensioners by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. On the government's own figures, 563,000 Australians were worse off. When it comes to this government and what it might cut, the reality is that anything is possible. After the government has racked up $1 trillion of debt, with no reform plan, I worry that pensioners will be first in the firing line again when this government snaps back to its 'cut, cut, cut' approach to managing the nation's finances.

The government also has a habit of denying things and then, a few weeks later, doing them. I am worried by some very odd and carefully chosen language used by government ministers about the cashless debit card. This card, which has been trialled in a range of communities and has cost the government millions of dollars in terms of its rollout, is now being expanded. We know the minister 'wants to make this mainstream'. Making the cashless debit card—the 'cashless pension card'—mainstream will mean that pensioners lose the flexibility that they deserve in their retirement. Pensioners are worried. I bring the concerns of the pensioners in my electorate into this House. The minister has used some very careful language. The government are so sensitive about this because they know that what they are discussing is wrong. It is disrespectful of pensioners.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

Mr GORMAN: I've got no problem! This government has a problem with pensioners buying a beer. I've got no problem with pensioners buying a beer. They have worked hard, helped build this country and raised their families. If the penalty this government wants to put on pensioners for enjoying their retirement is to restrict their ability to buy a beer or a glass of wine, it is absolutely disgraceful. It is garbage from this government.

We know that older Australians are vulnerable. We know that, when this government talks about expanding the cashless debit card into a cashless pension card, it is something that is of concern to pensioners. This government will now seek to expand this. Think about a stranded pensioner overseas—the people we're trying to help with this legislation. How would a cashless pension card work if you were stuck overseas? Could you use it in the UK? You wouldn't be able to. Could you use it if you were stuck in Indonesia? No. There are huge rollout problems with a cashless pension card, because they have to approve the providers. It's also a huge amount of red tape for businesses in my electorate. Any expansion of the cashless debit card is a huge expansion of red tape for the small businesses in my electorate. Having to go through an approvals process by this government, having to go through—

Ms Collins interjecting—

Mr Tudge interjecting —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Perth has the call and will be heard in silence.

Mr GORMAN: The minister at the table is proudly saying that he 'designed the damn card'. Most of us come here because we want to change the nation—we want to build infrastructure, and we want to make sure we leave the next generation better off than the generation that came before. Instead, what this government is looking to do by expanding the cashless debit card is clearly something those opposite know they should be embarrassed about. Until the government can properly rule this out—and I quote the minister again—

Ms Collins interjecting —

Mr Tudge interjecting —

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Perth will be heard in silence. If the members want to have a discussion, they can leave the chamber.

Mr GORMAN: As long as the government say that they want to make the cashless debit card mainstream, with a cashless pension card, I will continue to bring the concerns of my community into this chamber. That's my job—to make sure that we raise these concerns and that the government doesn't continue down this path. My view is that pensioners have made sacrifices. We've all made sacrifices over the last year, but pensioners have done it tougher than most. Before the pandemic, pensioners were making sacrifices. Research that the government commissioned after they started cutting the pension showed this. The research showed that a third of Australian pensioners were experiencing energy poverty. Energy costs have been a major concern for older Australians. Many pensioners spend a substantial portion of their income on power bills.

When this pandemic hit, it showed just how vulnerable pensioners were. I congratulate the McGowan Labor government in Western Australia, who saw that vulnerability and sought to provide a $600 credit to pensioners in my electorate so that they could continue to pay their power bills. Where the income supports that were being provided to pensioners during the pandemic weren't sufficient, the state stepped in. That's a pattern of behaviour that we see time and time again.

The other thing that's important to note is that it's also pensioners and senior Australians who raise concerns about the lack of affordable renewable energy in our grid. Pensioners are people who do that long-term planning. They don't just think about how much money they're going to have this month or next month; they're thinking about the rest of their lives—20 years. Pensioners know that, over those 20 years, the only way they're going to have lower power bills and the energy they need to run their houses and keep them warm is to make sure that we start that important transition towards renewable energy. Otherwise, it's just going to be the same pattern that we've seen for the last eight years under this government—a 50 per cent increase in power bills, pensioners choosing to have cold showers and not put their heating on at night, and not being able to afford to run their air conditioners during heatwaves, as we experience in Perth on a regular basis.

I'll now come to the people who are stuck overseas that we are trying to help. As of 28 May, 35,000 Australians want to get home but can't. Many of them are older Australians; 4,260 of them are classified as vulnerable Australians. So, while we are passing this legislation to help them with financial support, I'd much rather we weren't having this debate. If the government and the Prime Minister had delivered on their promise to get everyone home by Christmas last year, this legislation wouldn't be necessary. It's as simple as that. We wouldn't need it. We need this legislation. It's been six months. It's another broken promise from this Prime Minister.

In India alone, there are more than 11,000 Australians who are trying to get home. Some of them are grandparents who haven't seen their grandkids for more than a year and families who have been separated by the incompetence and laziness of this government. The Prime Minister promised the Australian people in the middle of a pandemic that he would get these pensioners home. The Prime Minister having broken that promise, we finally have some legislation to at least provide them with their pension payments. This is the same Prime Minister who assures us that he is on a war footing in terms of how we're helping people.

Mr Tudge interjecting —

Mr GORMAN: I wonder. We get questions from time to time from people who say, 'How do different people get to the frontbench?' I ask the government opposite: how do you leave the Prime Minister in his job when he has continued to lie and fail the Australian people?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Perth will withdraw that.

Mr GORMAN: I withdraw. The Prime Minister said that we are on a war footing. But apparently this doesn't apply to the vaccine rollout or quarantine. If it did, we would be making proper use of our defence assets. If Labor was in government, we'd look at things like RAAF Base Learmonth as a priority to make sure we had the capacity to get these pensioners home so that we wouldn't have to send the cashless pension cards and payments overseas. Instead, we could just bring them home. That would also mean that they could spend their pension here in Australia and support Australian small businesses. But quarantine, despite being a Commonwealth responsibility, is not a priority, even though pensioners are stuck overseas saying, 'We want to come home; we want to get back to where we grew up, where we worked all our lives and where we can see our families and our grandkids.' We know that the Halton report recommended a purpose-built facility in Western Australia, but, because this government is so stubborn and so determined to ignore the expert advice, our nation is stuck. Premier McGowan has said very clearly that he would like to see 'a facility next to an international-capacity airport'. It's been suggested that Exmouth or Busselton could be the location. Premier McGowan said:

… there's those sorts of places that are outside of the very heavily populated inner city of Perth, but the Commonwealth shows no appetite.

I just can't understand why you would choose to leave the most dangerous bits of quarantine in the middle of our CBD after we've had so many pieces of evidence that it doesn't work. I know what that means to the pensioners who live in my electorate: they are left vulnerable to these quarantine leaks which we see time and time again. They haven't had their full vaccination schedule. The information coming out of this government is light to non-existent at best, although I understand that every pensioner in my electorate next month will receive a personalised letter from the Prime Minister telling them about the vaccine schedule and why they should get vaccinated. When pensioners need a vaccine and the government's solution is to give them a letter from the Prime Minister, I think that just shows how badly the rollout of the vaccination schedule has gone.

The government has failed when it comes to the confidence that is needed in the vaccine rollout. This is a huge problem that this government fails to address. It's great that we've got this legislation, and it is very important for a very small number of people, but I'd also expect the government to do something for the very large number of people who are waiting for them to actually step up on the two jobs that they should be focusing on day in, day out: quarantine and vaccines. If you get quarantine right and you get vaccines right, we won't need legislation like this and we can bring the pensioners who are stuck overseas home. We can make sure they're spending that money here in Australia and we can reconnect Australian families who have been stuck apart for more than a year because of the incompetence of this government.

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:12): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021. I recently welcomed the temporary changes that were made to pension portability, meaning pensioners would be able to retain the full rate overseas for longer than 26 weeks. That was a commonsense measure. Let's not forget that, a year and a half into the pandemic, the government has left 35,000 Australians who want to come home stranded overseas. We've heard it from previous speakers. It's a fact. There was a promise made to bring them home, and they failed on it. They failed to keep their promise to bring them home by Christmas. Not even this government, surely, would be cruel enough to cut the retirement income of Aussies they've left stranded overseas?

While this bill make sensible administrative changes to pension portability, which we support, there are significant and wider problems with the pension that need to be addressed, including by making more concerted efforts to increase the number of countries we enter into bilateral agreements with. That would allow Australians to more freely travel when they can and live in other parts of the world during their retirement or part of their retirement. I know that the government, in the most recent budget, allocated a bit over $18 million to enter into social security bilateral agreements like this with the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. I think Australia should be more ambitious about what we can accomplish with that vast sum of money. But this government's leadership and ambition are often lacking.

I note that Prime Minister Morrison, on his trip to Paris recently, met with President Macron—a very important meeting—and they talked about many important elements of the bilateral relationship. But why wasn't a bilateral social security agreement on pensions on the agenda? I would urge the government to look into developing a bilateral social security agreement with France. I've been contacted by numerous expat Australians in that country who worked and paid their taxes for decades in Australia and are unable to receive their pension. This is despite such a protocol, such an agreement, existing between Australia and 31 other countries, including 21 in the European Union, but not France. France actually has more than 40 such agreements in place with other countries, but not Australia.

It's probably true to say that many members on both sides of this House would agree with the ambition to sign more agreements with our friends and allies abroad when it comes to Australian pensioners being able to receive their pension when they are spending time overseas. What members on this side of the House do not agree with is the government's shameful track record of cuts to the pension and attempts to cut the pension. In a speech in 2015, a freshly minted Treasurer—now the Prime Minister—stated that the age pension should not be regarded as an entitlement for all. Let that sink in. He then outlined the government's vision for an overhaul of the country's retirement income system through reducing expenditure on welfare payments. This Prime Minister rejects in an ideological sense what is effectively a contract between the state and the citizens. Australian citizens pay their taxes all their working lives. They contribute to this country. They work hard and make a tax contribution. They are entitled to a pension in their retirement. That is part of the social contract. It includes things like defence and security, schools and education, hospitals and health care. It's not just a welfare payment.

Labor opposed those measures at the time because pensioners have worked hard and contributed all their lives to make this country what it is today. Older Australians deserve our respect and dignity. But this government tries to push through pension cuts at any opportunity. Many of those in the firing line of the coalition's attempts to cut the pension are migrants to this country who are now pensioners—after 30, 40 or 50 years working hard here, paying their taxes in Australia, building a life here, raising a family here. They should be able to receive a pension that allows them to live comfortably and reconnect with family and friends overseas that they may have left behind to come and build a life in Australia. These older Australians have made a sacrifice in many ways to build a life here in Australia and to become new Australians. They left their families and cultures behind to help build Australia through their work and their contribution. Yet we've got a government that drags its heels on doing all it can to support these people to spend their time with elderly relatives and long-lost friends. It wants to make their income uncertain if, for example, they were to accidentally spend a bit too much time overseas.

Let's have a look at this government's track record and a few recent instances of where they have got their scissors out and tried to start cutting. As I mentioned, the Prime Minister, in 2015, when he was Treasurer, tried to cut the pension and increase the age of entitlement. In the 2014 budget the government tried to cut pension indexation, which would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 less within 10 years. This unfair cut would have ripped $23 billion from the pockets of every pensioner in Australia. In the 2014 budget they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. In the same budget, the infamous 2014 budget, they axed the Commonwealth seniors health card. In the 2014 budget the Liberals tried to reset deeming rates, which would have made 200,000 part-pensioners worse off. In 2015 the government did a deal with the Greens political party to cut the pension of around 370,000 pensioners by changing the pension assets test. In the 2016 budget they tried to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. These are the people I was just talking about, who go overseas to visit family and friends after a lifetime of work here. The government also tried in that same budget to scrap the energy supplement for new pensioners. And in August last year the government was caught out by Labor on its attempts to freeze payments for 2.5 million pensioners.

Pensioners in this country would not be surprised to hear that the coalition has tried to cut the pension this many times. They are obsessed with it. They have tried to do it in every single budget over the last eight years. Cutting the pension, unfortunately, is in the Liberals' DNA. Building and supporting the pension is in Labor's DNA. When we were last in government we actually increased the pension by $30 per week.

I would like to take a moment to show how this bill has an impact on my local electorate of Wills and the people who live there. It's an incredibly diverse electorate. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, just under half of the people in Wills either were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. Many of these people migrated in the postwar period—of Italian background, or Greek, Lebanese, Turkish, Vietnamese, Indian or Pakistani, and many others. These are some of the people who helped build this country. Many of my constituents go back to their country of origin to visit, to see their family, to see friends they haven't seen in many, many years. By the time they get there and the jet lag ends—because it's a long trip; we're far away in Australia—they may actually have to start thinking about coming home again, at around that six-week time frame. That is because the government hasn't done the legwork to build a more comprehensive network of agreements, as I was talking about earlier—social security bilateral agreements—to help them claim their pension overseas if they were to stay a bit longer.

As I said, these are Australians who have worked hard. They deserve that break to visit family and spend some quality time with long-lost friends and family overseas. And just because they're overseas it doesn't mean that their expenses are decreasing. Pensioners tell me again and again that land tax and council rates are rising, that the cost of living for them is constantly rising. Despite this, the government's instinct—its go-to—is to cut the pension to try to rip it away and make life harder for the nation's elderly. It's particularly cynical when you consider that the Treasurer has attempted to stimulate the economy by shovelling billions of dollars out the door, spending money to resolve the government's political problems.

Wouldn't increasing the pension help with the stimulus? Do you reckon pensioners would save this money in their sock drawer? Or would they spend it—on groceries, bills and gifts for the grandkids? Like JobSeeker recipients, pensioners aren't saving their payments. The additional money goes almost directly into the economy, to stimulate the economy—a good use of public money. Yet this government won't even consider it, because it runs counter to their ambitions to dismantle that social safety net that Labor spent so many years putting in place. They won't consider it because ideologically the Prime Minister—publicly—doesn't believe in it, because apparently it's an entitlement. Apparently this type of welfare needs to be ripped away, and government needs to move away from providing that kind of payment to pensioners or the vulnerable. Apparently he doesn't believe in that. And this is a deeply held belief. He doesn't think government should be doing this.

It's a problem, because in recent years we've seen stagnant wages, declining productivity, high underemployment and declining living standards—all under this coalition government. And the government has no plans to really turn the economy around. As I said, the budget that they recently passed was all about spending money on what they perceived to be their political problems—a short-term political budget, long on spin and spending on political problems but short on any real investment in the Australian economy. That's not what a Labor government would do. We would invest in Australia's future while looking after those who helped to build this country.

