Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Senator BELL (New South Wales—One Nation Whip) (11:56): I rise today to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026. I will foreshadow a second reading amendment to be moved by Senator Hanson on behalf of One Nation, and I'll get to that shortly. But, firstly, I will say that, like much of what Labor proposes, in this legislation there are parts that we could support but there are definitely parts that we simply cannot support.

First, looking at schedule 1—the addition of five criminal offences for unregistered preparers, increasing the civil penalties with two additional civil penalty provisions, and allowances for the assurance infringement notices for civil penalty provisions—we have no issues with that. Schedule 2, which creates a definition of 'real property' in the ITAA 1997, retains the ordinary meaning of the commencement of this schedule.

If you look through it, it's designed to broaden the tax base of foreign resident owned assets by including assets that have a close economic connection to Australia, consistent with the OECD model of taxation. The point of this, we believe, is to define real property, which previously took its ordinary meaning from the state or territory laws, which was related.

Again, we have no issue with that. But then we get to schedule 3, which is the main issue that One Nation has with this bill. This schedule allows for a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount on the sale of renewable energy projects.

This was extended from 2030 to 2040 in, we believe, a deal with the Greens to push this bill through. One Nation is strongly opposed to this. It's quite fascinating that, when it comes to delivering capital gains discounts, Labor looks to strip it away from some but then deliver it wholeheartedly to their mates.

One Nation will strongly oppose this, and we will propose an amendment to have this schedule removed. Ultimately, if we cannot have it removed, I do not see us being able to support this piece of legislation. However, let's just look at the second reading amendment to be moved by Senator Hanson, which I foreshadowed.

This is a motion to talk today about and bring into this legislation something else that is extremely important—a way to address the ever-rising suffering Australians are facing as a result of the poor decisions made by this bad Albanese Labor government. We ask that the Senate note that Australians are working harder and still struggling to get ahead; that interest rates are continuing to rise; that rents are continuing to climb to new records; that groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance are taking more out of the family budget; and that superannuation is an asset that belongs to working Australians, not to the government.

We are calling on the government to allow Australians paying rent or mortgages the choice to take three per cent or one-quarter of their future compulsory super contributions as a tax advantaged pay rise for up to three years to help them survive the cost-of-living crisis that has been inflicted upon them by this government. Australians are struggling to pay for the life that they're living as a consequence of the decisions made by this government and especially as the consequence of the actions taken through its terrible budget.

Rents have gone through the roof. Mortgage repayments continue to climb. Power bills are going higher and higher.

Groceries are costing more and more. You go through the supermarket and pay for your groceries, and, every single time you do, there's the shock that you feel when faced with the cost of groceries. It must be so devastating for Australians to feel that.

Insurances are up; rates are up. Aussie families and Aussie households are being squeezed from every direction. That is why One Nation feels that it is important that we look at how we can help people ease that suffering they are feeling now.

The government is insisting that 12 per cent of workers' wages must be diverted into superannuation and locked away for decades. But, for someone struggling to make the payments on their mortgage this month or someone whose rent has jumped by another $100 a week, money locked away ostensibly for their retirement may not be where they need every last dollar going right now, which is why One Nation will be moving this second reading amendment calling on the government to give Australians paying rent or mortgages a choice.

For up to three years, they should be able to redirect three percentage points of their future superannuation contributions—one-quarter of the current 12 per cent contribution—into a tax advantaged increase in their take-home pay. This is a temporary measure. It would apply only to future contributions and be available only to people paying rent or a mortgage.

It would be opt-in; no-one would be forced to take it. People happy with the current situation can leave it exactly as is. But we believe you should have the option to help ease that suffering, if you are suffering as a result of the cost-of-living crisis inflicted upon you by this government, if you feel that an additional sum of money in your bank account could help you pay for groceries or your mortgage, help you feed your kids, or mean that perhaps you don't have to skip a meal or can afford to eat—because your mortgages have gone up because of inflation and been driven up by this government or because so much of your paycheque has been chewed up by your electricity bills that continue to go up because of the choices made by this government.

We believe that this measure is fair and compassionate. To continue to allow Australians to suffer now cannot be allowed to continue. As we said, if you want every dollar of your compulsory contribution to continue to go into super, that is exactly what would happen.

If that is what you want, that's what would happen. But, if you are under pressure now, you should be able to decide whether part of your own wage would do more good in your bank account—more good for your family—or take that stress away from your mortgage. It may help.

Maybe it'll help you keep the house that you want to have for your retirement. If you believe that your money would be better spent there, then we believe you should have that right. You should be able to decide whether part of your own wages would do more good there than sitting in a super fund for the next few decades.

