Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I won't make a lengthy contribution on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, and partly that's because, out of the five schedules that this bill contains, two have been featured in previous legislation brought forward by this government and have to be now brought forward again. It is getting just a tad repetitive, I have to say—seeing the government's bumbling of its own legislative agenda over the course of this parliament.

But there are two major parts of this legislation that I do want to address my comments to. The first is schedule 2. Schedule 2 does some very important work, though it's probably not abundantly clear on the face of the legislation that it does. It increases the maximum possible penalties that can be set out in a prescribed industry code under the Competition and Consumer Act. This, in practice, will affect the franchising code, and this is being done in response to inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I was a member during the last parliament, into franchising. The government's previous attempts to increase these penalties hit the rocks because the penalty increase was nowhere near substantial enough. Labor applied pressure to the government, and I'm glad to see that it has now put forward these amendments in a way that reflects the seriousness of the recommendations and the need to increase the penalties available under codes like the franchising code.

The previous Morrison government proposal proposed only a defined maximum of $133,000 for a fine—otherwise known as a slap on the wrist—for those franchisors that were found to be breaching the code. Despite a bipartisan committee report, the report of the inquiry that I referred to earlier, emphasising the need for a significant increase in penalties to be made available under the franchising code, the government's previous position was not going to deliver that. At the time, James Voortman, the CEO of the Australian Automotive Dealer Association, said that the government's proposed $133,200 penalty wouldn't even cop a mention in the annual report of a large multinational car manufacturer, and that is why they needed a penalty with teeth. Meanwhile, the CEO of the Australian Association of Franchisees, Mike Sullivan, agreed, saying that the proposed fines put forward by the Morrison government in that legislation were barely a slap on the wrist. The punishment now will be fines of up to $10 million, and that will have a real impact on the massive scale of operations that can be covered by the franchising code. It's about time that this government actually got around to standing up for the mum and dad franchisee business owners and operators who have been doing it hard with an imbalance of power for far too long. That's why we're very happy to support this component of the bill.

I also wanted to address schedule 5 of the bill because it is vitally important, and it is well overdue. Schedule 5 amends the Taxation Administration Act and the Family Law Act to create a new mechanism for sharing superannuation information in family law proceedings. Labor has been calling for this reform for many, many years, as have the family law sector and the domestic violence sector. The government announced this measure way back in November 2018 as part of its Women's Economic Security Statement, which means, clearly, for the last three years the government's been quite content with economic insecurity for the women of Australia. Typically, it's been too little, too late from this government, being delayed by nearly three years. It's simply not good enough. However, it gives a very good indication of this government's level of care.

The lack of visibility of superannuation accounts when it comes to family law proceedings is particularly damaging to the interests of divorced women, but, really, it's damaging to any former partner who will get the rough end of the financial stick. It's a well-known fact that women are at disproportionate risk of retiring with low superannuation balances, and this is particularly true for people who experience divorce or family breakdown. The lack of visibility of superannuation assets means that those assets may not be divided equally between the partners, as the current system allows assets—usually, but not always, the man's—to be hidden from the other spouse and, indeed, from the court.

This legislation will go a long way towards supporting people who are often at their wits' end in dealing with divorce proceedings. This will help level the playing field. Fundamentally, these provisions are about fairness and transparency. Anyone who opposes these measures is quite literally trying to hide something. I think it is important for people to understand the real, practical effect of making these changes by thinking about what had to happen before. While courts have had the power to deal with these superannuation accounts—though, frankly, in Western Australia only very recently have we passed legislation to enable the dealing of superannuation accounts between de facto couples, and that took way too long—when it comes with dealing with this, the courts need to be aware of the existence of those superannuation accounts. Far too often, and quite understandably, the spouse in the divorce proceedings is not aware of the superannuation account situation for the partner that they are divorcing. In fact, sometimes people aren't even aware of their own superannuation circumstances, having ghost accounts that are still living on, that haven't been closed from employment many years ago, or having funds held by the ATO that were insufficient to end up in a superannuation account.