The age pension is a fundamentally important aspect of this commitment, to ensure that older Australians can actually have a life in retirement that's one of dignity, after so many decades of working and contributing. The pension, Medicare, unemployment benefits, superannuation and the NDIS: these are all policies for the little guy, the average Australian—supporting those who have been doing it tough or who've worked all their life to make their contribution. These are the sorts of defining policies that Australians can trust the Labor Party to deliver if elected to government. And frankly, these are the kinds of policies that the coalition are ideologically opposed to, that they hate; they try to slash them at every opportunity. We've seen this government do that on so many occasions, as I've outlined.

We on this side will not stand silently as this government seeks to cut social services by stealth. We'll continue to put forward the progressive policies that will make Australian lives better and create that fairer society that we should all have.

Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (10:25): Of course we know that the pension isn't a welfare payment. The pension is a payment that goes to hardworking Australians—Australians who have often spent their entire lives in jobs that aren't high paying; in jobs that are physically demanding; in jobs that mean they haven't been the Australians that have been able to invest in three, four or five investment properties; in jobs that mean these Australians have toiled day after day to earn enough money to bring up their children to try to give them a better opportunity in life than they had. These are the Australians that are on the age pension. These are the Australians that deserve a government and deserve members of parliament who are always on their side. It is fundamentally disappointing that they don't have such a government right now.

This legislation, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021, is needed, and it's supported by Labor because we understand that there are Australian pensioners who are stuck overseas because of the pandemic, because the borders rightly had to be shut, but also because this Morrison government has fundamentally failed in the vaccination rollout, in building fit-for-purpose national quarantine and in the Prime Minister's promise to bring all Australians who wanted to come home by Christmas of last year. So it's with no joy that we rise to have to support this legislation to support Australian pensioners, many of whom have been failed by the government's botched response to its fundamental duties to Australians during this pandemic: the vaccine rollout, the quarantine and the fact that, if you're an Australian citizen with an Australian passport, that should mean something. That should mean that, when you are stranded in another country, your government does everything in its power to get you home, which is not what this government has done.

We know that this government, over the long eight years—it likes to pretend, by the way, that somehow this is a government that is new and fresh and isn't to blame for things that happened over the last eight years. It's not a new and fresh government; it's been in power for eight long years, and we know that over those years this government has tried time and time again to attack Australia's age pensioners, to cut their pension.

Last time Labor was in government, we increased the age pension by $30 a week. We understand working Australians and we understand their needs in retirement. This is a government that understands the words 'working Australians' because it likes to use them, but it doesn't understand their needs and it certainly doesn't understand their needs in retirement. If it did, it wouldn't have needed the opposition to catch the government out last year on the pension freeze for 2½ million pensioners. It wouldn't need the opposition, community members and pensioners themselves to raise their voices time and time again to fight against this government's pension freeze—a freeze that took effect in September. Pensioners had to wait for the October budget before knowing whether they were going to get any kind of relief. And then the relief in the form of the two one-off payments, whilst better than nothing, led to so many members of my community contacting me to say: 'This feels like a slap in the face. This feels like a token amount of money to shut us up because they realised there was a political problem because they weren't supporting 2½ million hardworking Australians who deserve a retirement in dignity.'

We know this is a government that, in the end, views people who receive support from the government—be it unemployment benefits, be it the disability support pension, be it single-parent pensions, be it the age pension—as people who are welfare recipients, as the leaners not the lifters, as the people they look down on and say, 'Well, we're here to help you,' from above, but not the people they live with and understand and really are there to help. How do we know this? We know this because this is a government that introduced a cashless welfare card for some of the most disadvantaged people in our community, because this government thinks it knows better than Australians about how to spend their money. How do we know this is a government that wants to control how hardworking Australians in their retirement spend their pensions? We know it not because Labor says it but because the minister responsible for the aged-care pension, for social services, said it herself. Last year the responsible minister was interviewed by the media and was asked: 'Are you going to roll out the cashless welfare card nationally?' Her answer was that this is a conversation we need to have about the card. She said, 'Well, initially, we thought it was to control people's gambling and whether or not they could drink alcohol and smoke. But now we know it's a wonderful budgeting tool for those people who are on low incomes.' It's a budgeting tool enforced upon them by the government, whether they like it or not. And we know that this government's plan, if they ever get the opportunity, is to roll out the cashless welfare card to pensioners across this country, because the responsible minister said it was 'a broader application for the whole community'.

So, members of my community, every time you hear this government say that any suggestion they want to roll out the cashless welfare card to pensioners is nothing but a scare campaign, remember that the responsible minister talked about this card and its use as being something that would have 'a broader application for the whole community because it's a universal platform'. On behalf of my community, where one in five people are on a pension—disability support, age pension, single-parent pension—in this very chamber last year, on 7 December, not so very long ago, I put this challenge to the minister:

Will the minister say, once and for all, that it is not this government's intention to tell people on pensions, family tax benefits, single mothers supports, carers supports and disability supports how they can and can't spend their money?

The minister didn't respond. Not only did the minister not rule it out, the minister couldn't find words to respond—nor did any minister representing the minister find words to respond—because that's their plan, because we know that this is a government that's spoken to the big four banks and given them money to have a task force to set up the technology. They've spoken to supermarkets and Australia Post about the technology and about their plan to extend the draconian legislation. I asked on 7 December:

Will the minister stand up in this place today and rule out extending the cashless welfare card to other recipients of government allowances?

The answer was resounding silence, because the answer is yes; it could be extended.

Members of my community and Australians across this nation, I can tell you this: a federal Labor government would scrap the cashless welfare card. I will not give up fighting this plan to extend it to age pensioners, because I'm on your side and because Labor is on your side. We all know whose side this government is on, and it's not yours.

The final issue I want to raise before I finish my contribution in terms of pensions and portability is that there is clearly an emerging issue for Australian residents who are also Irish citizens and who receive part of a pension via the Irish system and part via the Australian system. I've had two couples contact me and my office, Thomas and Ursula, and Michael and Joan, who since the UK left the European Union are finding that their Irish pension is now subject to significant bank charges every month. It's so significant, in fact, that Michael and Joan are effectively losing half of one of their pensions every year because of these bank charges. From the investigations that my office has undertaken, it's a result of Brexit. It's a result of banking now being done through the European Union, and charges being levied, but no-one knows whether they're being levied by European, Irish or Australian banks. But these couples are now losing significant amounts of their pensions. It's a serious issue, in that, if it's affecting Irish Australians in my electorate, it's affecting Irish Australians across the country, and it's an issue that this government should be looking at and looking at immediately because, again, these are hardworking Australians who are living on a low income via pensions and they cannot afford to lose even $10 a month through bank fees.

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:37): I say from the outset that I support all of those on this side who have spoken before me, particularly in terms of their sentiments about our senior Australians, always remembering that these are the people who built our nation. They worked hard, they raised their families, they paid their taxes and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and they also deserve to be able to access services when they need them—all things they're not getting from the Morrison government.

Labor have said we will support the bill before the House, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021, and I support the amendments moved by the member for Barton—namely, that these changes to the bill are necessary due to the tens of thousands of Australians who remain stranded overseas, including many Australian pensioners; Australian pensioners stranded overseas have been let down by this government due to delays in the vaccine rollout and the lack of specialist quarantine facilities; and we're calling on the government to do more to bring those stranded Australian pensioners home, by accelerating the rollout and having those quarantine facilities in place. Our amendments also call on the government to not cut the pension.

As we've said, whilst we support the bill, we don't support the Liberals' and Nationals' relentless, sustained attacks on our pensioners over the last eight years. Whether it's the cuts to pensions, changes to the assets test or the expansion of the cashless welfare card, this is a government that Australians just do not trust.

This bill seeks to make some administrative changes in terms of pension portability, and we support this because the rate of pension available to pensioners who travel or live overseas needs to be looked at, and the legislation seeks to address areas that may have been outside a pensioner's control. So having changes to that portability is vitally important. And it's important, of course, in the context of the pandemic and the many challenges that has created. Many of us have been contacted by those stranded overseas, including many of our pensioners.

Of course, the government's consistent bungling of the vaccine rollout has created this situation. The government's absolute refusal to have dedicated quarantine facilities means we're in this situation. We've consistently called for the rollout to happen—it's just been consistently bungled. We've also called for those specialist quarantine facilities, but, due to the arrogance of the Prime Minister, they just won't do that. If we had these in place, we perhaps wouldn't be in this situation. So we'll continue to call upon the government to do that. This is the government's responsibility—vaccine rollout and quarantine facilities. We've seen so many Australians stranded overseas in the pandemic, as we've said, particularly our pensioners. As it stands with this bill, it seeks to extend some arrangements so there is greater discretion in terms of extending that portability in particular circumstances.

As I've said, our seniors and our pensioners have worked hard and contributed all their lives, and they deserve respect and dignity. When Labor was in government, we did increase the pension by $30 a week. But the fact is over the past eight years the government has, time and time again, tried to cut—or has actually cut—the pension. We saw in August last year the government was caught out on its pension freeze for 2.5 million pensioners. We fought this cruel pension freeze because the reality is, as we know, pensioners plan for their twice yearly indexation. One is on 20 March and the other is on 20 September. The Morrison government's cruel freeze took place in September, and they made pensioners wait until October, until the budget, before announcing any kind of relief. This only came after intense pressure, because they were caught out with this pension freeze. The government then backed down and announced two one-off payments for pensioners of $250. One was in November and the other in February.

Of course, the government have tried to short-change pensioners through deeming rates as well. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners can actually earn from their assets, typically their savings, for the purpose of determining their eligibility under the income test for the pension. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower rate is 0.25 per cent. Of course, with the cash rate nearing zero per cent, it's difficult to see how pensioners could safely earn 2.25 per cent on their savings. So, with the government deeming pensioners to earn more than what they really are, pensioners are in fact receiving less for their pension. It's another example of pensioners being short-changed by the government's unrealistic and unreasonable pension deeming rates.

One of the biggest issues that pensioners continue to raise with me are their concerns about the Morrison government's cashless welfare card. Pensioners across the country know that the Prime Minister and the Liberals and Nationals want to expand the cashless welfare card to all pensioners right across the nation. These people know that if the Morrison government is re-elected they will force all pensioners onto the cashless welfare card, and this plan will put 80 per cent of their pension on a card that will limit what they can spend and where they can spend their own money. Under the Liberals and Nationals, all pensioners could soon be saying goodbye to cheap food and drinks at their local club, pub or RSL, or saying goodbye to being able to take out cash for their grandchildren on their birthdays or at Christmas time. Even buying a simple lotto ticket will be banned under this system. The fact is this plan of forcing all pensioners onto the cashless welfare card is insulting, demeaning and downright wrong.

We know the Morrison government's plans about this because they keep talking about it. They keep saying they want to make it universal. The minister says, 'Let's have a conversation about making it universal.' We've had many, many government MPs talk about how they want to expand it. We know it's on their agenda. Most importantly, pensioners know it's on their agenda. Right across the country, they are speaking out about this unfair plan. Pensioners really have a right to be very, very anxious about this, because the government's actually got a working group with the banks about their plan to make it universal and force all pensioners onto it. We saw the government signal in their recent legislation about putting income management in place for pensioners. They want to do it and put people onto this privatised card. As the government prepares for the national rollout of this pensioner welfare card, they've already blocked the cashless card at many pubs, RSLs and clubs across the country. Make no mistake, they are preparing to roll this out across the nation.

Labor will scrap the cashless welfare card, because pensioners must not be forced onto this nasty, unfair scheme. The fact is Australians should not have their spending controlled by the government—that's the fact. This government's agenda is all about privatising welfare and giving millions to a company to run the cashless welfare card. That is their entire agenda. But pensioners are onto them. They're onto this government and what they're doing.

I would also point out that recently my electorate office received a phone call from a senior ministerial staffer in the Morrison government demanding I take down my Facebook post in relation to the Morrison government's cruel plan to force pensioners onto this cashless welfare card. For the record, I have not and I will not be removing this post. In fact, I will be posting more about this issue. I will continue to speak out every day in every forum about the Morrison government's cruel attack on pensioners, as well as about their cuts to Medicare and the aged-care crisis. I will continue to speak out and I will not be silenced by anyone in the Morrison government, not by any of them or by any of their MPs or their ministers or, indeed, not even the Prime Minister; I will not be silenced when it comes to these important issues.

As I say, Labor stands with our pensioners. We will scrap this cashless welfare card because pensioners should not be forced on to it. But pensioners know you can't trust the Liberals and Nationals after the years of attacks they've had to wear from this government. Let's look at some of the things they've done over that time. Remember, these pensioners do not forget the government's horrendous record on cutting the pension. Why do they keep doing it? It is because they're obsessed with it; they are obsessed in every budget of trying to find another way to cut the pension.

Let's have a look. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In 2014 they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, which are designed to support and help pensioners with the cost of living, and we know one of the biggest issues for our pensioners is the increases in the cost of living for them. Also this Liberal-National government, in 2014, axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In 2014 they tried to reset deeming rates thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. We all remember in 2015 when the Liberals and Nationals did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. We saw those massive changes to the assets test, thanks to the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens—can't trust them at all. Then, with the Liberal-National government in 2016, they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel to pensioners to six weeks.

The list of these attacks goes on and on. In 2016, again, we also saw them trying to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners; they just do not give up with their attacks on pensioners. Indeed, in that case, the government's own figures showed this would have left over 500,000 Australians who currently receive a pension or an allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off. Of course, no-one—absolutely no-one—forgets this government has spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70.

One of the things that those of us on this side of the House are very proud of is that the age pension is very much part of Labor's legacy because we understand how important it is. We've always fought for it. We established it. It was introduced by the Deakin Labor government to ensure that our older Australians could live with dignity. We have always sought to defend it. We increased the age pension. We have fought this government every step of the way and we will continue to fight them at every turn when they try to cut and slash the pension. Anything that impacts our senior Australians, we will always stand with them and always fight for them because all we've ever seen from the Liberals and Nationals are consistent attacks in trying to chip away.

