Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 104 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5—Review of provisions and sunsetting

1 Review of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting subitem (1), the review must consider the following:

(a) the efficacy of the amendments;

(b) the appropriateness of the amendments as a permanent features of the insolvency regime;

(c) any further amendments recommended to be made to the insolvency regime if the amendments made by this Act operated for a longer period of time or permanently;

(d) the effect of the amendments made by this Act on unincorporated small business creditors such as sole traders and partnerships, including any increase in individual bankruptcies that are correlated with, or attributable to, the amendments.

(3) The review must commence no later than 31 December 2021.

(4) The person or persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review by 31 March 2022.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after it is given to the Minister.

2 Sunsetting of amendments

An Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is taken, on and after the following day, to have effect as if the amendments made by this Act to that Act had not been made:

(a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—31 December 2022; or

(b) if the review has not commenced by 31 December 2021 in accordance with subitem 1(3)—31 December 2021.

In speaking to the amendments, briefly making some comments in relation to the amendment, as I said in the second reading debate, we support the objectives that have caused the government to bring these measures before the House. We note that these measures have been bought forward in great haste and with minimal consultation. We note that many stakeholders have raised some issues in relation to the measures that have been brought before the House. We note that the measures alter the relationship between, on one hand, those who owe money and, on the other hand, those to whom money is owed. Whenever we alter those relationships, there are consequences, some of them seen, some of them unseen. We also note that we are establishing an entirely new classification or category of profession in relation to insolvency practitioner. We understand the motivation that the government has in bringing this forward and we support the motivation.

We have reservations about unforeseen consequences, which is why the amendments that we bring before the House today don't cause delay to the passage of these bills before the House. But they do do two things. Firstly, they impose a requirement for a statutory review, which I understand to be something that the government will support. Secondly, they impose a requirement that the new provisions be sunsetted. I understand that the government does not support that proposition. I just want to make clear that the sunset provision gives ample time for us to get through the crisis, for us to get through the stock of anticipated insolvencies, for a review to occur and for the emergency provisions to be sunsetted, unless they are altered by new provisions that may enjoy the agreement of both houses of this place. With those brief observations, I commend the amendments to the House.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, be disagreed to.