That all means that even a partner who is trying to disclose everything may not know, and may not think about doing the full searches to find out, their full superannuation circumstances. For the other partner, where they believe, or even if they're not aware, that there are superannuation assets that are not being disclosed to them and to the court, to chase that down, to obtain subpoenas from the court and to make inquiries of every possible superannuation fund is time consuming, hugely expensive and, frankly, can be a complete waste of time. It's especially a waste of time when all of that information is already known to the ATO.

These changes allowing requests for information to go via a court registry to the ATO to provide that matched information, the information that's required for the court to make a determination about a fair, equitable and just split of assets between the divorcing couple, will make this process a lot simpler and will make sure that assets are not missed or overlooked. Crucially, in those small number of circumstances, it will mean that, where a partner has decided deliberately to dispose of assets into a superannuation account that is not disclosed and that their former partner would have no way of ever knowing about, it will be found and brought to the court's attention so that there can be a just result when it comes to the separation and division of assets between the separating couple through divorce.

When we boil it down, who suffers, ultimately, when this is not done fairly or justly? Not just is it the former partner but it's the children. We must always ask these questions: What is in the best interests of the kids? What is the fairest outcome? The changes in this schedule of this legislation are about fairness and about justice, and they are long overdue. I commend this bill to the House.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. I will just make a couple of brief comments. This bill is part of the Morrison government's economic plan to deliver for Australians right across the country. It has five key schedules which address a broad range of issues, including large-scale energy generation shortfall changes, industry codes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, requirements for superannuation funds and, importantly, measures to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings.

Schedule 1 of the bill addresses the large-scale generation shortfall charge. Currently, energy retailers and other liable entities must relinquish large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. If businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of this charge. The establishment of this process was intended to provide flexibility to assist businesses to manage the cost of compliance. These amendments make it clear that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall charges refunded. The bill will also ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. There are no changes to renewable energy targets and no decrease in penalties for noncompliance.

The Morrison government's plan for our energy markets will continue to help drive down power prices and reduce emissions. Our focus remains on bringing the cost of new technology down, rather than raising the cost of traditional sources, such as coal and gas, that continue to play an important role in our energy mix. It's our 'technology not taxes' approach that will continue to help guarantee access to affordable and reliable power for Australian households and businesses, including in my electorate of Robertson. I really do hear regularly from Central Coast business owners, like Anthony from Clarke Dowdle & Associates, about how important lower electricity prices are to his business. Anthony told me that lower power bills reduce his overall business expenses, meaning that he can continue to employ local residents in his small business at Umina Beach. I know that the government will continue to work to deliver for hardworking households and businesspeople like Anthony right around Australia.

Schedule 2 of the bill addresses industry code penalties under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This includes establishing a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. Penalties will be increased across a range of areas. For industry codes generally the maximum civil monetary penalty will be increased from 300 to 600 penalty units, while for a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For noncorporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be $500,000.

These changes are important to limit the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small business franchisees, many of whom are based in my electorate of Robertson, right across the Central Coast and, indeed, around Australia. So appropriate penalties will provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code and allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to help protect prospective or vulnerable franchisees against exploitative behaviour.

Schedule 3 of the bill addresses a requirement for actuarial certificates for certain superannuation funds. It delivers on the government's commitment to reduce red tape and costs for affected superannuation funds by removing a redundant requirement for trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate in certain circumstances. This measure benefits self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA regulated funds and will apply to assessments from the 2021-22 income year. The Morrison government will continue its focus on reducing bureaucracy and red tape, including in the superannuation sector, ensuring that hardworking people can continue to save for their future.

Schedule 4 of the bill will strengthen industry codes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It will do this by clarifying the industry codes can validly confer powers and functions on third parties for commercial relationships between industry participants. These roles have been established over time as industry codes are regularly reviewed and amended to improve their operation. Industry participants recognise the important role that third parties play in assisting with the administration or regulation of such codes. These amendments will reduce legal risks for the Commonwealth and address unintended ambiguity, promoting confidence and a clearer understanding of the industry codes.

Schedule 5 of the bill will improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. This is an important reform, and the schedule implements measures announced as part of the government's Women's Economic Security Statement 2018, and provides a legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism. This will allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to registries requesting superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian Taxation Office. Parties will then be able to use this to seek up-to-date information from their former partner's fund. We know that superannuation is often one of the most significant assets in a separated couple's asset pool. So with the passage of this legislation, separating couples will have access to faster and fairer family law property settlements, which will make it easier to identify lost or undisclosed superannuation assets and harder for parties to hide or underdisclose assets.