Our senior Australians have had enough. They have just had enough of this government and what they're doing. The prime example of that is their outrage about the government's plans for the cashless welfare card or the pension welfare card and their plans to roll it out for all pensioners. Our senior Australians have said, 'Enough is enough. We've had years and years and years of cuts and now you are going to introduce a card that tells us where we can spend our money, when we can spend it, what we can spend it on.' This is outrageous and insulting. These people have managed their money, lived their lives, paid their taxes, raised their families; they don't need this. It is outrageous to have it rolled out across the country. All those studies have shown how these cards do not work. We have seen so many reports to say they're ineffective and that they should be scrapped. Labor will scrap that because we know, in any format in those trials, they just have not worked.

The government is trying to be sneaky in terms of this rollout. There is heaps of evidence to say they want to make it universal. They want to roll it out. The minister keeps saying it. We've heard a lot of the National Party MPs talk about how: 'This is great. We'll roll it out everywhere'. The fact is they then insert it into legislation about its application for age pensioners as well. We know it's on their agenda. We know they want to do it. Whilst the cashless welfare card exists, the threat is always there that it will go to all pensioners.

The government can lie and attack us and try to silence us. We'll stand with Australian pensioners every step of the way until we get rid of this cashless welfare card, because it is unfair. They can say whatever they want. The government can keep telling untruths about this. We know what their agenda is. It is essentially about privatising welfare. The millions that are going into this company to roll out this privatisation of welfare are quite frankly outrageous. The government should not be privatising welfare. They should not have plans like the cashless welfare card in place.

We will continue to stand with the community, with our pensioners, with our seniors and with all of those who are subjected to the cashless welfare card to scrap that. We will always defend those vulnerable Australians, always making sure we can provide for them. Labor has a long history of doing that, and we will fight this government every single day, right up until the next election. We're standing up for those who need a Labor government to make a real difference in their lives.

Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (10:51): I will start by saying that, even though we will be supporting these measures, what the member for Richmond has said about the cashless welfare card is right. Regardless of which minister or minister's office decides to call on members of this side of the House to take down a particular post or not to advocate or not to put their views forward, we on this side of the House won't be silenced, as you heard the member for Richmond say. No member on this side will be. We know the cashless welfare card system, which we heard the member for Richmond speak about, is a system about privatising our services and making cuts to pensioners, making it harder for them. I commend the member for Richmond for not taking down the post. I guarantee you that no-one from this side of the House will be bullied into not advocating on behalf of their pensioners in their electorates.

We say these things because, as I said, even though we're supporting this bill, unfortunately this government has a very bad track record when it comes to pensioners. If you go back in history, you can see the many governments that have come to this place, whether it be Labor or Liberal. In 2008 the Labor government was the first government to ever increase the pension—that is, an actual increase, not through the CPI and systems that increase the pension for cost of living or other mechanisms that are in place. They actually put a lump sum into the pension to increase it. It was Labor that did it. Labor is the friend of pensioners and always will be.

I know this bill is about pension portability and that it refers to the rate of pensions available to pensioners overseas and the secretariat having the ability to make decisions in circumstances that are different et cetera, but, as I said, you've got to look at the record of this government. Currently we're hearing the debate about the changes to Medicare. That's something that affects pensioners more than anything else. When I speak with pensioners, one of the things on their minds is always health and health services. You can see the damage that this government has done to Medicare. I know this bill is about pension portability, but it affects pensioners' lives.

When this government came to fruition in 2013, one of the very first acts in that very first budget was to cut billions of dollars away from health. We're seeing the outcome of those cuts trickle down into the states where you see emergency departments absolutely chock-a-block with not enough beds or rooms to put patients in, not enough doctors and not enough nurses. You can't make billions of dollars' worth of cuts to health through the federal budget and not expect it to have an adverse effect in the states, where the money is being administered, put into hospitals et cetera. We're seeing this in South Australia right now, and it has an enormous effect on pensioners.

Talking about pensions, the member for Richmond talked about deeming rates and how this government tried to change them. The assets test affects pensioners who have perhaps accumulated a few savings or perhaps have a second house. The value of the assets threshold has always gone up, keeping up with inflation. This is the first government that has cut it and brought down the threshold for assets, affecting hundreds of thousands of pensioners who have lost money on their pension.

As I said, we're supporting this bill because it will allow pensioners who are stuck overseas a certain period of time in which they can continue to receive their payment before they have to be back here, before their pension is cut off. The pandemic has been a great example of this. The bill will enable the secretary of the department to make decisions based on individual circumstances.

For many Australians who were born overseas, and for Australians who were born here, being able to spend extended periods of time with relatives, with family, is extremely important. Currently, pensioners who have 35 years of working-life residence can receive the full base pension indefinitely while overseas. Pensioners with less than 35 years receive only a proportional rate. I've always been of the belief that, if you've worked and are eligible for the pension, it is your choice when you retire and, as a pensioner, decide to go from Melbourne to live in Queensland because it's sunnier or to go from Adelaide to live in Broome because of the weather. That is your right. But it is also your right to go and live in Italy or Greece or Serbia if you want to. It shouldn't be any different. This discriminates. I've always been of that belief, and I'll continue to be of that belief, because people who have worked and have paid their taxes should have the right to earn their pension and live wherever they want to. In fact, Australia saves when that happens. We've seen figures over the years that show that while pensioners are overseas there are health costs, medicine costs and a whole range of other benefits that they may not get when they're overseas. It is actually a cost saving for Australia, and it's about time we started thinking about these things and not putting pressure on pensioners.

This government has one rule for one and another rule for another. We saw in here yesterday in the debate on JobKeeper that some of the multinational companies and multimillionaire business people in this country have received millions and millions of dollars of government handouts, taxpayers' money, for JobKeeper. Yet, at the other end of the scale, we're constantly pursuing pensioners and trying to see how we can cut the pension. That's wrong. It's not on. Our pensioners, who have worked all their lives and paid their taxes, deserve the ability to retire and be confident of their pension, wherever they decide to live.

This bill will give some flexibility. We've seen during the COVID-19 pandemic how many Australians were stranded overseas through no fault of their own and couldn't come back to Australia. Some are still stranded overseas, despite the Prime Minister having said he'd have every Australian home by Christmas last year. As a result, temporary arrangements were introduced to allow extensions to pension portability—in other words, to be able to receive your pension wherever you are—meaning pensioners would be able to retain their full rate of pension whilst they were overseas for longer than 26 weeks. There are many reasons not only during a pandemic but even without a pandemic as to why people are forced to stay overseas. There could be a serious accident, for example. You could have been planning to go overseas for six, eight, 15 or however many weeks, needing to be back owing to your Centrelink obligations et cetera, but have a serious accident and be unable to leave.

We were getting calls in my office over many years from people who were stranded overseas and were fearful of their pension being cut—serious illness, the death of a family member, custody proceedings in a country in which the person is located or a legal requirement for that person to remain in that country, outside of an Australian connection with proceedings and other things. Robbery is another great example. You could be ready to leave but you're robbed and lose your passport and have to stay for an additional week or two.

So these changes are the right thing to do, to provide the ability to look at the actual circumstances of that person and why they're still overseas. But the government's taken a long time to enact measures that assist pensioners. This is a measure that will assist them. As I said, we've become very used to seeing this government trying to chip and cut at people's age pensions. Pensioners have worked very hard all their lives. Many of them have even fought in wars on our behalf. We should be making their lives simpler.

The pension is a very proud legacy of Labor. It was introduced by a Labor government so that we could ensure that older Australians could live with dignity. Pensioners have worked hard. They've contributed all their lives. They deserve dignity and respect, and they deserve a government that's on their side, not constantly looking at cutting, at chipping, at manoeuvring themselves with cashless welfare cards and a whole range of other things just so they can cut money from pensioners for the budget. On the other hand, we have a government that's given out billions of dollars to multinationals and millionaire businessmen under JobKeeper, and they turn a blind eye; they're not even interested in following up to see how they can recover some of that taxpayers' money. And pensioners paid taxes through their working lives—to be handed over to millionaires and billionaires. It just doesn't make sense to me.

On this side of the House, as we heard the member for Richmond say earlier, Labor will fight for pensioners. We will stick up for pensioners, and we will ensure that pensioners get the dignity they deserve through the systems we have so we can not only acknowledge what they've done for this nation and for the next generation but also allow them to live in dignity. Only Labor will fight for that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, when Labor was in government we were the first government to ever increase the pension—not by the CPI or other mechanisms but to give pensioners a lump sum every fortnight from thereon.

Over the past years all we've seen this government do is try to cut the pension, and we've seen it time and time again. It seems to be a national sport for the conservative Liberal-Nationals government—continually, no matter when they are in power. Whether in the Fraser years or in the Howard years, the government was always attacking pensioners first. And, as I said earlier, it's not just through the pension. Health is also very important. We've seen proposals to change Medicare, which will make it harder for pensioners to get hip replacements, shoulder replacements, knee replacements and a whole range of other things. That will have an effect on them. That is part of the pension scheme that we have, to ensure that we have a universal health system for those people who need it more than anyone. As we all know, as you age you become frailer, and illnesses set in, so older people are reliant on good government health services.

There are a whole range of things that we need to do in order to assist pensioners. We've seen this government cut the energy supplement. I know, through the pensioners I speak to in the federal electorate of Adelaide that I represent, that the supplement had been a big help to them. It was a huge help to know that you'd be getting $90-odd every so often to assist you with energy costs, with payment of bills et cetera. That is gone. With the changes to the assets test, as well, we saw pensioners who had a few savings on the side, to supplement their income, missing out on payments that they had planned on—and no-one retires and goes onto a pension or a part-pension without planning their future.

Then you have a government like this Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull government that comes in and pulls the rug out from under your feet. You can imagine someone who is retired and is getting a part-pension or a full pension, with a small accumulation of assets, and then a government comes in and changes it all. When you were planning to live on X amount of dollars for the rest of your life, all of a sudden you just get a great big chop. That's not on.

They axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. That's another one. They tried to reset the deeming rates thresholds. That would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. So you've got a government that is continuously trying to cut and chip away at pensions yet on the other side is handing out billions of dollars to the richest businesspeople here in Australia and turning a blind eye to it when it's realised that that money that was given to those millionaires and billionaires was for a specific purpose: to keep people in jobs—and many did. But in some instances there was no need for it, because their businesses grew 10-fold during the pandemic. That money should be paid back into the coffers of Treasury so pensioners can have more money to live on and we can do more for pensioners with some of that money.

In 2016 we saw this government cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit the overseas payment to pensioners to six weeks. As I said earlier, if you're a pensioner and you decide to retire in Adelaide, in my electorate, and you want to go and live somewhere else, you should have every right to do so. This is a cruel government that's never looked after pensioners. Only Labor will look after pensioners. (Time expired)

Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:06): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021 and to speak in favour of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton. I listened to what the member for Barton said in her remarks to the House today, and at the conclusion of her comments a phrase rang true for me. I wondered where I'd heard it before and I rang some family members. She said, 'A penny saved is a penny earned.' That is a saying my grandmother used to use all the time.

My grandmother, Evelyn Margaret Budden, was the sole parent of four children and she was a retail worker. In her later life she worked at David Jones in Queen Street in Brisbane. She worked up until the age of about 70, and one morning, when she was getting off the escalator, she broke both her wrists and was forced to retire, so she went onto the pension. That was about when I was born. I remember when going to my nan's house and catching up with her that she had a little book in her green handbag. She would go to this a couple of times a day. That was her pension book, where she would write down exactly what she was spending, how she was going to spend her money and what she was spending her money on. She was a very proud woman and a very trusted and honourable person. People on the pension have to rely a lot of times on their wits, on their abilities, and they have to watch every penny.

She was also a very strong Labor supporter, and I remember that as kids we asked her, 'Nan, why are you such a strong Labor supporter?' She always said one thing straightaway. She said, 'Labor, when I was a young mum and when child endowment came in'—I think it was about 1941 or 1942—'it was five shillings paid directly to the mother.' It was the first time it was paid to the mother. She remembers clearly that payment coming in for her four kids when she was on her own, raising those children. It was the first time they could afford to buy golden syrup. She said, 'Under a Labor government, that's what allowed our family to go ahead.'

So I'm really proud to speak on behalf of the pensioners in my electorate as well as all those pensioners who have gone before us in this nation, who have helped build our nation, like my grandmother, who if she were still alive would be terribly embarrassed that I was talking about her. She would just say, 'Get on with it,' so I will. I speak on behalf of the almost 20,000 people, in the Oxley electorate, aged over 65 to 70 and the 12,850 people on the age pension that I represent, making sure that their voices are heard in this parliament. A lot of those pensioners go week to week, fortnight to fortnight, making sure that they look after every penny.

I want to raise my voice on a number of issues in support of the bill today. It's a pretty straightforward bill. Administrative changes ensure that the pension rate is available to pensioners who travel or live overseas and, in certain circumstances that are outside of a pensioner's control, allow the secretary to make a declaration that prevents pension rates reducing in line with usual rules. I want to focus on the record of this side of the chamber versus the government's appalling record when it comes to dealing with pensioners.

I also want to talk about this issue that's been raised today, and that pensioners are also discussing with me, about the cashless pensioner card that the government has not successfully ruled out as an option for the 12,850 pensioners I represent. Around 67 per cent of people aged over 65 in my electorate are, directly, on the age pension. When I talked to some pensioners on the weekend, at the Blue Fin Fishing Club, and explained that the government may be using this as an option, they were horrified—but also embarrassed that a government in Australia may take away their ability to spend their own money.

As the member for Jagajaga said, it's judgemental, it's wrong and it's offensive to pensioners, and I won't stand for it. The member for Richmond has been leading the charge on this, side by side with the member for Barton. Labor is the party of pensioners. Labor is the party that delivered the pension in the first place and delivered the first historic increase for the pensioners of Australia. Labor will also be the party that fights the government's plan to introduce this shameful debit card to pensioners, forcing them onto it.

Don't take my word for it. I'll quote what Minister Anne Ruston's—I had to google who she was!—lines were on this. When she was asked about it, she said:

… whether there is a conversation that the Australian public would like to have about the broadening of the use of the card.

Why is she raising this in the first place? If I was asked that as the minister for social services in this country, I'd say, 'Not over my dead body.' That's exactly what I would say, and so would the member for Barton if she was privileged to be the minister in this parliament. She should be the minister in this parliament, to make sure that pensioners' voices are heard and that those issues are raised. In 2020 the Prime Minister's social services minister said:

… I see from the cashless debit card becoming a more universal platform …

What does 'a more universal platform' mean?