We don't believe this is a controversial idea, because this is your money. Superannuation has become so large that this government is now talking about it in terms of national investment priorities, and we're starting to hear language which treats this superannuation pool almost as a piggy bank for the Labor government to sort of do with as they see fit. Labor, we believe, is increasingly eyeing off superannuation as though this enormous pool of money belongs to them and they have a right to decide how it should be used.

But it doesn't. It's not Labor's money; it is yours, and the government needs to remember that. Compulsory superannuation might be mandated by law, but that doesn't somehow transform a worker's money into public money.

The fact that the government forces it into a particular account does not give the government ownership of it. Yet we've seen a growing interest in directing superannuation towards the government's priorities—often their energy transition priorities—and towards whatever else happens to be on the political agenda of the day. We think that the Australian people, if they feel that feeding their families or servicing their mortgage is their priority, should be respected.

We believe they should be aided and assisted in that. The purpose of superannuation is to help the person whose wages paid for it. It should never become a convenient pool of capital for government policy—as much as that might upset the Labor government.

The purpose of super, at the end of the day, is to help the people whose wages paid for it. It's their money. It is not yours.

If this Labor government is planning to lecture Australians about the importance of retirement savings, they should also recognise that financial security doesn't begin at retirement. It matters today. For many, many Australians suffering through the effects of this cost-of-living crisis that's been inflicted onto them by this Labor government—higher grocery costs, higher electricity costs—financial security and the wellbeing of their families is something that matters today.

Owning a home when you retire matters. Servicing that mortgage matters today. Keeping your home before you retire and avoiding high-interest debt matters.

Keeping up with the rent matters. Being able to pay the electricity bill without putting groceries on a credit card or going without eating matters. There are Australians today building up their super balance while falling behind on their mortgage.

There are renters watching thousands of dollars a year go into super or borrowing money simply to cover basic living expenses. There are families paying credit card interest rates because they don't have enough cash flow, while compulsory super contributions continue to be deducted from their wages. You can't look at that situation and pretend retirement saving exists in isolation from the rest of someone's financial life.

If a person loses their home because they couldn't keep up with repayments, that will have an enormous effect on their retirement. They build up tens of thousands of dollars in high-interest debts. That affects their fundamental future too.

So we believe Australians should be given the choice, to assist them in dealing with those critical matters now. Again, it's opt-in, and it's only for three years, to help them weather the worst of the financial strain, the result of the cost-of-living crisis they're dealing with as a result of the decisions by this Albanese Labor government. If an Australian spends years moving from rental to rental because they couldn't quite keep up with the cost of servicing a mortgage, that matters too.

There's no point pretending a person is financially secure simply because one column on their super statement is going up. What this amendment recognises is that people's circumstances are different. Take someone earning $80,000 a year.

Three per cent of that income is $2,400. For someone earning $100,000, it's $3,000. For a couple earning $80,000 each, the amount involved could be $4,800 a year before the proposed tax treatment is taken into account.

Over three years, it means thousands of dollars staying in that household budget. For mortgage holders, that money would help absorb higher repayments. For a renter, it would cover a rent increase.

For a young family, it could mean keeping food on the table and electricity and insurance bills off the credit card. And, because we are proposing a tax advantaged treatment, the idea is that people would actually receive meaningful relief in their take-home pay rather than simply having that redirected amount swallowed up through the ordinary marginal tax system.

The principle is simple: if the government is going to force workers to defer part of their wages for retirement then, during a serious cost-of-living crisis, there should be some flexibility for people facing genuine housing costs. It's a pressure valve. It's desperately needed.

I mean, the Albanese Labor government has spent years talking about cost-of-living relief. They've talked about rebates, subsidies, payments and schemes and temporary measures of every description, and all of those involved government collecting money, designing a program and then deciding who gets some of it back. This proposal works differently.

It lets Australians keep more of their own money in the first place—no new spending program required, no new grant scheme, no application process where Canberra decides whether you qualify for some special form of relief. It would be the worker's decision to make a choice about what to do with their own money. If they need the money now, they can take part of the future compulsory contribution as a higher take home pay.

If they don't need it, they leave their super exactly where it is. That is what choice looks like. We're allowing workers to use their money where they feel they need it.

Now, I suspect this is where Labor will struggle with the idea because, to us, it appears Labor's instinct is always that government knows best, and increasingly government wants a say in how the enormous superannuation pool of money is invested. We think we should have a more sensible discussion than that, and that is why this proposal does not touch existing balances.

It doesn't create an open-ended access. It's not going to do some of the things that we've heard the Treasurer say today, using alarmist, hyperbolic language. It simply recognises that, during a period of severe housing and cost-of-living pressure, some Australians would benefit from having more control over part of their future wages.

We believe that's a very reasonable proposition. If someone wants to keep that contribution at the full 12 per cent, they can. If someone needs breathing room, they should have that option too.

Let the worker keep a little more of what they earn if they wish. Superannuation is not your piggy bank; it is their money. It's your money.