This measure will also assist individuals, particularly women, who are often disproportionately impacted in divorce settlements, to avoid the costs and complexity involved in seeking superannuation information from multiple superannuation funds. The proposed changes will come into effect from 1 April next year. I do hear from a lot of locals residents in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales, just about every week, about their struggles with the family law system. We know that relationship breakdowns can have a significant impact on not just former partners but their children, family members and loved ones. Property disputes add further stress at a very, very difficult time, so I do welcome anything that provides greater transparency and clarity for both partners. I commend this bill to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, particularly schedule 1, which improves the operation of the large-scale Renewable Energy Target scheme, otherwise known as the RET. Established under the Howard government in 2001, the RET is designed to fast-track the reduction of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. The RET allows large-scale renewable power stations and the owners of small-scale solar and wind systems to create tradeable certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate and sell them to electricity retailers who cannot meet their annual renewable targets.

Schemes like the RET are complex to administer and need close supervision to ensure that they work as intended. For example, the certificates need expert accreditation to make sure we accurately count renewable generation. We can write down whatever numbers we want on a spreadsheet, but the real CO2 emissions in the atmosphere do not lie. We must be as close to reality as possible. Certificate supply also needs monitoring to ensure the price is high enough to incentivise electricity retailers to transition faster to renewables in the medium term. The annual reporting deadlines also need flexibility to ensure well-intentioned energy retailers who meet their targets, on average over several years, can have any penalty fees appropriately reimbursed. Schedule 1 of this bill does just that.

We should be thankful the RET has survived, though. It was, after all, the coalition government who tried to gut the RET in 2013 and subsequently dialled back ambition. The RET has been key to ushering in the renewable energy boom in this nation, but there is definitely more room to achieve greater penetration through more ambitious targets. Without this we risk jeopardising our share in the profits of these historic levels of investment, particularly in the regions, the home of large-scale renewables.

Every year, regional Australians have to see billions of energy dollars draining out of their towns offshore or into the cities. Imagine, just imagine, the difference it would make if that money stayed local and was reinvested into our regional communities. That's why I introduced the Australian Local Power Agency Bill, which would require any new large-scale renewable energy project in Australia to make the offer to local communities for a chance to co-invest up to 20 per cent in the project. That's not ideology. It's just common sense and really good regional Australian policy. In Germany, farmers own 10 per cent of all renewable energy, and everyday people own another 30 per cent. Imagine what that kind of local reinvestment would mean for farmers in a drought, having a substantial income stream that pays off year after year, rain, hail or shine, or for skills development and jobs for local people. We can't let this golden opportunity slip through our fingers.

The regions are also leading the way in small-scale renewable energy generation, especially in the community energy space. Data published by the Clean Energy Regulator shows that an outsized proportion of the 4.2 million small-scale solar and wind installations that have claimed certificates under the RET since its inception in2001 has been in the regions. This wouldn't surprise anyone who lives in the regions. It sure as heck doesn't surprise me. In my electorate of Indi, this transformation is happening everywhere you look, from Yackandandah to Euroa. That's why the ALPA Bill I introduced would provide funding and technical support for everyday communities just like them to fast-track the development of their own small-scale renewable energy projects.

Regional Australians, right now, are rolling up their sleeves and making up for lost time, and we should be backing them in. I can't tell you how many people contact my office about exactly this—residential aged-care facilities, sporting clubs, schools, fire stations, councils. Everyday people are asking for advice on how they can put solar on their rooftop or add a battery out the back. They're looking to save money or make sure they can keep the lights on in a crisis, and right now there's nowhere I can point them. Grant schemes are piecemeal, and there's never enough to go around, and these grassroots community organisations often lack the technical expertise to even know where to start.

With the right backing, local renewables could skyrocket, and imagine then what we could achieve under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme if we truly invested in local communities doing local renewable energy. We wouldn't have to hide behind accounting tricks and targets so we could set them and try to meet them in any old canter. We wouldn't need to do that. Like the gold rush before it, renewable energy could drive a real economic renaissance in the region.