This government's great at ripping into the vulnerable. It is always weak against the strong but strong against the weak. We know this government is not on the side of pensioners, and I know there are members on the other side getting the same feedback that I am receiving from pensioner groups in my community and my electorate. They would be getting the same concerns in emails and telephone calls and the social media campaign that's being run around this. I pay tribute to the advocates. It started in Bundaberg and is spreading out across Australia. I know every single member of this parliament would have pensioners contacting them through the various platforms. We saw the social services minister, last week—this is the person in charge of running the social security system in this country—go onto the member for Richmond's Facebook page and start trolling her because she was standing up for pensioners. It is completely unacceptable that members of parliament should somehow be chastised for speaking out on behalf of pensioners.

If the government has its way, pensioners won't be able to buy second-hand goods. They may not be able to give cash to grandkids. They may not be able to have a cheap meal or a roast at the local RSL if they're not signed up to it. If the government has no plans to roll this out to pensioners, why are there venues right across this country already listed, already banned? Why is it in the legislation that it can apply to pensioners? Why is it in there? Why did the government do that? I voted against that legislation, and so did every other member of parliament on this side of the chamber.

Look at my home state of Queensland, which has hundreds of thousands of pensioners. In the electorate of Dickson, there are around 13,288 people on the age pension. In the electorate of the member for Petrie, who is at the table here—

Mr Howarth interjecting—

Mr DICK: I will—through you, Deputy Speaker—talk about how the member for Petrie and members of the government have a plan to roll this out to pensioners. They should get up in this chamber, speak after me, and deny it. The member for Petrie, in his electorate, has 20,823 people on the age pension. I tell you what: there's one person who will be fighting it, and that's the Labor candidate for Petrie, Mick Denton, a blue-collar worker, a frontline worker, who's fighting for pensioners in the Petrie electorate. Here they go, Madam Deputy Speaker!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The minister on a point of order?

Mr Howarth: The member for Oxley is not being relevant to the bill and he should get back to the bill. He's spreading lies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, there are other forms in which you can challenge what he's saying. The debate has been broadly around pension issues.

Mr DICK: You can set your watch by it, Madam Deputy Speaker. They've all got glass jaws. They like to dish it out but they don't like to hear it. We know that, if they were truly not interested in this, he'd jump up and deny that the government's got any plans, but he remains silent, just like the government.

In the electorate of Longman, where there are 23,937 people on the age pension, Rebecca Fanning, the Labor candidate, is speaking out on behalf of pensioners. In the electorate of Bowman—as if the electorate of Bowman don't have enough to deal with with their sitting member at the moment—there are 20,016 people on the age pension. Sixty-five per cent of people over 65 are on the age pension. It is disgraceful that this government has a secret plan to consider rolling out this plan across pensions across Australia. The minister hasn't denied it. The Prime Minister hasn't denied it. They have said on record that they are looking at expanding this across Australia.

This government has form when it comes to pensioners—cutting the pension in every budget. The Liberals and Nationals are obsessed about cutting the pension. They have attempted to cut the pension at every budget, every year. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation. In 2014 they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. In 2014 they axed the $900 senior supplement. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners, as part of the plan to limit overseas travel. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension for 1½ million Australians, by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. They have spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. You go and talk to those nurses who work with my mother, who is a midwife, and the people who work as teachers alongside my sister. Those women do physical, hard work, and this government wants to raise the pension to 70—time and time again.

On this side of the chamber, we're going to stand up for pensions and pensioners, because we always have. Our record speaks for itself when it comes to standing up for pensions. I am proud to be a member of the party that delivered a record increase in pensions and that delivered the pension in the first place. We know the ideological extremism of this government, who are completely obsessed with cutting pensions and cutting welfare. We on this side believe in an inclusive and tolerant society that will always look after those who need to be looked after, and that is exactly what we will do. You betcha—through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the member for Petrie—I'm going to speak out. I'm going to stand up in this parliament and speak every day for pensioners. They helped build this country. We stand for them and we stand by their side as well.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (11:20): This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Portability Extensions) Bill 2021, makes amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to include a permanent discretion to provide portability extensions for pensioners who are temporarily overseas—or who usually live overseas and are temporarily in Australia—and are unable to return home as planned for reasons beyond their control. Allowable reasons include unforeseeable and emergency events such as a serious accident, the death of a family member, a natural disaster or a public health crisis. The measure will assist pensioners who are away from home due to unforeseeable and emergency events beyond their control by ensuring their rate of payment or grandfathering status is not affected after 26 weeks.

I would also like to respond to the misleading and untrue claims raised by the Labor opposition in respect of the cashless debit card during this debate, which we just heard from the members opposite. They are entirely unrelated to the legislation being debated. I call on Labor and the shadow minister to end their campaign of lies and fearmongering when it comes to age pensioners. It is completely false to claim that this government has a plan to force pensioners onto the cashless debit card. Let me repeat that for the shadow minister and for the member for Oxley: it is completely false to claim that this government has a plan to force pensioners onto the cashless debit card. There you have it. This government has no such plan—let me repeat this for the shadow minister—and it never will have such a plan.

The cashless debit card is for people on working-age payments, to help them stabilise their lives, become job ready and get back into the workforce. As the Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, I think that's very important. It's shameful that you people didn't support that on another piece of legislation. It's a shame. At the end of the day, I believe the opposition want to keep people down. They want to keep them on the hand of government. They don't want to see people being able to improve their lives. That's the problem with members like the member for Oxley and those opposite: they don't care about other people.

I think I've made my point. In fact, the most recent sites in which the card was introduced were Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, where it applies only to young people—those aged 35 and over. According to the member for Hinkler up there, it has the strong support of the community and it's working and helping people there. It has nothing to do with pensioners at all. Labor's claim simply has no basis in fact, and they really should be ashamed of themselves. I commend this bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (11:31): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (11:45): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021. As the House would be aware, there are a number of schedules in this bill which implement measures from the last two budgets. There's a measure on the fringe benefits tax, there's a measure on the Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive, there's one about granny flats and capital gains tax, there's one about the way ASIC and the product intervention regime work and there's one for members of New Zealand sports teams who have spent longer than expected in Australia because of COVID-19.

But the most prominent part of the bill before us, of course, is the extension of the low and middle income tax offset. Both sides of the House support the low and middle income tax offset. We have done so since the very beginning. We do think, when it comes to tax relief in the budget, that the priority should be those who need it most and who are most likely to spend it in the economy. Since the beginning, since the last term of the parliament, we have said that we are enthusiastic supporters of some cost-of-living relief for the Australians who are doing it toughest. So, of course, our position on these bills before the House reflects that. We'll be supporting these bills through the House and through the Senate. We'll be supporting the individual measures, but, most particularly, supporting the extension of some more tax relief for people on modest incomes in this country who are doing it tough, the people who we want to be spending in our shops and small businesses and local communities right around Australia. So we support the bills for that reason.

There are, though, a couple of points that need to be made for the public record as these bills make their way through the House and through the Senate. The first point is the obvious point that the extension of the LMITO, the extension of this particular offset, happens to—what a coincidence!—push this tax relief to immediately beyond the next election. This tax relief ends on 30 June next year, which may be a few weeks or a few months after the next election. Because those opposite have form with making decisions for purely political reasons, I think there is a lot of concern in the community that the extension of this tax relief—otherwise welcome tax relief—is being pushed just to the other side of an election, where millions of Australians will then get a tax hike when this offset is removed. I think Australians are right to be suspicious and sceptical of a government which always puts the politics before the economics and which is always thinking in terms of the next election and not necessarily what is the optimal outcome for people. I think perhaps the starkest evidence of that, in a budget chock full of other examples of decisions taken to plug political holes, is the extension of this LMITO to immediately after the next election. It really is the most stunning example of that.

The next point I'd like to make is that in the budget a little over a month ago—and then, indeed, this week—the Treasurer put some numbers out into the public sphere about what this tax relief means for the amount of jobs created in the Australian community. Clearly, the 120,000 or so jobs that the Treasurer is claiming will flow from this tax relief—obviously, we want to see jobs created. We want to see a heap of jobs created in the community. We welcome the strong labour force figures that were released in the last 20 minutes. I expressed that privately to the Treasurer, who's here, and I expressed it publicly. We want to see jobs created. We want to see Australia recover strongly from the recession of last year. But, more than that, we want to make sure that those jobs are good, secure, well-paid jobs. Targeting the unemployment rate is important, but it's not the full story.

We've got a challenge here with underemployment. We've got a challenge with insecure work. We've got a challenge with some of the structural barriers that are in our society and prevent people from grabbing the opportunities of a recovering economy. These barriers include child care, training, concentrated disadvantage and the like. And so I think it's important to understand, even as we acknowledge the improvement in the unemployment rate today, that that is not the full story. There is a bigger story here in the labour market, and it's about job insecurity, underemployment and what that means for record-low wages growth in this country, which has been the defining feature, in my view, of the economic management of those opposite over the last eight years or so.

Wages had been growing at a record slow pace under those opposite even before COVID-19. It is not necessarily a problem created by COVID-19. It has been a feature of the economy for some years now. The long-serving finance minister Mathias Cormann said that stagnant wages growth was a deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic policy. So this stagnant wage growth has not been accidental. It has been a deliberate feature of those opposite when it comes to the economy.

Think about that record while I'm speaking about that stagnant wages growth. We had quite a stunning report from the Productivity Commission released overnight as well. The conclusions of the report were that, when it comes to national income, the last decade—overseen in large part by those opposite—has seen the slowest growth in national income and economic growth per person out of the last six decades. Those opposite, of course, have been in charge for eight of those 10 years. What that means, according to the Productivity Commission, is that national income is about $11½ thousand less in the last year of the last 10 years than it would have been had the productivity growth and economic growth continued as it was before those opposite got the keys to the Treasury.

These are important factors that we need to consider as we think about the extension of this low- and middle-income tax offset, the jobs claim by those opposite and the broader claims made about the economy by those opposite. Whether we look at the Productivity Commission report or all of the other data that we have before us, we see that there have been issues with the economy in the last eight years: wages, productivity, business investment, living standards and per-person national income. We need to do better as a country than just going back to that. I fear that the ambition of those opposite is limited to simply going back to how things were before COVID. Things weren't real flash for a lot of people, particularly Australian workers, particularly people on modest incomes, before COVID-19. We can do better than going back to that.

To go back to the 120,000 jobs claimed by the Treasurer, flowing from this tax relief and these tax bills: we also need to remember it's the same Treasurer who said 450,000 jobs would flow from the JobMaker policy. That was the centrepiece of last year's budget, in October last year. He said 450,000 jobs would flow from JobMaker. Instead, we know from estimates that it was more like 2,000 jobs that came from JobMaker, so I think we are right to be a bit sceptical about the grand claims that the Treasurer makes about how many jobs will flow from his policies.

The next point I wanted to make—really the final set of points I wanted to make—was about the claim that the Treasurer likes to make about how those opposite are the party of low taxes.

Mr Tim Wilson: Hear, hear!

Dr CHALMERS: I'm very pleased that the member for Goldstein came in at that point, because the unfortunate, inconvenient reality of the numbers in the Treasurer's own budget is that the two highest-taxing governments of the last three decades have been the Howard government, No.1, and the Morrison government, No. 2. And so this absolute rot, this absolute rubbish, this absolute bollocks that we hear from those opposite about their being the party of low taxes is not borne out by any number in the Treasurer's own budget. This is not a number that we've put into the public domain. If you go to the back of Budget Paper No. 1 and you look at the historical tables, it's very clear there. They've laid it out for us in quite a simple way—the highest-taxing government. Well, actually, the highest-taxing government on record ever is the Howard government; the second highest-taxing over the last 30 years is the Morrison government. So enough of this rubbish about being the party of low taxes. Taxes have never been higher than they were under Howard and, in the last 30 years, have never been higher than they have been under Prime Minister Morrison.

I know that those opposite have their slogans and they have their spin. The unfortunate thing is that the back of the Treasurer's own budget paper says that those claims made by those opposite are nothing more than a lie, frankly. They've lied about this repeatedly. We should have a debate in this country about the appropriate level of tax, but that debate should be informed by facts. I'm happy to use the Treasurer's own numbers when it comes to the level of tax in the economy. Those opposite like to talk about what a great prime minister Prime Minister Howard was. They need to acknowledge that Prime Minister Howard was also the highest-taxing prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth, much higher—much, much higher—than Prime Minister Whitlam and higher than Prime Minister Hawke, Prime Minister Keating, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard. The gold medallist when it comes to tax is Prime Minister Howard. The silver medallist in the last 30 years is Prime Minister Morrison. So let's have those facts on the table.

Those opposite are not the party of lower taxes when you look at the historical record. But they are the party of the highest debt we've ever had in the Commonwealth—a trillion dollars in debt, with too little to show for it. They are, and the Productivity Commission belled the cat overnight, the party of weak productivity growth. They are the party of stagnant wages growth. They are the party of stagnant business investment. They are the party that likes to talk a big game when it comes to economic management, but, when you line up all of those facts across all of those areas that I've just mentioned, then once again their claims are exposed for the hollow, shameless spin that they are.

These bills are about extending LMITO. We're happy to do that—happy to support that initiative from the budget. But, as we do so, let's have a bit of perspective about the claims made around it.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:57): It was wonderful to hear the shadow Treasurer before the parliament as he lamented the rate of tax that's paid in this country. Make no mistake—no ambiguity—I am for lower taxes, because taxes are about empowering individuals and families to take responsibility for themselves. And I absolutely believe taxes in this country are too high and I'll continue to argue that taxes should be cut. It's one of the reasons we went to the last election opposing Labor's plan for nearly $400 billion more in taxes. And the temerity, the chutzpah, the hubris, the arrogance, whatever you want to call it, of the shadow Treasurer, who was the architect of that plan with the then shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, to then say, 'They're taxing too much,' this side of the chamber is, frankly, farcical.

When you propose $400 billion more in taxes on the Australian people, the Australian community, Australian jobs, Australian workers, Australian small businesses, mums and dads all around the country, as Labor did before the last election—and, let's face it, whether honestly or secretively, will do the same before the next election—to come into this chamber and argue against this government, which has consistently said, 'Where there are taxes and we can cut them, we will,' including the low- and middle-income tax offset in this bill about restructuring the entire base of the tax system and flattening out income tax, is, frankly, absurd.

