BILLS › Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2]
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (21:17): The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 [No. 2] will remove what most Australians know as the mining tax. However, what most Australians did not realise at the election was that low-income superannuation contributions and the superannuation guarantee would also be on the chopping block. I support the government's intention to bring the budget back into the black, but I do not support penalising hard-working, low-paid Australians through these changes to their super. It is one thing to ask people to work for welfare; it is another to rip away from them what little potential retirement savings they will have. It is for this reason that I again ask the chamber to consider supporting my amendments. By opposing schedule 6 we are allowing many low-income earners to save up to a further $20,000 in today's terms in their superannuation, with the average being between $5,000 and $15,000 for low-income earners. It has been forecast by Industry Super Australia that that would benefit some 3.4 low-income earners. By opposing schedule 7, the chamber would be telling about 35 per cent of working Australians that they do not need to pay more tax on their super than they do on their income. Industry Super Australia puts it clearly, in stating that the low-income super contribution: … operates as a tax offset, effectively refunding the contribution tax paid by low income earners on their SG and other concessional contributions up to $500 p.a, thus allowing low income earners to accrue a tax concession on their contributions like all other income earners. By repealing schedule 7 of the bill the chamber would be allowing low-income earners to save up to $27,000 in today's terms when they access their super when they retire. If schedule 7 is not repealed, one in three working Australians will be left without any tax concessions from the government, despite having their super locked away until retirement. These are the working Australians who need concessions the most. I think it is important for the chamber and the government in particular to realise that there was no pre-election commitment to remove the low-income tax benefit by the coalition, and therefore I ask the government to reconsider its motives. Finally, the government should allow some respite for low-income earners when it comes to super. After all, increased super balances now will decrease the pressure on the taxpayer funded age pension in the future. I turn to the other amendments before the chamber. Over recent days I have been contemplating how I would vote on the various amendments put forward by other senators. I could not help but be at pains to think what the right thing to do was. I was thinking about the budget, I was thinking about how savings needed to be made, I was thinking about how future generations should not have to pick up the bill for the government's poor management. I was also thinking of Phil and Tanya in West Melbourne, a couple I have spoken about on numerous occasions, a couple who work bloody hard to provide for the needs of their three children, a couple who could not afford grommets for their son's ears for 18 months until they could find a doctor who would bulk-bill. I realised that if the government could put a bit of thought into their policy not so much money would be wasted. Schoolkids bonuses for people on $240,000 a year—is that necessary? Of course not. Schoolkids bonuses for people on $50,000 a year—is that necessary? Absolutely. I cannot vote against people earning $240,000 receiving the schoolkids bonus. If I could, I would. But what I will support are those earning $50,000 receiving it. I am trying to be fair to the government, but first and foremost I am trying to be fair to the people I represent—the people of Victoria, especially those who are battling. How about we start to get real? How about we start to stop kicking those who are down? How about the government tailor their policy a little more carefully and recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is not right? After all, we still have enough money to be receiving here in this place above-average super payments. If the government wants ideas on where to find money, here are a couple for consideration. Remove negative gearing for investment in established properties. Form a Commonwealth development bank. Bring back the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill that blew a $2 billion hole in the budget. Increase the deficit levy by one per cent—that will raise $1.2 billion alone. Review the value of MBS item numbers. After all, costs change. Require the government to give preference to Australian made product. It will support industry and keep Australians in a job. That means more tax and less welfare. What more could you want? These are just a couple of ideas that just came to mind. But with all the great minds in the government, surely they can come up with a better, fairer budget. If not, I am happy to help. I will make sure they know what I think of the budget measures—what is fair and what is not. I will not horse trade but I will not bludgeon either. But you cannot make strawberry jam out of effluent. The government needs to be fair in their proposals and put a little more thought into what they are actually asking of people who are finding it the hardest.