This Friday, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy will hold a public inquiry into my Australian Local Power Agency Bill, and I invite all MPs listening to this debate on the Renewable Energy Target to tune in and hear from everyone, from local community energy groups to town mayors and the National Farmers Federation, who see this untapped economic potential I'm talking about and are going to talk about it too. Schemes like the RET are a solid start, but we cannot lose sight of the golden opportunities right before us.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill. I'm just going to pick out three key areas: firstly, the Renewable Energy Target, or, as the member for Indi said, the RET; industry codes of conduct; and also—no surprises—superannuation transparency, where women's economic security will be improved.

The Renewable Energy Target or the RET is a scheme that's designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources. The target is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator under two schemes. The first is the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, which encourages investment in renewable power stations to achieve 33,000 gigawatt hours of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020. The second is the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which supports small-scale installations like household solar panels and solar hot water systems. According to CSIRO, Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar globally. The Clean Energy Regulator data shows that more than 2.68 million rooftop solar power systems in total have been installed in Australia as of 31 December 2020. That means that one in four homes across our country have solar panels on their roofs—including my own!

The Renewable Energy Target works by allowing both large-scale power stations and the owners of small-scale systems to create large-scale generation certificates and small-scale technology certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate. The certificates are then purchased by electricity retailers, who supply the electricity to households and businesses and submit it to the Clean Energy Regulator to meet the retailer's legal obligations under the Renewable Energy Target. This creates a market which provides financial incentives to both large-scale renewable energy power stations and the owners of small-scale renewable energy systems.

It's always been the case with the RET scheme that energy retailers and other liable entities are required to surrender large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. Should businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of the shortfall charge. This was intended to provide flexibility to help these businesses manage the costs of their compliance. This schedule provides certainty that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall charges refunded to them. This will clarify the operation of the tax treatment and ensure the market for large-scale generation certificates works as is intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. That's something that we all want in Australia. So this measure will apply to refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges paid since 1 January 2019, and it's estimated to cost $70 million over the forward estimates.

Schedule 2 in the bill is the industry code penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Industry codes of conduct can provide the necessary regulatory support and environment for industry. They can guard against misconduct and opportunistic behaviour while fostering long-term changes to business culture. They can be described as a set of rules or standards of conduct for an industry, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. Codes of conduct can be mandatory or voluntary.

Voluntary codes are a form of industry self-regulation. Voluntary industry codes are usually flexible and can change in response to industry or consumer needs. They set out specific standards of conduct for an industry, including how to deal with its members and its customers. An example of a voluntary industry code, for those listening, is currently the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which was introduced to improve standards of business conduct in the food and grocery sector. I once worked in this sector as a food merchandiser, filling the freezers in Woolworths and Coles with frozen peas. I also worked as a food sales representative. So I've experienced this code in action, and a very important voluntary code it is as well.

Mandatory codes provide a set of rules or minimum standards for an industry—again, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. An example of a mandatory code is the Franchising Code of Conduct, and, now, the new car dealership agreements which fall under that code; I will talk about those as well. The government recently announced a suite of reforms to the automotive industry. The reforms transformed the voluntary principles into mandatory obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct. The guidance was developed in consultation with industry to improve fairness and transparency in dealership arrangements, and the amendments to the code follow the government's response to the Fairness in franchising report and also reflect further automotive franchising reforms that the government announced on 12 March 2021.

This schedule is about the establishment of a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. For industry codes generally, the maximum civil penalty amount will be increased from 300 to 600 penalty units or $133,200. For a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained from contravention of the code or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For non-corporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be half a million dollars. This increase in penalties in the franchising code is necessary and appropriate, given the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small and family business—music to my ears. I know a little bit about this in terms of conditions that existed some years ago before this code became mandatory for franchisees and franchisors. In some industries, franchisors, unfairly, did have the upper hand.

