Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's great to be able to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 and a number of amendments, which are all of incredible importance to the ongoing nature of the Australian economy in supporting industries throughout this pandemic and as part of the ongoing strength of different sectors in the future. We all know we're going through incredibly challenging times right now, but while we sit in this chamber and are fortunate enough to live in, shall we say, predictable circumstances, even if we have our masks on and the like, the economic impacts of different aspects of COVID-19 are very uneven, depending on the sectors that you work in. Of course, some people have thrived. If you work in a large corporate entity or a large corporate retailer, in some cases business has never been better. In some cases that is true because one of the direct consequences of lockdown is to take people out of small businesses and concentrate them in big corporates. I think we need to be very mindful that many of the measures that are taken in the interest of public health are exacerbating inequality and favouring the few at the expense of the many, particularly small businesses.

But there are other sectors as well—for instance, the many people who work in hospitality in Victoria. And a sector that is often overlooked as part of the broader discussion around hospitality is live events. In the wonderful Goldstein electorate, wedding reception venues have had to cancel bookings due to the different waves of lockdown we've had. Of course, people booking future events has been heavily contingent on their sense of confidence that they're not going to have future lockdowns. People made bookings towards the end of last year and at the start of this year thinking that the long lockdown in Victoria last year was going to be the last. But the ongoing rolling lockdowns that have persisted throughout Victoria this year mean it has become increasingly difficult for anybody to put any money down on the table. No doubt, this will persist because there is a legacy effect and a lag that comes directly from these lockdown events. I know people who have had their wedding cancelled twice. They're not rushing to put down a deposit a third time, because they could be in the same situation—flights are booked, honeymoons are booked, friends' time schedules are booked out and, of course, they organise things like catering, flowers and the like. And a lot of community events have faced similar challenges. In fact, even our own political parties have booked to organise fundraisers or community-spirited events and they've had to be cancelled. I've had that experience myself.

Another sector of the economy that has taken a big hit is live music venues. And people who put on performances in the artistic sector have had their bookings hit too. And, of course, there are sectors in the economy that have traditionally relied upon the movement of people, particularly areas like screen production for television and for the cinema. Part of this bill is to recognise some of the challenges that the different parts of the sector have faced in the contemporary world, not just in the context of COVID-19 but as part of the broader obligations around tax offsets to incentivise production in Australia.

The objective of this bill is to make those measures more favourable for the sector but also more competitive. We don't want Australia to be a desirable destination for production off the back of pseudo-protectionism; we want Australian stories to be told because they reflect the very best of who we are. Sometimes these are stories of hardship, challenge and tragedy. We want that to be done because we believe that we see the best of humanity in Australia and these are stories that are powerful and can move people. The more compelling they are, the more they are produced understanding how to enliven, embolden, entertain and encourage an audience, or even to draw on emotions, the more likely they are to be successful and for the success of our country to be presented on screen to the rest of the world as well as being reflected back to us. We don't want productions made for subsidies alone, for the purposes of production alone; we want productions to be made and stories to be told because they reflect the best of what this nation has to offer and to reflect this back to ourselves as well as to the rest of the world. We want to make sure the policy settings are in place to ensure that those stories are told to advance our national interest.

Another important part of this bill, which might seem minor and technical, particularly in the Treasury portfolio, is schedule 3 of the bill, which deals with clarification of the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intent and makes minor policy changes to correct technical or drafting defects around Parliamentary Counsel and the like. These don't excite or energise anybody but they are as important as having legal instruments in place designed to advance the application of tax law.

The other one is in the area of corporate insolvency reforms, where there are some amendments in terms of making sure that small businesses can operate successfully within an insolvency framework. That insolvency framework is actually something that's very important and that has been very important as a result of COVID-19, where we know a lot of companies have faced challenges around insolvency because of changing business circumstances, obviously as a direct result of government decision-making and the flow-through effect. The Morrison government provided some relief from insolvency provisions throughout last year to make sure that those companies are in the best position to survive and to trade through, particularly in circumstances outside of their control and which have significant impact on themselves but little to do with their own decision-making, including even if they were accepting responsibility.

Before question time, I gave a very abrupt 90-second speech, and I did so to table some important documents. But it actually touches on these issues around liquidation and insolvency, so I think it's important that I have the opportunity to address the substance of those documents in this speech because it gives life to the provisions which this bill, in part, seeks to address—which is to make the point that the strength of our nation comes from strong citizens, communities and, of course, commerce. A poor nation is a weaker nation to defend itself and its interests, in comparison to a strong one. When foreign interests seek to undermine our citizens, communities and commerce, they seek to corrode those strong foundations of our nation.