We stand for lower taxes—as a party, as a movement and as a principle—and we do so, as I said before, not because we can have an argument about the GDP-to-tax ratio, although that's very important, but because it's actually about power. The foundational difference is the difference between the world views that sit in this chamber, on this side versus that side of the chamber. People on this side of the chamber see the nation governed from the citizen, the family and the community up. We want to empower individuals, families and communities. The Labor Party has a different vision for the country—and they're entitled to that; it's part of the great contest of ideas, which is one I believe we should have, and all policies should be anchored from that basic proposition. They want to empower Canberra, unions and increasingly organised capital through superannuation funds that they have influence over so that they can run a corporate state, so that they can run a nation in the hands of the few with a claim of benefits for the many. But of course we know that the more concentrated is economic, political, social and cultural power the more it favours those who dictate and wield that power—it's just that they think that should be them.

We're proud of our achievement on taxes. But I absolutely agree that there's more to do. That's in part what this bill is about. It's about saying, 'Hey, we're going to give a tax offset to low- and middle-income earners.' Why? Because we want these individuals to be able to be the masters of their own destiny, to choose their future and to be empowered as much as possible. And I'd hope there's more to come—much more to come—because the more power that's in the hip pocket of Australians, the more we're empowering them to make choices about their own lives rather than having it imposed on or dictated to them by bureaucrats or politicians based in this chamber. It's quite a good thing, really, when you think about it—and I hope you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, although I suspect you have been, for a very long period of time, throughout your long and distinguished service in this chamber.

That's at the core of what this bill is trying to achieve—and will achieve. There are of course other measures, around reforming ASIC and the fringe benefits tax and various other issues around incentives. One of the critical things that's also in this bill is that we're Australians through all stages of their life. Mr Deputy Speaker, you'll be well aware that one of the big concerns I have is around making sure that Australians have proper housing so that they're able to have the security and the opportunity that they need throughout their working life and their retirement. One of the great challenges in housing—and there are many in this nation at the moment, particularly for young Australians looking to buy their first home—is making sure there's available supply in the marketplace. A critical part of that conversation relates to people having access to housing supply that reflects their stage of life. The reality is that a lot of the housing stock that traditionally has been built has been targeted specifically at people during a particular stage of their life, often where there are multiple inhabitants, because they're having children with their spouse, raising their family. But of course people don't always need three-, four- or five-bedroom homes; lots of people need just a one-bedroom apartment, or a two-bedroom apartment—and of course that's often the property people purchase when they're youngest, and then they graduate up as they need to, and they might sell the property and reverse back to having smaller accommodation as they downsize. As you may recall, there are incentives in the budget to encourage people to downsize in order to open up that housing stock for the next generation as they have children.

But of course there can also be circumstances where people decide they need to downsize further than perhaps a small unit or apartment, because they may become increasingly dependent on their families for care, or because of their economic circumstances. There might have been tragedy, such as losing their spouse. So, they turn to things like granny flats, as we colloquially refer to them, often co-located with their families so that they can have economic and financial security as well as household security and mutual care and support from those they love and care about. Currently there's a CGT arrangement on granny flats, which is discouraging, because the co-location of flats on existing properties could actually help bring families together. So, we're reforming that to encourage Australians to be able to care for and love each other through mutual cohabitation on a single site. This is very important because it will again free up the opportunity for people to move through the different stages of life based on their accommodation and their accommodation arrangements.

But we also want to make sure that young Australians are in the best position to be able to purchase their own home, and that's why freeing up capital is so important. The reality is there are lots of factors that drive house prices in this country—availability of supply, interest rates, planning and zoning regulations. The Reserve Bank of Australia has identified that up to a third of the costs of an apartment in Sydney come just from planning and zoning regulations alone. But the other one that comes at the expense of young Australians being able to buy a home is the complete economic perversion this parliament has sanctioned by prioritising superannuation ahead of homeownership. It's a form of economic insanity. Up until 1992, it was entirely logical—for literally the whole of human history up to 1992—that people saved for a deposit to buy their own home, started paying down their mortgage and built up other assets they could then save for their retirement. It was consistent with people's slipstream in life, completely consistent with securing their own home in order to be able to retire with dignity and surety and, of course, income, completely consistent with people's ambitions for the benefits that they enjoyed throughout their working life and their retirement. And then we changed that.

This parliament and previous parliaments have literally sanctioned a form of economic social engineering to put super before homes. It's mad. What are the consequences? Young Australians are less in a position to be able to buy their own home, homeownership rates are declining for every single age group except for people over the age of 65 in the top economic quintile, the rich are getting richer, and the asset-rich are getting even richer. And who is paying the price? It's new migrants and young Australians. I think that's absurd.

I want an Australia where everybody can realise their aspirations and their dreams. I want an Australia where everybody can move through the different stages of their life and the government is there to support them, not to deliberately and maliciously undermine them. I want an Australia where young Australians grow up with the ambition to purchase their own home and are able to. I want to support them and their families and provide them with the foundation of their economic security in their working life and in their retirement.

As I said, the whole path of human history until 1992 was home first, super second. But we know that has changed and now we put super before homes. It is mad. I know members of the Labor Party hate me saying it, because they know that Australians get this, too. You know who really gets it? It's young Australians who are struggling to save a deposit. What's the trade-off? Because we're putting super before homes, we're constantly increasing the taxpayer funded incentives to get young Australians into their first home, so we're publicly funding people's private purchase, privatising the gains and socialising the losses. Again, it's something the Labor Party and the Left used to oppose vehemently, and today it seems to be left to those on this side of the chamber to point out this self-evident, obvious truth. The more we pump into super, the more we have to pump into taxpayer benefits to enable young Australians to get into their own home, and they're actually similar in proportion to each other. This is how mad this policy is. You are literally using the tax system to underwrite people buying their own home, at the expense of the democratisation of both the ownership and the wealth distribution of the nation.

At least we on this side of the chamber are prepared to stand up and call out this fallacy and say it's wrong. Look at the opposition benches, and all you will face is a wall of noise and anger and repudiation and a fight every step of the way because what they want is more money to go into the funds that their mates control at your expense—at the expense of the people of Australia.

They think they know better. They've literally privatised huge sections of the social welfare system. They used to be opposed to that. Now on some points I agree with them and on some points I disagree. But the intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency that sits at the heart of their position is revealed by their motivations. They want to control the capital of this country and bring organised capital and organised workers together as part of a corporate estate, with big government and big business. They should hold their heads in shame.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr TIM WILSON: They scoff, yet every step of the way they know what they're doing. I don't mind their scoffing, because I am calling them out. It often takes years of people standing up and calling out people's behaviour before everybody realises how big the con and scam they're imposing on the Australian people is. They scoffed and mocked us before the last election, when we made the point that they were pushing older Australians down the financial stairs by taking their refundable franking credits and imposing a retiree tax. They scoffed and mocked and they tried to undermine anybody who would give a platform to lower income Australians who wanted to find their voice, including Australians with a disability who wanted to find their voice, who were going to be pushed down the financial stairs by the Labor Party. They tried to silence and censor anybody who would dare get up and speak out against them. Don't get me wrong—I was elated with their response, because all it did was give more voice, more power and more anger to the movement to make sure they sit on that side of this chamber. And they have not learnt the lessons.

A wave is coming to empower young Australians to be able to own their own home and to take control of their own destiny. I can tell you: on this side of the chamber, we will back it every step of the way, because at the heart of homeownership is the democratic ownership of this nation, at the heart of homeownership is the democratic wealth distribution of this nation, and at the heart of homeownership is the empowerment of citizens, families and communities to live out their lives. Those opposite criticise and condemn me and other members. As always, I say: bring it on. It comes from a fundamental mistruth at the heart of their mad political ideology. At the heart of their mad political ideology is the fact that they want a nation of dependence, not one of empowerment. They want a nation that empowers them, not the Australian people, and I will stand and fight it every step of the way.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:13): This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021, contains six Treasury measures, the most substantial being the one-year extension of LMITO, the low- to middle-income tax offset, for the 2021-22 income year, at a cost of $7.8 billion. This was announced in the budget, and it will mean that LMITO will end at the beginning of the 2022-23 financial year. Whilst Labor of course supports tax relief for low- to middle-income workers, the great shame about this measure is that it is temporary. It ends at the end of this financial year. Contrast that with high-income earners—those who are earning above $180,000 a year—who will get a substantial tax cut from 2024 onwards, which is permanent. But if you're a middle-income earner, a hardworking Australian with a family, trying to make ends meet, you won't get a permanent tax cut at all under this government. You will continue to pay a relatively high rate of tax under this government. That is the great shame about this budget. It doesn't deal with the structural problems that we have in the Australian economy at the moment, and it certainly doesn't deal with the tax reform that we're going to need to set our nation up for the next 20 to 30 years of economic success.

Unfortunately, in recent years, on every conceivable measure, Australia has been going backwards. Real wages aren't increasing in Australia; in fact, they are falling. The budget papers baked that in over the forward estimates period; they admit that real wages are going to go backwards. Labour productivity, for the first time in Australia's history, has fallen under this government—no growth. Since labour productivity records were first kept, in the early 1990s, there has always been growth. Under this government? No. It goes backwards. Business investment, under this government, fell off a cliff after 2014 and hasn't recovered. We have the third-highest level of household debt of any nation in the OECD and it's getting worse—house prices are once again out of control under this government. Not a week goes by in the community I represent that a parent doesn't pull me up and say, 'How are our kids going to be able to afford to buy a house in the future?' This government's solution is to bring in all these first home buyer grants that simply pour fuel on the fire. Any real estate agent will tell you that, in the 12 months after one of these schemes is announced, house prices go through the roof once again. Increasing wealth inequality is a characteristic of this government. The haves are doing better and the have-nots are doing worse.

Hospital waiting lists are exploding once again because this government isn't making the necessary investments in health funding to keep pace with the growth in our population. Any nurse working in an emergency ward in a hospital will tell you they are run off their feet. When nurses are leaving the profession because they have had enough—particularly in hospitals—they are not being replaced, because of budget cuts associated with this government not providing growth funding for our healthcare system. We all know what a joke aged care has become under this government. There are hundreds of thousands of people on waiting lists for aged-care support.

We have an enviable record when it comes to our internet speeds in this country. We are 61st in the world when it comes to download speeds. Isn't that something to be proud of as an advanced nation! Under this government we go backwards and backwards and backwards and backwards; we get worse and worse and worse. If you live in a rural or regional area it is archaic; it is almost like the days of dial-up, trying to get decent NBN and internet speeds. Investment in research and development has also gone backwards under this government.

Job insecurity is increasing. And today we have confirmation in economic terms of how Australia is going backwards, with a report released by the Productivity Commission confirming that living standards have fallen under this government to the value of about $11,000 per person. People were better off in the years of the Hawke and Keating governments, when we had that necessary economic reform—in particular, taxation reform—that set us up for the almost 30 years of uninterrupted economic growth that Australia enjoyed. It was those decisions of the Hawke and Keating governments that set us up for the success we have enjoyed economically for the past 30 years.

Does this government's budget deal with any of the challenges I have just mentioned? No, it doesn't at all. It doesn't make the necessary structural changes to our budget position to set us up for the future. We know that spending is increasing under this government. Spending under our budget is increasing, yet revenue is falling. The end result of that is that budget deficits are going to get worse. Under this government, debt is going to go to $1 trillion for the first time in our nation's history. Are they dealing with any of those structural problems in our budget to, importantly, provide funding so that Australians get the necessary health care they deserve, the necessary aged-care support that they deserve, and so our kids have the best opportunity of a decent education through proper school resources?

Is any of that support for reform there in this budget? There's not one iota. In that respect, it means that Australians are going backwards.

When it comes to Australians being worse off, look no further than what's going on in this parliament, as we speak, in the Senate. This government has done a dodgy deal with One Nation on superannuation. They are changing the rate of the high-income superannuation concessional contributions cap for everyone aged 67 and over. I note the age of 67. I'll tell you why in a moment. Under this dodgy deal that the Morrison government has made with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, people who are higher income earners and aged 67 and over will pay less tax on their superannuation contributions to about the value of $30,000. It equates to a pay rise for politicians. Have a guess how old Pauline Hanson is? You can't make this stuff up. Pauline Hanson is 67 years old. Can you believe it? You greedy buggers. You've done a dodgy deal with One Nation to give yourselves a $30,000 pay rise on your superannuation and dudded the rest of the Australian workforce so that you can get your superannuation legislation through on a dodgy deal with someone who's only looking out for her own interests, because she's 67 years old and will get a $30,000 pay rise on her superannuation contributions. What a disgrace you lot are! How dare you do that to Australian workers who work hard and struggle to make ends meet and deal with the cost of living. You have no shame whatsoever. And you're trying to sneak it through the Senate under the cover of darkness.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Order! The member for Kingsford Smith will resume his seat. The honourable member for Fisher.

Mr Wallace: The speaker at the dispatch box should be reminded that, when he uses the word 'you', he's actually referring to the Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a credible observation by the member for Fisher, and I encourage the member for Kingsford Smith not to use that language. But before he continues, I have a concern in relation to what he's saying. This is coming close to making a personal reflection upon members in this place and, indeed, the other place. I would encourage the member for Kingsford Smith to desist from such language in the remainder of his contribution.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: I shall. And it is my personal reflection; it's my personal reflection that what this government has done—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford Smith will resume his seat. It's not a question of whether it's your personal reflection or not; it's a question of whether you're offending the standing orders by making personal reflections on members of this place and the other place. I'm encouraging you not to make any such further comments.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: The Morrison government is doing the wrong thing by Australian workers. That's at the heart of this. They are doing the wrong thing by Australian workers by doing a dodgy deal with One Nation that provides—

Mr Wallace: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the personal reflection upon which the member for Kingsford Smith has now been warned twice by the Deputy Speaker about the use of the term 'dodgy' is a personal reflection upon members of this House and also the members of the other place. I would ask him to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whilst probably undesirable, such language has been used, in my observation, in the past. Again, it's in the interests of the orderliness of the chamber that people are prudent in the language they use. The member for Kingsford Smith may continue, but I think he can make his point in a way which is less provocative and less close to the wind, so far as the standing orders are concerned.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE: I hope that the Morrison government can explain to Australian workers the arrangement that's been reached with One Nation in the Senate. Australian workers deserve an explanation of why this government has reached an arrangement with One Nation to give politicians who are 67 and over a $30,000 pay rise whilst Australian workers are worse off in their superannuation arrangements because of this deal that's gone through the Senate. It leaves Australian workers, once again, worse off under this government. That's the point that I've been making about this particular piece of legislation and others that are passed by this government in respect of the budget—that they leave low- and middle-income, hardworking Australians worse off.