Before coming to this place, I worked as a national development management for a national buying group with over 100 stores. That particular buying group had an excellent deal in place for its members with minimal fees and a raft of value measures in place that enhanced the retailer's business model. If I may say, the store owners and staff were supported well with business coaching and national and local marketing campaigns at virtually no cost to them. Often mums and dads owned those small and family businesses; in fact, 100 per cent were owned by mums and dads. That is not the business environment that I encountered when I spent a short time working for a franchisor not long after that—a franchisor, whose members were, unfortunately, in minus four per cent growth. It was a very high stress environment for me as the national BDM, trying desperately to turn their businesses around, but the franchisees themselves, of course, were in great distress, and even the most successful of them did not enjoy a sustainable retail business model.

Mums and dads who owned these franchise stores couldn't pay their bills or meet their commitments, which, ultimately, meant losing their business and, often, their homes. Large shopping centres where they were located charged exorbitant fees to fit out stores, and they forced retailers to pay the union costs associated with accessing their sites to fit out new stores, which, at the time, I found unconscionable. In addition, they then charged defit costs to the retailer when they either broke their lease or walked away from their failed businesses. I experienced one instance where the shopping centre, shamefully, charged $30,000 to the retailer for a defit of their store and then leased the store fully fitted out to the next retailer at a higher rate because it was fitted out. That is known as double dipping. It's taking advantage of mum-and-dad retailers and it's not fair business practice. So I say to the Australian public: this is why we have mandatory codes of conduct. It is to stop this sort of practice going on.

One contributing factor to failures of small and family businesses was the fees payable to franchisors that were not reasonable when compared to a percentage of these small businesses' turnover, and another was the lease agreements with large shopping centres that were tied to franchise agreement terms—often five years or five years plus five years. I've also worked to assist those struggling mums and dads who were locked into franchise contracts. I've been with them when they have had to let go of staff and default on their mortgage payments. These are not good times. Therefore, it's necessary to have these mandatory codes of conduct. I have seen it from all perspectives, and I stand up for the mums and dads and the small businesses, of which there are many across Moncrieff. There are 32,000 small businesses in Moncrieff. Many of them are franchisees, and many of them are also good franchisors, I must say.

I want to move forward now to schedule 5, which relates to improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. This schedule implements the improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings measure which was announced as part of the government's Women's economic security statement in 2018. These amendments provide the legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism to allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to the Family Court registries to request superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian tax office. Parties will then be able to use this information from the ATO to seek up-to-date superannuation information from their former partner's superannuation fund.

With the divorce rate at over 50 per cent, we know that many women find themselves at a distinct economic disadvantage later in life, for a couple of reasons. What often happens is that women leave the workforce early in their career to take care of their young family while their spouse continues in the workforce to support the family. Once the children are grown up it is often difficult for women to retrain or to re-enter the workforce, and, of course, all those years have passed and their superannuation balances have not compounded over a long period of time. They simply cannot catch up, although there are concessions for women to be able to deposit larger sums if they earn enough to be able to do so. So, during divorce, women often get a raw deal when it comes to the superannuation that their spouses have accumulated. I have some experience in that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume, for the work that she has done to improve the economic conditions for women through this bill. These amendments will make it harder for parties to hide or underdisclose their superannuation assets in family law proceedings by reducing the time, cost and complexity for parties seeking information about their former partner's superannuation. Improving accessibility to superannuation information will support more separated couples to divide their property on a just and equitable basis and will help alleviate the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes that women can experience after their separation. It will give women the opportunity for clarity and transparency in their divorce settlement with their spouse when it comes to dividing the real assets of the marriage. Parties to family law proceedings will be able to apply to the courts for access to superannuation information from 1 April 2022.

To close, this is good news for Australian women, delivered by Senator Hume and delivered by this government, the Morrison government.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury, as Australia's authoritative body responsible for economic policy, market regulation and federal budgeting, holds an immensely important role in the wider economy for our country. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, before us today, seeks to amend the Treasury laws with respect to how to manage the Australian economy more efficiently and more strongly. The five schedules within this bill each act with intent to carefully regulate the economy so as to ensure fairness and consistency while maintaining our strong Liberal economic values.