If an Australian company were maliciously liquidated at the direction of a Chinese state linked entity, this House would be rightly outraged, and should be. This is why I brought to the attention of the House the liquidation of Sargon at the request of Taiping Trustees, as the financing arm of the Chinese state linked enterprise China Taiping. The documents that came into my possession and have been presented to the House appear to indicate that there was a deliberate campaign by China Taiping to trigger the receivership of Sargon. The documents allude that, through the use of a PR firm, stories were deliberately seeded to raise doubts about the sustainability of Sargon, to advance the interests of China Taiping. The allegations include that interest payments on finance were deliberately redirected to present a failure to service debt. Consequently, contractual terms would be triggered, allowing for the appointment of an administrator to then appoint a liquidator of Sargon.

By triggering such terms, ASIC does not scrutinise the claims of the creditors, China Taiping, and whether interest has been paid or not. The allegation, in doing so, has allowed China Taiping to take control of Sargon and its assets, physical and intellectual. Like with many members that table documents, the documents that were presented only inform part of a complex picture. But there is a public benefit, should the allegations be investigated and made out, because the documents include financial statements of Sargon, China Taiping and their trustee implying payments were made and seemingly misdirected to trigger contractual terms. These are serious allegations, of course, and the documents are tabled to ensure scrutiny in the interests of Australian companies that might secure finance from Chinese state inked entities and, should the claims be made out, a warning. The documents were also tabled in the hope that ASIC may review the matter and consider whether the appropriate course of action was taken in that situation. Therefore, I will be writing to ASIC to seek their views and what action they intend to take in the context of the China Taiping-Sargon matter.

Making sure that insolvency provisions work effectively for businesses and uphold interests, including the investment and effort that is made, while not allowing them to be manipulated or utilised by domestic or foreign entities, is of critical importance. So these amendments that are before the House today in this treasury laws amendment bill provide for part of an ongoing discussion to make sure that screen producers and those who invest in the production of the telling of Australian stories get the support that they need and that it's adapted based on changing circumstances, and that insolvency provisions in Australia today work effectively to support small and medium businesses to be able to trade through difficult times and, if they need restructuring, to be able to go on trading so that they can be successful. Nobody wants to see businesses fall over with liabilities. They would rather a situation where they find a pathway to success to continue to go on and employ Australians, but also to be able to make sure that they honour all of their creditors and obligations, and avoid liquidation where possible.

Of course, sadly, we know that in some cases that is not the outcome that is achieved. But surely the objective of the law should be first to give people pathways to adjust and find their way through that challenge, rather than simply seek first to liquidate and become insolvent. I would've thought we would all agree with that, because we want a successful and thriving small business sector, and I'm hoping you're going to nod, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, to show that, like me, you want to see a successful and thriving small business sector. I'm seeing a nod there. That's good. In fact, I might even get one from the member for Fenner as well if we keep going at this rate—and even from the shadow Treasurer. You never know your luck in the big House!

There are minor technical amendments that deal with issues of tax design to make sure that the law works effectively to advance the interests of Australia. But, of course, nothing will improve the operation of the tax system more than the simplification of the system and the flattening of the rate across the board so that there is no intention of or incentive for people to change their economic behaviour to seek lower tax rates. It's not just that we should do it because it's economically efficient. Sure, that's always a consequence, but we should do it because it's just and because the people who benefit from the complexity of the tax system are the rich, the powerful and those with entrenched interests.

We need to make sure that the tax system reflects not just the challenges of the 21st century, though it must, and we need to do this not just to provide a pathway for the next generation of Australians to thrive and survive—a pathway that encourages them to work, save and invest in their own future for the security of themselves and their families—but to make sure that we don't create a system that entrenches privilege and vested interests and a system where people are able to earn more from the income from and the growth of their assets than from their labour. That is one of the most fundamental principles of a truly liberal society.

When people can earn more and be taxed less because of the holding of assets over income, it rewards capital interests against labour, and that means that you entrench those interests and you break apart what I think of as one of the fundamental principles that has made this nation successful and strong, which is to turn to the next generation and say: 'You get your equal chance too. We will back you to be able to realise your opportunity.' But, in the words of the Prime Minister, rightly, to have a go you've got to get a go. But when you actually entrench interests through law, particularly through a rigged tax system that favours the few at the expense of the many, what you do is turn around to the next generation of Australians and say: 'We will, at your expense, protect those who came before you and are often—particularly because of the way the tax system works—heavily dependent on income tax. We will funnel your cash. While you haven't even had your chance, we will protect those who have had their chance, and have done very well out of it.'

That's one of the reasons it's so important that we provide a pathway for young Australians to secure their own home and that we promote home ownership. Home ownership isn't just about a financial resource, though it is one. It's also about providing a pathway for economic security and independence for the next generation of Australians to support themselves and their families. That's why it is the most important financial decision that Australians make.

See this speech in context