The low- and middle-income tax offset is proof of that. It's a temporary arrangement that is withdrawn, under this legislation, at the end of this financial year. Yet high-income earners will receive a permanent reduction in the amount of tax that they pay. It just demonstrates this government's priorities when it comes to the Australian workforce and to decent, hardworking Australians: they're not on your side; they don't have your interests at heart. All they're concerned about are themselves and people like Senator Hanson, who's managed to convince the government to make her financially better off. The collateral damage in that arrangement will be Australian workers.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:26): I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021. I want to focus on just one aspect, and that is the provisions in schedule 3, which I've no doubt will play a modest but important role in tackling the issue of homelessness and housing affordability in this country.

As chair of this House's Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I'm currently working with my colleagues on the final report of an inquiry which we have undertaken into the issue of homelessness in Australia. Adopted in February last year, our inquiry received more than 200 submissions and held five public hearings last year. We heard that, at the 2016 census, the ABS found 116,427 people were classified as being homeless, under that definition—an increase of more than 14,000 over five years. The increase among older women was as high as 31 per cent. In my view, it's clear that, in relation to older women, this is an underestimate. In 2014 a study by the General Social Survey found that 2½ million Australians have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. Specialist homelessness services agencies report that, in 2018-19, there were 290,300 clients who sought assistance.

Homelessness is affecting every community in this country, and, sadly, one of the most severely impacted groups identified by the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement is older Australians. This problem is not always visible in Australia, as so many of our homeless are couch-surfing or living in their cars, just to name a few situations. However, the consequences for hundreds of thousands of Australians are nonetheless very real. Those who are homeless have difficulty accessing the services that they need. They are at an increased risk of violence—including sexual violence—drug and alcohol use, mental and physical health problems and severe poverty.

I don't want to pre-empt the findings of the committee, because that would be entirely inappropriate at this time. The evidence that the committee has heard during its inquiry tells me that there is a shortage of affordable housing options, and we need to do something about that. We need more available homes to reduce the rate of homelessness in this country. This government is investing more than $6 billion a year in supporting Australians with housing affordability. This includes around $4.6 billion in Commonwealth Rent Assistance to help eligible Australians to pay their rent and another $1.6 billion through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement to states and territories. In the most recent budget, the government invested an additional $124.7 million for states and territories under this agreement, which will be available to use on capital works to bolster public housing stocks.

Finally, in the past six months we've seen the biggest stimulus to the construction of accommodation in a generation, with the advent of the government's $2.7 billion HomeBuilder program. This is the same HomeBuilder program that those members opposite, in particular the member for Rankin, said would never work. They shouted out from the opposition benches, 'HomeBuilder will never work!'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Order. The member for Fisher will resume his seat. The honourable member for Lyons, on a point of order?

Mr Brian Mitchell: I ask the member to withdraw that personal reflection on the member for Rankin.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fisher?

Mr WALLACE: It's a fact. The member for Rankin has said that this program would never work, so, no, I won't withdraw the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is nothing to withdraw. The member for Fisher can continue.

Mr WALLACE: In the past six months we've seen this program, the $2.7 billion HomeBuilder program, result in 133,000 applications to build new homes since the middle of 2020. In total, in the 2020-21 financial year, this will produce a record 137,170 detached housing starts, which is an increase of 34.2 per cent on the previous year. This is almost 17 per cent higher than the peak of the previous boom in 2018, according to the Housing Industry Association's national outlook. The effects will pour over into the next year, with the HIA anticipating that in 2021-22 it will be the third-strongest year on record, with another 121,000 starts. This is in an environment where those members opposite said, 'HomeBuilder will never work.' And yet it is proving to be one of the most successful stimulus packages that the building and construction industry in this country has ever seen.

This government is investing billions of dollars in increasing the accessibility of housing in Australia. However, there is more that we can do to support the availability of homes through regulation, and this bill will help to achieve just that. More than 75 per cent of older Australians want to stay in their own home. However, as they get older, larger houses can often become too much for an older person to look after. Meanwhile, many young families are unable to afford a house which is large enough for their needs. For society at large, the available housing stock could be increased if more three-, four-, or five-bedroom family homes currently being occupied by one older person or a couple could be made available to members of their wider families. In response to this situation, many families around Australia are now entering into what are known as granny flat arrangements. These typically involve an older parent transferring the ownership of their home to their adult child in exchange for the promise of care, support and housing as the parent ages. These arrangements can be a great outcome for everyone. They give older Australians the opportunity to continue living in their own homes but with more help to maintain and look after them. They allow young families to get access to larger homes, which can properly accommodate them at a time when rents are inaccessible to many.

For all of us, it makes more efficient use of larger properties and ensures that there is more housing stock available to others. When equitable and carefully codified, these arrangements can benefit everyone, and encouraging more such well-formed agreements will make an important difference to housing in this country. However, at present, these arrangements can have serious unintended consequences for older people. Most are not formalised in writing, meaning that the rights of the older Australian can be entirely at the mercy of the goodwill and the circumstances of their child's family.

No-one or very few would enter into one of these arrangements expecting a relationship breakdown, the death of an adult or child, or a bankruptcy proceeding. More often than not, such eventualities are not included explicitly in any agreement. However, these things do happen, and when they do the older person who has given up their home can be left without any enforceable rights; worse, they can be left homeless themselves. Such issues are made more prevalent by the fact that few of these arrangements are written down and formally executed.

I understand that there are not many of us who want to enter into formal contracts with our loved ones. Most of us would like to believe that our family ties would be strong enough to see us through any challenge. There's an old lawyer joke, Deputy Speaker Andrews, which you would remember: 'Where there's a will there's a family member.' Nothing could be truer than that old adage. Others are concerned that in making a formal arrangement to transfer property they may become liable for capital gains tax. However, when issues of property, debt and taxation are involved, family ties can be powerless to stop the terrible consequences for too many older Australians. In other cases, sadly, children or their partners do not act with the benevolence that we would all hope for and expect, and the result can be ongoing elder abuse in the form of neglect or, very sadly, financial exploitation.

We need to encourage more of these arrangements to be formalised, in writing, to prevent these negative outcomes. At the same time, we need to encourage more of them to be entered into, to maximise the benefits that they can bring for all of us. The bill before us does just that, by amending the capital gains tax regulations to provide a targeted exemption for formalised granny flat arrangements. The bill will provide that no capital gains tax event will arise on entering into, varying or terminating a granny flat arrangement if it is properly formalised under the bill. By providing a specific exemption, the bill will ensure that taxpayers know that there will be no capital gains tax consequences for them if they transfer property in this way. There is, in short, no motivation to attempt to avoid a tax through an informal arrangement, if the arrangement is exempt from the tax, and every reason to ensure that your arrangement is properly and equitably formalised if it will grant a major tax benefit.

This capital gains tax exemption will not only encourage more of these granny flat arrangements to be entered into but also incentivise construction of the additional accommodation within properties that are so often part of these arrangements. Parties to formalised arrangements will be able to build a granny flat, annex or extension where the older person will live, increase the value of their property, increase the housing stock available to all Australians, and not incur capital gains tax on that investment. This will be a significant driver for many families to take that step and realise those mutual benefits.

When as society we face a problem as serious and complex as homelessness we need to use every tool at our disposal to make a difference. It is commendable that Australians have taken it into their own hands to innovate and create arrangements that can deliver such benefits—important benefits—to older Australians, young families and those in need of housing alike. We need to encourage these kinds of practical grassroots solutions. We need to make sure that they are safe and fair for everyone. This omnibus bill will bring positive change across our economy. However, schedule 3, in particular, will make a big difference to the challenge of housing and homelessness for older Australians.

One element I haven't raised this afternoon is the importance of local government in this space. Housing and homelessness is principally the responsibility of the states and territories. The Commonwealth government also has a role to play, but very often local government is left out of the equation. This is a part of the equation where local governments can play a very, very important role. Many local governments do not allow a secondary dwelling to be built on a property. In instances where we have housing shortages and increased costs for many young people, this bill will provide a sensible measure to deal with this issue but it will really only work if local governments get on board the bus, if you'll pardon the pun. Local governments need to be able to step into the breach here. Many local governments—and my local government on the Sunshine Coast is an example—seem to have a philosophical problem with secondary housing, or granny flats or whatever you like to call them. Local governments across Australia can play a very, very important role in dealing with housing and homelessness but they need to step up to the plate. It's not going to cost them any money. They will receive funding through applications for approvals. There is no reason why local governments should not be a part of and have a seat at the table in dealing with housing and homelessness. I call upon local governments to get on board and work with the federal government on this very point. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:42): I'm very pleased to be joining the debate on the treasury laws tax arrangements and issues that concern the economy and households' savings at large. In the last 24-hours, we've seen an extraordinary passage of events in this parliament where the government was willing to collude with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to do a deal—an extraordinary deal, an immoral deal—to push through changes to superannuation administration and regulation in this country which have been trouble plagued from the start. They are changes that were so problematic that they threatened to see a revolt in the government's own backbench.

Before parliament broke up last week we saw the result of that. The government—after spending weeks and weeks telling its backbench and the crossbench that its bill was perfect, was ready to be voted on and should be passed through the House—had to introduce amendments into this place to remove the extraordinary provision which would have given the Treasurer the power to cancel private sector investments. The Treasurer at that point in time had promised key members of the National Party backbench that he had removed the provisions which were so offensive to them and to so many other members in this place. What he didn't tell them was that, while he had put a padlock on the front door, he had left the back door wide open to enable him to continue that very same power through a backdoor measure.

Labor has consistently pointed out this issue to the community, to backbenchers of both the government and the opposition and to crossbenchers. Still the government persisted, by saying, 'We've got this all right. You should trust us. You should believe in what we say. You should believe the materials that we've put before the House.' But it was revealed in the Senate this morning that nothing could have been further from the truth. The government backbenchers can't trust or believe what they're own government tells them and brings before the House, because another raft of amendments had to be moved to that bill. And it is still not fixed.

But what was most extraordinary was the proposition that was being put forward by Pauline Hanson's One Nation that we know the government had agreed to, which would have had the effect of providing a whopping big tax cut, effectively a pay boost and a superannuation boost, to certain government MPs and senators of a particular age, and particularly remuneration arrangements which would have benefited Senator Hanson herself. They were extraordinary. In the Treasury bills and the budget initiatives that are being debated before this House, these matters were being contemplated.

It's incredibly important that the House take note of these issues because, while we are debating laws to implement budget decisions in this House, there are, around budget measures, a range of deals that are being put in place which are very, very wrong—very, very wrong indeed. I want to draw the attention of members of this House to these matters as we debate bills which implement budget measures in this place.

The shenanigans that have gone on in the Senate around the superannuation bills are nothing less than extraordinary. Fancy this—that, at a time when we've got flatlining wages and when economic growth is not delivering the productivity enhancements that we need to bring us forward as a nation, to deliver real wage increases and living standard increases for ordinary Australians, the government thought its No.1 priority was to do a deal with Senator Hanson which would have boosted the pay packets of politicians and high-wage earners but leave unattended all the problems in superannuation administration.

Let me give you an example. In the government's budget measures, they said that they intended to do something to ensure that Australians were not forced to be members of underperforming funds. And we know, because the Productivity Commission has told us, that there are in excess of three million Australians who at the moment have their money in underperforming superannuation funds charging higher fees and delivering low outcomes, and it could be costing those Australians as much as $230,000 in lost retirement savings. So we have this problem identified by the government—the underperformance of funds, and Australians overpaying fees—but dealing with that issue was not their No. 1 priority; it was attempting to do a very grubby deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation to get an imperfect bill through the parliament. The House should take note of these issues as we are debating these Treasury laws amendment bills which introduce budget measures.

Now, schedule 6 of this bill, which extends the low- and middle-income tax offset, enjoys our full support. But we do note in passing that this provision, which provides a tax offset of up to $1,080, is a temporary measure, yet the government in its budget is persisting with its permanent tax cut for some of Australia's highest-income earners—another example of where this government has its priorities wrong. Whether it's superannuation or whether it's the provision of tax cuts to high-income earners, they have their priorities wrong and they're not focused on the big issues.

When the superannuation legislation was first introduced and debated in this House, we drew to the government's attention a range of significant problems if they were intent on implementing this budget measure. We told them that a bill which proposed to reduce the fees that people were being charged on their superannuation accounts was actually going to have the impact of increasing the fees, because administration fees were completely excluded from the measures within that bill. We pointed it out to the government. They denied it was a problem. Only because of Labor's strenuous campaign against this issue did the government correct that obvious flaw in their legislation. We pointed out to the government that the measures in the bill that they introduced in the House were going to have the effect of penalising superannuation funds that used Australian workers' superannuation funds to invest in Australian infrastructure and Australian unlisted assets. Fancy that—a provision which actually penalises superannuation funds for using workers' money to go to work for the benefit of the nation and the benefit of those workers. But that's exactly what this government's bill did.

They included within the bill—which still existed until 25 minutes ago—a provision which we have called 'the investment kill switch'. This was a provision which made the Treasurer the superannuation trustee-in-chief. It gave him an extraordinary power that has never existed in this Commonwealth before, a power to cancel any private sector investment of a superannuation fund that he did not like. They persisted with it, after telling their own backbench that they'd fixed it, until we were able to shame it out of them in the Senate, not 25 minutes ago.

These are important measures, because we are debating a bill which deals with the implementation of budget measures, and we have reason to be concerned about the government's intent and competence when it comes to implementing budget measures. I've addressed schedule 6 of the bill, which deals with the low- and middle-income tax offset, a provision which we support. In fact, we will be supporting each of the schedules within this bill, but we have grave concerns about the government's capacity to competently administer the provisions within this bill, because we have seen so many examples in this parliament in the last 24 hours of the government's incapacity to competently manage the implementation of budget measures.

I return to the superannuation measures, which are also included in budget measures. They are persisting with a piece of legislation which will staple members to dud funds. They say they want to fix the problem. We've provided a mechanism for them to fix the problem, but they have refused to implement this measure. So we have many reasons to be suspicious about the government's capacity to competently and honestly implement the measures that are before the parliament today in this session, because of the actions and the inactions of the government in so many other areas of budget bill implementation.