The first schedule concerns the refund of large-scale generation shortfall charges under the Renewable Energy Target scheme. This scheme stands to encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. This scheme encourages the use of renewably generated energy sources by energy retailers and is crucial to Australia's adoption of renewables. Renewable energy power stations issue a certificate for every megawatt hour of power they generate. Energy retailers then purchase these certificates to meet the government's guidelines for renewable energy use. Each year the Clean Energy Regulator requires these retailers to surrender their certificates in order to ensure compliance with this ever-important policy. If the retailers fail to surrender sufficient certificates, they are required to pay a hefty shortfall fee. However, if these retailers later surrender the certificates, they are refunded this shortfall fee.

This amendment simply acts to ensure that businesses are not taxed on the shortfall charge refunds received. By unmuddying the water concerning this issue, the Morrison government ensures this anomalous situation does not occur. Ensuring energy retailers are not being incorrectly taxed, these savings will be passed directly on to consumers, ensuring that Australians are able to access clean, renewable energy at lower prices. Let me emphasise that the targets for renewable energy use are unchanged, and there will be no decreased penalties for noncompliance. The Morrison government is proud to maintain a hardline stance on this issue, recognising that renewable energy is crucial in Australia's action on climate change and a clean and renewable future.

The Morrison government is passionate about small business and within that the ongoing success of franchisees. We all know the local mums and dads who are dealing with franchisees and how important it is as a small business in a small community. This government is aware of the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small business franchisees when acted upon unfairly and is enacting this legislation change to protect them.

The amendment before us today allows for greater protection for franchisees against potential exploitative behaviour by franchisors. Schedule 2 increases penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, enacting a strong deterrent against breaches of code. This ensures that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be able to help protect prospective or vulnerable franchisees against exploitative behaviour. This bill is just one part of the Morrison government's greater commitment to the strength and stability of small businesses in Australia, a core tenet of liberalism and this government's action in the area.

Schedule 4 simply acts to strengthen the industry codes under this same act. Both corporations and individuals will still be regulated under the same codes. The amendment stands to provide additional legal certainly to all entities involved by validating pre-existing regulations. This amendment acts to ensure that both corporations and individuals can validly confer powers on third parties to a commercial relationship between industry participants. In doing so the Morrison government decreases legal risks to the Commonwealth as well as ensuring our industry codes are free from ambiguity, again strengthening the codes that the corporations need to follow.

In continued action by the Morrison government to support small businesses, schedule 3 of this bill acts to remove unnecessary red tape barring small APRA regulated superannuation funds, as well as self-managed superannuation funds, from operating efficiently. Self-managed super funds—and we know self-funded retirees have worked hard in order to make sure that they're able to live well in their later lives and not be dependent on government handouts—have previously been required to possess a costly actuarial certificate in order to calculate exempt current pensions incomes, even in the retirement period where the participants are merely drawing down on the value of their hard-earned superannuation portfolios. The Morrison government wishes to remove the red tape that forces trustees to acquire certificates. That investment of hard-earned money can be better used in the enjoyment of retirement after a long working life. By permitting funds to use the segregated method to calculate exempt current pension income, the redundant regulation requiring certificates is removed and these small and self-managed super funds are left to operate more freely and efficiently to the benefit of older Australians enjoying the fruits of a lifetime of labour.

Schedule 5 of this bill also surrounds superannuation and is of particular importance as it acts to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. First announced in 2018 by the Morrison government as part of the Women's Economic Security Statement, this schedule makes it harder for individuals to underdisclose assets during separation proceedings. I'd like to acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Women's Economic Security, the Hon. Senator Jane Hume, for her work on this bill. Separated couples will be able to apply to the Family Court registries to request superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian Taxation Office.

This legislation allows separated couples to justly divide assets, alleviating the financial hardship that is often felt more by the female side of the partnership because, as we know, women are less likely to have superannuation nest eggs because of their caring duties in the home. We know that Australian women currently receive a third of the superannuation payout that men do, sitting at $37,000 compared to men's $110,000. Moreover, women tend to work fewer full-time hours than men, as they so often carry much of the burden of raising children. I'm pleased to say that in the modern world that is changing, but at the end of the day even in full-time positions women still earn less on average than men, with many losing crucial career developing years because they're raising children. Of course, that is their choice, but they are building their family and it's important that we support the economic security of women in Australia. As it stands, these women, and for that matter anyone having to go through separation, are not facing a fair battle throughout the proceedings, with it commonplace for individuals to hide their assets in an unfair attempt to unjustly split assets. The Morrison government views this as inappropriate and, as such, is acting with this amendment to protect all individuals going through separation so that there is a just and economically fair way of going through the proceedings. If someone is already coping with the emotional battle of separation then the least we can do is to provide peace of mind that one party will not be hung out to dry in the harsh winds of financial hardship that may disproportionately affect one member of that separation.

