|
senate vote 2022-11-28#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-12-22 15:50:05
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022, Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022; in Committee- Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 and two others - in Committee - Annual members’ meetings
Description
<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>GALLAGHER (—) (): by leave—In relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZA193 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 5, page 14 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), to be opposed.</p><p>As I foreshadowed in my speech summing up the second reading debate, this amendment removes schedule 5 from the bill pending further discussions with senators about how to proceed with that amendment. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved in relation to these bills.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Can the minister confirm that the amendments she has just moved, on sheet ZA193, are exactly the same as the opposition's amendments on sheet 1732?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>My understanding is that it is, but the government was unaware that you were moving that amendment, and certainly I was unaware that you were moving that amendment. We had ours amended ahead of that.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>For the record, the opposition's amendment was circulated last week, so it was well aware to the chamber. Why has it been necessary to change the government's position from it's position in the House of Representatives, where it voted against the opposition's amendment which is now your amendment, to its position in the Senate this morning?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>We've changed our position in light of consultations with senators.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>My apologies, Senator Gallagher, I didn't hear that.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>We made that decision based on further discussions with senators in this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Which senators?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I can't speak on behalf of the minister, but I'm aware there were discussions with senators across the Senate. I'm certainly aware of discussions that I've had with Senator McKim and others.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>AN SMITH () (): Could you take it on notice and report back to the chamber exactly which other senators were consulted before the government chose to copy the opposition's amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I'll see what I can do to assist the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>In your remarks prior to introducing your amendment which copies the opposition's amendment which has been circulated for some time, you gave a commitment around further consultation. Can you provide to the Senate some additional detail about what that consultation will entail and with whom?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>In my second reading speech I referred to the Your Future, Your Super review. I expect those consultations will be finalised shortly with a report to the minister some time early next year—in the first quarter of next year.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Is the government leaving it open to weaken Your Future, Your Super arrangements?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>No, that's not the intention. I think we need to wait for that review to be complete. I think it's very difficult for me to stand here and answer what would be the outcome of a review that hasn't been provided to the government.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Won't government senators be embarrassed to be supporting an amendment in the Senate this afternoon which government House members were forced to vote against just last week?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>No, not at all. I think you have seen from this government the approach we are taking as a government, which is to talk and consult and respond accordingly. That's what you have seen with this amendment. It wasn't going to be supported by the Senate. That was clear. If there is another way we can address the concerns the opposition have in respect of this part of the bill along with concerns that the crossbench have had with that part of the bill, and if there is way we can bring people together to reach agreement on that, I think that would be a good thing.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Why didn't the government use the committee inquiry process and Senate Economics Committee report to advise the Senate and stakeholders more broadly of its intention not to pursue schedule 5?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>The government is always mindful and watches Senate committee inquiries and reports, so I have no doubt that that fed into some of the minister's considerations as he was resolving this issue. It's a source of information; it's not the only source. Further discussions were had and the government has taken the decision to amend the bill in light of those discussions.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Why did the consultations happen only after the bill was introduced to the parliament?</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Well, I don't think that's necessarily an unusual way of doing things. Quite often we develop legislation, and then that legislation is amended after further discussions with MPs and senators. So, in that respect, this is a very unsurprising amendment. It happens regularly. It happened when you were in government. It will continue to happen, particularly when you are in a minority chamber where the government can't act alone. We have to work across the chamber. We try to work collegiately as much as we can in this place. This is just another example of that.</p> <p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>I rise to foreshadow that I will be voting for the amendments moved by the government and the coalition. Australians all deserve to be in a high-performing superannuation product. If they're not, they at least deserve to know that they're not. They should be armed with as much information as possible.</p><p>I support the coalition amendments to put back into place the annual member meeting notices and to move them into primary legislation. I think this is an important step as the current regulations, as I have said previously, are not ideal. In amending the regulations, the parliaments had limited time to provide scrutiny before they came into effect ahead of the reporting season. So effectively most of the super funds have reported and have not had to disclose at that level of transparency. When it comes to faith based super, I have real concerns about those sorts of carve-outs and believe that they should be addressed alongside ESG or more ethical focused funds as part of the broader review—and I'm pleased to see the government has introduced an amendment. As we know, the coalition's would have got up on the numbers.</p><p>I really think more transparency is crucial when it comes to superannuation. Members deserve to know how much they're paying in fees and how their super company is paying directors and making donations to various bodies, and I will support any measure to increase that transparency.</p> <p class="speaker">Catryna Bilyk</p><p>The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>Original question agreed to.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Under the circumstances, we won't be proceeding with the opposition amendment that's listed, on sheet 1732.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6906_amend_afe49d68-d921-4517-8709-4ff95b1dd06c%22;rec=0) introduced by Western Australian Senator Dean Smith (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator [Jane Hume](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jane_hume) (Liberal), which means they failed.
- The amendments related to annual members’ meetings.
-
-
|