Whilst we won't be opposing this bill, we ask all members of the House, particularly members of the government backbench and members of the crossbench, when other budget bills come before the House, and the Treasurer or his representative stands at that dispatch box and says, 'Trust us; these bills do what we say they are going to do,' to be very suspicious indeed. If they can tell untruths to their own backbench and to the crossbench about the content and the administration of superannuation bills, then there is no limit to the capacity of this government to tell untruths about other budget implementation bills. We'll be supporting this bill, but we'll have a lot to say about other bills which implement budget initiatives, because we simply do not trust this government's ability to do what it says it's going to do and for its legislation to implement the announcements that the government says that it intends to do. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:53): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021. This bill addresses a number of tax issues and introduces the continuation of the low- and middle-income tax offset, an offset that has been so important during the time of COVID and has been widely welcomed right across Australia, including, of course, in my seat of Higgins. I know that many of my constituents have been waiting anxiously for this offset to take effect, in light of the financial strain that they've experienced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns and restrictions imposed on all Australians and most particularly in my state of Victoria.

I was delighted to hear that approximately 65,700 taxpayers in my electorate of Higgins will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. In fact, the Treasurer, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg, joined me in Higgins and met with two of my constituents—Amy, a kindergarten teacher, and Darren, a small business owner—who have their first child on the way, and they are looking forward to the extra tax relief that this bill will offer. In fact, Amy told me how she will use this money to help set up the nursery for her baby—an exciting time of life which can be tempered by the extra costs of having another mouth to feed.

This bill also supports business by providing an additional fringe benefits tax exemption, by supporting consumers of financial products through additional ASIC oversight and, finally, by protecting our elderly population from potential exploitation through exempting granny flats from capital gains tax. So there are many measures in this bill, and I'd like to talk through several of those this morning. But first I'd like to say it is so important to support each and every Australian through the ongoing COVID-19 economic recovery and help them to further our economy—after all, our economy is built on the hard work of each and every Australian—and the amendments in this bill aim to do exactly that. We're providing additional support to taxpayers through extension of the highly popular low- and middle-income tax offset. That will help to free up their resources, which will help to stimulate the economy and lead to greater opportunities and prosperity for all Australians.

Importantly, these tax initiatives will also protect one of our most vulnerable cohorts, our older Australians, from the financial and elder abuse often associated with what is commonly known as granny flat arrangements. Protecting a granny flat arrangement by way of removing the CGT implications will have the added bonus of allowing ageing Australians to age at home longer, surrounded by their family and loved ones. That's something we should all welcome. We know Australians are choosing to age at home and that this is their preference. That is what our government does; it listens to the needs of the very people that we represent.

Schedule 1 is about FBT exemptions for retraining. The fringe benefits tax exemption to support retraining and reskilling provides an exemption for employer-provided retraining and reskilling. Currently, fringe benefits tax is payable if an employer provides training to employees that is not sufficiently connected to their current employment. This measure will benefit any employer providing retraining benefits to redundant or soon-to-be redundant employees. The employer can apply this exemption where a redundant employee is redeployed to another area of their business or where the new employment is outside their business. The exemption will be available for university, vocational education and non-vocational educational training courses which support redundant employees in finding new employment.

If there was one word that everyone thought about in 2021 besides the word 'COVID', it would be the word 'pivot', and that is why I support this schedule—because it is so important that, as people go through the changing world that we're seeing both post COVID and as we move into the 21st century of the knowledge economy, we need to help people to retrain, reposition and pivot to the new world of work. This measure will support the government's skills reform agenda and current programs and assistance for education and training. The government's continued investment will support apprenticeships, create jobs and boost the skills of Australians to help them get back to work, because, as we know, the dignity of work is something that we value very highly.

Schedule 3 provides a targeted capital gains tax exemption for granny flat arrangements where there is a formal written agreement. CGT consequences are currently an impediment to the creation of formal and legally enforceable granny flat arrangements. The Australian Law Reform Commission released a report in 2017 which examined elder abuse in Australia. We all are going to grow old—hopefully; the alternative is not worth thinking about. But we all want to know that we can age with dignity and grace and we all want our relatives and our friends who are older not to be the victims of elder abuse. The Australian Law Reform Commission examined the prevalence of elder abuse in relation to granny flat arrangements in particular. This schedule in the bill is an incredibly important one with regards to these arrangements. When faced with a CGT liability, families often opt for informal arrangements, which can lead to financial abuse and exploitation of older people. This amendment ensures that CGT consequences are not an impediment to formalising granny flat arrangements and seeks to reduce the risk of financial abuse and exploitation of older Australians and other vulnerable people.

The measure has extensive support from stakeholders, because this schedule has been extensively consulted about and there has been extensive public discussion of the processes. In a typical case, granny flat arrangements occur when an older person transfers some sort of consideration, often title to property or proceeds from the sale of property, to their adult child in exchange for the promise of ongoing care, support and housing. These arrangements can be beneficial to all parties; that's obvious. When operating effectively, they can provide benefits to the adult child in the way of property or funds and to the older person in the way of care, support and housing. However, the older person tends to be in a more vulnerable position and can suffer serious consequences if circumstances change. Problems can arise as a result of the adult child predeceasing the older person, relationship breakdowns between the adult child and their partner, or the adult child becoming bankrupt. Contingencies are often not considered for these types of events happening. This, combined with the common informality of granny flat arrangements, can make it difficult for the older person to establish, assert or enforce their rights under the arrangement.

Perceived tax consequences are one barrier to parties having a formal granny flat arrangement in place. CGT events could arise on entering into, varying or terminating a granny flat arrangement, depending on the circumstances. Informal arrangements can make it easier for a taxpayer to argue that there are no formal rights in existence and, therefore, no assets that could be subject to CGT. With these amendments, a CGT event does not happen on entering into, varying or terminating a granny flat arrangement if certain requirements are met. These requirements include that the individual having the granny flat interest has reached pension age or has a disability. In the days of the NDIS, these sorts of arrangements are really very important. The arrangement needs to be in writing and not be of a commercial nature.

The intent of this measure is to encourage the formalisation of granny flat arrangements to support the stable and long-term housing arrangements of older people and people with disabilities and to reduce the risk of financial abuse or exploitation. We all know families where there is a child with a disability. Parents worry about the long-term sustainable future of their children, and these sorts of amendments will be helpful in sorting these issues out.

With regard to schedule 4 of the bill, there will be an amendment to the product intervention regime to address unintended consequences and to ensure that the product intervention regime operates as intended. A product intervention order is an order made by ASIC under its product intervention powers to impose conditions on or, if necessary, to ban potentially harmful financial and credit products where there is a risk of significant detriment to retail clients or customers. Removing ambiguity and ensuring that ASIC has the ability to intervene in relation to the costs of a financial and credit product—such as administrative fees, interest charges, surcharges or default fees—paid by a retail client or consumer through the use of a product intervention order is critical for retail client and consumer protection against significant detriment. Again, this is an important safety net to ensure that, as we go through a post-COVID recovery, we don't find people becoming more financially vulnerable. Importantly, this also increases consumption investment as a result of greater uptake of worthy financial products due to increased confidence and trust. The taxpayers of Australia need to be able to trust and respect our financial institutions and the products that they develop.

This bill provides tax relief to those who need it most. I'm very pleased that schedule 6 will come into effect, once this bill is passed, to provide a low and middle income tax offset. This bill will create $7.8 billion in tax cuts to around 10.2 million low- and middle-income earners by retaining the low and middle income tax offset for the 2021-22 income year. The low and middle income tax offset is worth up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for dual-income households and is paid on assessment once taxpayers lodge their tax returns. It's something to keep in mind. Retaining the low and middle income tax offset in 2021-22 will support household incomes as the economy continues to recover. I know this has been a very popular COVID measure, and I'm very pleased that it's going to continue into this next year. As we emerge from COVID it is an important period of time with regard to our growth and development. And as we see the vaccination rolling out across the country I'm very pleased that we're moving to a post-COVID recovery—but we're not there yet, and we need to continue to provide the support that is needed by those on low and middle incomes.

This bill provides tax relief to those who need it most—low- and middle-income earners—at a time when they need it most. The bill goes further by helping employees and businesses alike to incentivise retraining and upskilling, and it protects consumers from low-quality and poor-value financial products. It also provides more certainty to often elderly or disabled Australians in order to make the most of granny-flat arrangements without needing to worry about the CGT implications. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:06): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill 2021. This bill contains several Treasury measures. I won't go into the detail of each, but I do want to speak on the most substantial measure, which of course is the one-year extension of the low and middle income tax offset for the 2021-22 income year, a measure that provides a tax offset of up to $1,080 for incomes of up to $126,000. To be clear, Labor supports and has always supported tax relief for low- and middle-income earners and will facilitate the passage of this bill. But it has to be said that this Liberal government has once again delivered a bill that looks great on paper but fails the pub test.

I'm sure it is just a happy coincidence for the government that the extension of the measure for another year means that the government can avoid the question of when to cut the measure until after the next federal election. When the Treasurer announced the extension of this measure he made it very clear that Australians should not expect it to become a permanent feature of the tax system. He emphasised, in fact, that it was 'a stimulus measure to support the recovery of our economy'. I want to be very clear about what the Treasurer is saying. He is saying that tax relief for our low- and middle-income earners is temporary, that it does not last. It's been extended for just long enough to see the government through the next election, after which many millions of Australian workers will pay more in tax than they do today. But the government has said that the vast bulk of the tax relief coming into the budget over the next few years is permanent. Isn't it funny that the vast bulk of permanent tax relief just happens to benefit the highest income earners in Australia?

Why doesn't the government flip it? If it really wants to look after low- and middle-income earners, why not make this tax offset permanent and make the tax cut for high-income earners temporary? Why not make that dependent on the future economic performance of the economy? Why not say to high-income earners—the people in this place, the judges and others who are on hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—'Look, we'd like to give you a tax cut, but maybe the economy can't quite afford it. How about we give you a temporary tax cut for now, because we want to make sure that the low- and middle-income-earning Australians in this country get a permanent tax cut'? Wouldn't that be a better solution? I think it would be. But they can't help themselves on that side. Just to reiterate: tax relief for low- and middle-income earners is temporary; tax cuts for high-income earners are permanent. That's the message from this government: we look after our mates and make sure high-income earners stay on top.

If you're a low- or middle-income earner this government is happy to provide relief—temporary relief—on the proviso of re-election. It's further proof that this government's most recent budget is about getting through an election rather than helping people with the cost of living and setting up the economy for the long term. Wages are stagnant. Real wages are going backwards; the Treasurer has told us as much. Even before that, we had the former finance minister, Mathias Cormann, telling us low wages were a deliberate feature of the government's economic architecture.

While Labor supports this bill it must be noted that, while tax relief for low- and middle-income earners is temporary, the vast bulk of incoming tax relief will overwhelmingly benefit high-income earners and that will be permanent. It can't be stressed enough. It has to be stressed that they're only looking after low- and middle-income earners on a temporary basis but they're looking after the wealthy on a permanent basis. It must be understood that Australians on an income below $88,000 a year will be worse off under the Prime Minister's stage 3 tax cuts compared to what they are under with the low and middle income tax offset. Wage earners will be worse off—cleaners, clerks, teachers, paramedics, aged-care workers and nurses will all be worse off. Some of the people who have done the heavy-lifting through the COVID-19 pandemic will be worse off after next year while high-income earners will pocket thousands extra on a permanent basis. Seven in every 10 Australian workers will be paying more tax than they do today—and all from a coalition that trumpets sound economic management as a key strength. What an absolute joke!

It's hurting people in my state the most. In my electorate, workers earn the lowest average income in the country. Tasmanians earn the least among all states and territories. That means even more of my constituents will be hit by the Morrison government's tax grab when this tax offset goes away. Isn't it bad enough that we are already facing a housing crisis, stagnant infrastructure funding and a shortage of general practitioners in regional Tasmania? Now low- and middle-income earners in Tasmania, after the next financial year, face the prospect of higher taxes. We've got thousands on the government emergency housing list, a healthcare sector in disarray and parts of our east coast cut off by a mismanaged highway closure. My state is doing it tough. So how can the Morrison government justify tax policies that will harm our most vulnerable in the long term?

Labor supports this bill because it provides support, albeit temporary, to the Australians who need it most. We've always supported putting more money in the pockets of workers and we always will. Labor has said all along that the priority for tax relief is that it should be going to the people who need it most and who are most likely to spend it in the economy. Tax breaks for middle-income-earning Australians and low-income earners are a good thing. These are the people who spend money going to the beach on the weekend with their families. These are the people who buy a pie and a drink at the footie on a Friday night. They buy new cars and, when they can afford it, do a reno on their house. They spend money in their local economies; they keep the money churning around. It's not the same when you give tax breaks to high-income earners; the money is not spent in the same way. It gets invested, sometimes offshore. It doesn't benefit the local economy in the way that putting more money into the pockets of low-income earners does. It doesn't have the same benefit to the economy at all.

Low- and middle-income earners are the people who, by spending money on themselves and their families, reinvigorate our economy—and nowhere more than in regional communities. These are the people this government is going to tax more when this tax offset ends after 2021-22. It beggars belief. The Morrison government is committing tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the highest-income earners while offering limited support for the average Australian family to get them through the election. Not only has this government racked up $1 trillion in debt with precious little to show for it in terms of long-term economic reform; they are prioritising high-income earners with long-term tax relief while taking the average Australian income earner for a ride.

It has to be said, this is not just related to the bill before the House. The shadow minister mentioned before what's going on in the other place, right now, with superannuation and how that's going to hurt Australian workers as they head into retirement. This deal the government has done with One Nation beggars belief. It's absolutely appalling for Australian workers who are nearing retirement. Judas Iscariot got 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus at Gethsemane. Senator Hanson's getting 30,000—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The member will come back to the debate.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I was talking about how this government's budget measures are not helping income earners, but I do take your point about getting back to the measures in this bill.

This bill says everything you need to know about this government's agenda and its fiscal incompetence, and its mean-spiritedness towards low- and middle-income-earning Australians. This bill is exactly like the eighth budget handed down by this tired government. It's been designed with one goal in mind: re-election. Just do enough to get re-elected. Don't worry about the long term. Don't worry about what's needed for the country or the economy in the long term. Just do enough to get re-elected. Beyond the spin and the headlines, beyond our media addicted Prime Minister, we can see the government for what it really is: tired, out of touch and out of time.

