Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments made by the shadow Assistant Treasurer and the member for Mayo in arguing against the motion that's just been put on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 3) Bill 2019. I'm going to begin my observations by misquoting Oscar Wilde and say that to reject a sound amendment once is unfortunate, but to reject it twice is careless.

We're finding ourselves here again, debating the most simple of propositions and we are going to see speaker after speaker raise very sensible public policy reasons why one of the foundational elements of the regulation of the financial sector—transparency—should be applied on a level playing field, and there will be not a word from those opposite—not a word. We've had what can only be described as a very lame document provided, as I think the shadow Treasurer may have said, in Marcel Marceau fashion. In the dead of night a document was passed across the chamber which said, 'We will get back to you on our reasons for rejecting this very sound amendment multiple times when we respond to a report that was lodged years ago.' This is government at glacier pace. This is not something that warrants multiple years of consideration.

Let's start with the basic proposition here—transparency. This is something I would hope people across the aisle could agree with: transparency is absolutely foundational to our regulation of the financial services sector. The royal commission highlighted this. The royal commission was something which we on this side had to drag those on the other side, kicking and screaming, into agreeing to. But, once it was established, it demonstrated with absolute crystal clarity why it is so important that we expose our financial services sector to transparency and why that transparency should be comprehensive and applied throughout on a level playing field. I'm on the House economics committee. Time and time again, we see the results of that royal commission played out and the damage that has been done to individuals throughout our society because organisations weren't held to account through transparent regimes.

As earlier speakers have noted, this is a measure brought in as a temporary measure a quarter of a century ago. So that's only a small amount of time longer than this government is taking to respond to a straightforward report that was tabled many years ago. It is nonsensical that this measure, this exemption, is not being removed when it has been subject to such a sensible amendment. This exemption creates a two-tiered system without any public policy rationale, and the two-tiered system means that some of our country's wealthiest individuals, through proprietary companies, are not having to report to ASIC in a way that other companies are. It's creating a two-tiered system with a completely arbitrary cut-off. Those companies that were on the list in 1995 don't have to report to ASIC; those after 1995 do. There is absolutely no public policy rationale for this distinction. In fact, it is such an absurd situation that even when companies want to remove themselves from the list, even when they don't want the exemption to apply to them, it's impossible for that to occur. Malcolm Turnbull tried to get his company removed from the exemption and that couldn't happen. That's one of the few actions he's taken in recent years that I support, but it was blocked by his own government.

In government, we proposed getting rid of this exemption for companies with turnovers of more than $100 million. The coalition overturned that change. That was on the basis, in part, of the fact that some proprietary companies could face kidnapping or commercial disadvantage. So again, as I mentioned yesterday, this is the absurdity of where we are at the moment. Those opposite, to the extent that they have laid out any policy rationale for this distinction, seem to imagine that kidnappers have some exhaustive record of ASIC records and when companies were formed or when they got different exemptions or not. This is a bizarre situation that has absolutely no justification on public policy grounds.

What we face here today is that the Senate is sending back a very sensible amendment which the Senate has passed twice now. It is an amendment that stands on its own merits, but it's also an amendment that aligns with broader objectives of transparency that should be more important than ever. As the shadow Assistant Treasurer said, at times like this, transparency is more important than ever, particularly after all that we've seen coming out of the royal commission. We should support this amendment.

See this speech in context