Senator KEMP (Assistant Treasurer)(8.37 p.m.) —The government will not be supporting opposition amendments Nos 6 to 8 for a number of reasons. We think in these circumstances, given the nature of superannuation, a means test on the contributor would discriminate against the low income partner. This measure is an incentive to encourage superannuation support for low income spouses; that is the purpose of the measure.

In the majority of cases, the low income spouses will be women. But, as Senator Harradine mentioned, there are increasing numbers of men who would see themselves remaining at home. The reality at present is that in the majority of cases the low income spouses will be women who have probably had to break from work to raise children.

In the event of a family break, it is possible that the low income partner may be left with little or no superannuation. The major benefit in the form of superannuation support goes to the low income spouse and this spouse is appropriately means tested. In means testing the contributing spouse, you are penalising, in effect, the low income spouse.

Finally, I understand from the tax advisers who are with us that asset testing is not a concept that is commonly used in tax law. To introduce asset testing would be complex in this case and expensive.

So, as I said, the government will not be supporting the measure. We do not support the proposition that somehow you can say, `You can rely on your husband's super,' or, `You can rely on your wife's super,' if the male is the low income spouse. We will not be supporting the amendments which have been proposed by Senator Sherry.

   Question put:

   That the amendments (Senator Sherry's ) be agreed to.