We see a government actively lowering workers' wages while providing tax relief to the wealthy. We've seen penalty rate cuts. We've seen stagnant wages. We've seen no plan to lift wages. Now we see before us a bill that offers temporary tax relief. It extends temporary tax relief, for low- and middle-income earners, not permanent tax relief. We see a government attempting to implement policies that hit working families the hardest, and we see a government willing to smash the Australian way of life to boost the coffers of its highest-income-earning mates, the highest-income-earning lawyers, judges and politicians who are doing the best out of this government and its tax relief policies.

Remember, this mates-rates deal for high-income earners has been pitched by the Treasurer as a stimulus measure to support the recovery of our economy, but it's one that benefits only the very highest-income earners permanently. It doesn't look after average wage earners permanently. They're left out in the cold to fend for themselves: flat wages, their super under attack and now only temporary tax relief. Not only is it unfair but it is risking the Australian values that we've all come to cherish.

While we do support this bill for the temporary tax relief it offers, let it be known that these temporary measures will not undo eight long years of record low wages growth, chronically high underemployment and a shameless disregard for the Australian values of fairness and equality.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) (13:17): I'd like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 of the bill will provide a fringe benefits tax exemption to encourage employers to provide retraining and reskilling benefits to redundant or soon-to-be-redundant employees. The amendments will benefit any employer who provides retraining fringe benefits to their redundant or soon-to-be-redundant employees. The measure supports the government's skills reform agenda and current programs and assistance for education and training.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend the junior minerals exploration incentive for a further four years, from 2021-22 to 2024-25, with a minor amendment to allow unused exploration credits to be redistributed a year earlier than under current settings. In conjunction with Australia's broader support for resources development, the junior minerals exploration incentive will help to open up new opportunities for the sector into the future.

Schedule 3 to the bill delivers on the government's plan to support older Australians and people with a disability in their families by providing a targeted capital gains tax exemption for granny flat arrangements where there is a formal written agreement in place.

Schedule 4 to the bill makes technical amendments to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission product intervention power so that it can continue to proactively address consumer harm caused by financial and credit products, as originally intended.

Schedule 5 to the bill ensures New Zealand maintains its primary taxing right under the convention between Australia and New Zealand for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and fringe benefits and the prevention of fiscal evasion, otherwise known as the convention. This is in respect of members of New Zealand sporting teams and support staff that spend an extended period of time in Australia to participate in league sporting competitions because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The measure ensures that the treatment of New Zealand sporting teams is consistent with the unique intent of the convention by relinquishing Australia's taxing right. This applies to income in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years only.

Schedule 6 to the bill retains the low- and middle-income tax offset in 2021-22. The tax offset is worth up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for dual income households and is paid on assessment when taxpayers lodge their tax return. The government is delivering tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners to support household incomes and create jobs as the economy recovers. It is estimated that around 10.2 million taxpayers will benefit from retaining the LMITO in 2021-22, with the majority of the benefits delivered to those earning less than $90,000. This is on top of the $25.1 billion in tax relief flowing to households in 2021-22 that has been announced in previous budgets.

Retaining the LMITO will put more money in taxpayers' pockets, allowing them to spend more and, in so doing, strengthen the economic recovery. Further details of each of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) (13:22): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The SPEAKER (15:14): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 44 of 2020-21 entitled Regulation of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permits and approvals—Follow up: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed on 28 March 2018.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (16:19): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Increased consumer choice underpins the coalition government's plan for a stronger economy in ensuring all Australians get a fair go, especially in retirement.

This bill delivers on a commitment made in the 2018-19 budget to increase the maximum number of allowable members in self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA funds from four to six.

SMSFs are often used, as many Australians will know, by families as a vehicle for managing their own super savings and investment strategies. For families with more than four members, currently the only real options are to create two SMSFs (which, obviously, incurs extra costs) or place their super in a large fund. This ultimately limits their choice and, of course, flexibility.

By allowing groups of five or six people to participate in an SMSF or small APRA fund, the bill supports greater consumer choice. It provides increased flexibility for Australians to manage their retirement savings, and particularly does so for those Australians with larger families.

I therefore commend the bill to the chamber.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:21): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The question is that the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: My understanding with the minister is that the bill has been introduced, the second reading speech has been given and the Manager of Opposition Business has moved that the debate be adjourned. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.

Mr BURKE: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was working on the basis that the debate had to be adjourned because we'd just had the second reading speech introducing the bill. That's why I moved it. If there's a different procedure or something that's been—

The SPEAKER: The only other procedure would be if the minister had sought leave to go through all stages, but that hasn't happened, I understand.

Mr BURKE: Yes.

The SPEAKER: I'm just going to make this really clear to the advisers who are talking. I've made it very clear to the advisers that they do not conduct conversations across the chamber. They have a buzzer. They have the attendants. They can speak to their member or minister there. We're trying to concentrate on what we're doing, okay? It's important that they follow that, if they wish to remain in here.

Mr BURKE: If the minister should have moved something different prior to my moving that the debate be adjourned, I'm happy to withdraw that motion if there's something else he wants to move.

The SPEAKER: On what you're each trying to manage—I've just hopped into the chair—has the adjournment debate been negated?

Mr BURKE: No.

The SPEAKER: We'll just go back—I gather that's in agreement. We'll go back one step to the point where you finished the second reading speech. The question then is that this bill be now read a second time. Is leave granted to continue the debate, Manager of Opposition Business?

Mr Burke: Leave is granted.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be read a second time. The member for Whitlam is seeking the call.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:25): I foreshadow to members of the House that Labor will not be supporting this bill. Current arrangements for self-managed superannuation funds limit the number of members to four. I understand it is the government's proposition to extend that to six members on the basis that it would provide more flexibility.

We deliberately did not form a position on this. We had some concerns about this matter, when it was first raised with the opposition, but referred it to a Senate inquiry to flush out the reviews of consumer representatives, self-managed superannuation fund representatives and their advisers. On the basis of the evidence that we saw before that Senate committee, we're particularly mindful of the evidence given by Super Consumers Australia, who pointed out that the extension from four to six opened up a great risk for harm to members of the superannuation fund.

Let me explain what I mean by that. If you have a number of children within the same self-managed superannuation fund as their elderly parents, members of that fund are going to have very different interests. In fact, it's very difficult to judge the best interests of each and every member of that fund individually. For example, if you have elderly parents whose house or business is contained within the superannuation fund, the interest of young children who are also members of that superannuation fund is in the maintenance of the assets. The interest of the elderly parents is going to be in the liquidation and realisation of those assets. As Super Consumers Australia pointed out, this measure runs the very great risk of leading to consumer harm to some members of those funds.

While it sounds good at the 30,000-feet level, when you drill down and look at the potential for this to create harm and abuse, you see the risks are too great. For that reason, Labor will not be supporting the bill.

Debate interrupted.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (16:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (16:38): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:38): For the benefit of the members of the House, we're dealing with three superannuation bills this afternoon. The first one, which we just voted on, was about self-managed superannuation funds. The second bill of three deals with an extraordinary deal that was done between the government and a senator for Queensland, Senator Hanson, sometime yesterday. This deal, in its original form, saw a proposition brought before the Senate that would increase the excess contributions cap from its current level, $27,500, by $5,000 per annum for a very small group of people—people over the age of 67. I'm reliably informed that there are 17 members of the parliament, including Senator Hanson herself, who have turned 67. Members of the House may be interested to know what pecuniary benefit would fall to those within the class of people identified by the proposed amendment. It is somewhere in the vicinity of $5,000 per annum. At the same time as we're cutting all sorts of benefits to ordinary Australians and threatening to cut their super, we're proposing to increase the superannuation benefits of politicians by $5,000 per annum. It did not proceed—and thankfully so. They were shamed out of doing it. They proposed to do it but it did not proceed—and thankfully so.

The measure before the House, however, proposes to remove the excess contribution charge. Every member of the House would understand how that works, because we receive a bill every year on excess superannuation contributions. This is a provision which benefits a large group of politicians but a very small group of Australians. At a time when we are trying to resolve the complex issues around superannuation, it is extraordinary in the extreme that this is the priority of this government—a measure that benefits a large group of politicians but a very small group of Australians who earn over $275,000 a year. It's not a priority and Labor won't be supporting the measure.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (16:47): I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (16:47): You've just heard all the arguments in favour of this legislation! There it is, from this minister. To be fair, there are some on the other side who are honest about what their view of superannuation is. The Liberal Party's Senator Rennick said in the debate about this legislation across on the other side:

… if we want to be serious about protecting the battlers in this country, it's time to kill superannuation stone, cold dead.

That's the view of the Liberal and National parties when it comes to workers having decent retirements and having dignity in their later years. They're not content to trash the aged-care system. They want people to also, before they get to aged care, have a pretty bad retirement. They can't stand the idea that anyone other than their mates can own capital. They can't stand the idea that Australia can have, in our economic system as one of our ballasts, $3 trillion in superannuation funds. The fact is that that is in our national interest, and it's also in the interests of working people. That is why we on this side of the House will always defend superannuation, and why those opposite will always take every opportunity to undermine it. Remember the royal commission aimed at industry funds? What did it find? It found that industry funds were the most effective form of superannuation. It found that self-managed funds and the retail funds just don't stack up in terms of returns and in terms of the costs to superannuants.

The flaws in this bill are multiple. One is that it staples members to dud funds. What we can see will happen is that some people will have an advantage—the retailers, the banks and the mates of those opposite selling their products rather than industry super funds. That's really what it's aimed at here. That has real implications, because workers could be stapled to their first fund. Those opposite mightn't have this experience, but certainly I did: the first job that I had was in retail. And many people will do that. I worked at Maccas, I worked at Grace Brothers, I worked at Pancakes On The Rocks and I worked at various other jobs.

A government member interjecting—

Mr ALBANESE: No, your bloke was the one that was sacked from jobs, mate. There was the idea that you would then go on to have a profession. You might be a plumber or in construction. You'd have different priorities. You need different insurance in terms of your job. The fact is this will staple people to funds that aren't appropriate for them. It will staple them to underperforming funds for life. It is bad policy.

There's no level playing field in terms of performance and monitoring. We agree that all funds should be subject to performance assessments. The government doesn't believe this. They're excluding funds that some three million Australians are members of. They're some of the for-profit funds. They're some of the funds with the highest fees. They're some of the worst performing funds. How surprising! And this is in contrast to the recommendation of the financial services royal commission. It's in direct contravention of it. But they're prepared to stand up for these funds because they don't actually want a level playing field—because, when you look at a level playing field, industry super wins every time as the best performers. This exposes the ideological agenda of this government. They've gone to every election, like in 2013 and 2016, and said they wouldn't interfere with the super guarantee, but then afterwards they did. They wanted to interfere with this one as well. It's only because, like a whole range of other changes, they're just waiting until after the election and you get Liberal and National parties 'unplugged'. The Liberal and National parties unplugged is killing superannuation stone-cold dead. They said it the other night. It's what they believe. It's what they do at every single opportunity that they have to undermine our superannuation system, while Labor— (Time expired)

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:52): I'll keep my comments relatively brief, because I fear the impatience of my colleagues behind me more than anything that those opposite might do. We're being asked today to vote for a bill that's fatally flawed. It's vastly improved compared to the bill that was originally proposed to the government's party room. The bill that went through their cabinet, their Expenditure Review Committee, went through both of their caucuses unchallenged—it's a vast improvement on that. The reason for that is the tireless efforts of Labor members of parliament, crossbench MPs, members on all sides from the industry and, I have to say, a number of members from the coalition's own backbench who at first believed what their minister told them but then saw so much of it was definitely not true.

Let's get to the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is the objective of this bill to improve the performance of funds and the return to members. Every single member of this place supports that objective. If only the legislation did what its title suggests it wants to do. We want to do this. Labor wants to support a bill that will do this. The reality is that the government is intent on turning a blind eye to the funds which have the highest fees and the lowest performance. There is no other explanation for the fact that the government has excluded those funds, which cover over three million employees. The Productivity Commission has said that without government action those three million employees will languish in those funds forever, earning subpar returns and getting high fees. The cost over a lifetime is in excess of $240,000 in lost retirement income. We cannot vote for that. We want to vote for a bill which addresses that, and you refuse to agree to our sensible amendments.

The second proposition, as put by the Leader of the Opposition, is that this bill staples employees to funds which the government itself has said are so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join them: 'This fund is so bad that no new employee should be allowed to join it, but you're going to be stapled to it and stuck to it for life.' High fees and low performance, but you want to say that's good enough for these employees! We don't. Agree to our sensible amendments and we can get this fixed.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, they have a proposition which will ensure that workers in high-risk industries will either be without insurance or be paying thousands and thousands of dollars per annum more for the life insurance they currently have through the group insurance in their superannuation policy. Any member of the public and any member of the crossbench listening to my submission today—I see the member for Hughes nodding—will understand that these are commonsense propositions that should enjoy the reasonable support of all members of this House.

It beggars belief that the government, instead of picking up amendments that were proffered by the crossbench in this place and in the Senate, has gone and done a grubby deal with Queensland's Senator Hanson. That's not good enough. We want a bill that we can vote for. It's not this bill. I turn to the members of the crossbench who gave impassioned speeches in the House when the bill was last before it. All the issues that you raised in your speeches last time have not yet been addressed. If you still hold those concerns the only hope you have of having them resolved is to tell the government that this bill is not good enough. Vote with Labor and send a message to the government and to the Senate that we want to vote for a bill that says what it's going to do. We want to vote for a bill that says what the label says it's going to do, and this bill does not.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:57): On the issue of superannuation, I stand closer to the member for Goldstein than to the members on this side of the House. He gave an excellent speech today, which I would commend to everyone, on the importance of housing affordability and the right of young Australians to access their super for housing. However, I cannot support this bill. The issue we have is stapling. We have different requirements in different industries, especially in high-risk industries, for the insurance component of your superannuation. A worker in a high-risk industry, whether it is mining, deep-sea fishing, industry or farming, has a completely different insurance requirement than someone working in a government office job. Unfortunately the stapling provision will staple you to an insurance policy that is not satisfactory and will not adequately cover many high-risk workers. I don't care whether it is just one Australian that this happens to. If this bill is passed, as sure as night follows day, there will be a case of some young worker who was working in an office job, or at Coles or Woolies, who then goes to work in one of those high-risk occupations, be it mining or on a farm, and has an industrial accident in their first week of work. We know that will happen. They will go back to their stapled insurance policy and find that they are inadequately covered. We are not just stapling the investment component; we are also stapling the insurance component. That is not satisfactory, given the difference in risk in occupations in this country. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support this bill and vote for that risk to happen.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.