At the time of the announcement of this measure as part of the Women's Economic Security Package, it was estimated to have a cost of $120 million. We believe that to rectify this situation is important for family law disputes. Where individuals may have had to rely on long and costly legal action, including subpoenas and court orders, to receive this information in the past, this amendment acts to clear up the proceedings—not only to place a focus on the fairness in the division of assets but also on the timeliness of proceedings.

In closing, the schedules under the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 will allow the Australian economy to flow more freely and more fairly. With protections for small franchisee businesses under schedule 2 and the fair taxation of energy providers under schedule 1, through to helping people with their super, the Morrison government is enacting promises made under past budgets as a commitment to the Australian people for a brighter economic future. I commend this bill to the House.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Freelander, I know what you're thinking! What an opportunity to be in the chair while we're debating another TLAB bill! I know that there's just a sense of excitement which befalls this building whenever we're into TLAB—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You get the vibe—it's very good!

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As much as my good friend the Assistant Treasurer tries to make out that these bills are the best thing since sliced bread, they're often very perfunctory.

Of course, this Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 is the sixth such bill this year. But there are two schedules in this bill that I want to make a brief contribution about, noting in particular the hour and the impending adjournment speeches—which I'm sure will be much more exciting than the contributions that have been made in relation to TLAB No. 6. The schedules that I'm particularly interested in are, unsurprisingly, those schedules which have garnered some attention during this debate: schedule 2 and schedule 5.

Schedule 2, of course, has the industry code penalties under part 4B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. We've heard other speakers who have made contributions about the fact that, effectively, this schedule takes penalty provisions and ramps them right up. This is important because penalties are important for two principal reasons. The first is to operate as specific deterrents but, equally importantly—and I'd suggest to those who may be listening to this contribution, more importantly—they provide a general deterrent. We know from the member for Higgins and from other contributors how important small and family businesses are. We also understand and know how many of those small and family businesses operate under the franchise model. It's an incredibly successful model and it has worked well across very many industries. But there's an inherent danger in it, and that inherent danger is the inequity of bargaining power as it relates to entering into that agreement at the get-go. It's very much a 'take it or leave it' approach in relation to very large corporates with offices full of franchising law experts versus mum-and-dad operators who just want to have a go.

This schedule has penalty provisions which will ensure that that inequity in bargaining power is balanced more appropriately. When I say 'penalties' I mean that it's fair enough the penalty units have gone from 300 to 600. But, for a breach of the franchising codes by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit obtained from the contravention or 10 per cent of the annual turnover. There are circumstances in which this penalty will be bigger or higher than you could fly a rocket ship over. So that specific and general deterrent will operate very, very effectively. I only wish that we'd had these provisions in place when we saw the outrageous behaviour of General Motors as it related to Australian franchisees in and around our communities.

My electorate has some very large employers, but many of those large employers happen to be the large car dealerships. To drive past the once proud Holden dealerships in my electorate, to see them denuded and to know that the hardworking men and women in my electorate in small business have provided the capital effectively to establish those facilities, and to think that General Motors has benefited from that investment and to see them skulk away from this nation—a nation that embraced their brand—quite frankly was disgusting. I'm pleased to see that this particular provision will go a very long way to preventing that kind of behaviour in the future.

I did say there were two schedules of importance. I'm not going to rank them. Equally important, I think, is schedule 5 and our approach to improve the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. The pool of assets in a family law matter traditionally was the home and perhaps some effects and chattels, like a car. But, of course, as superannuation balances have grown, so has the importance of that superannuation asset in the pool to be determined, settled or distributed in the course of a family law proceeding.

Before coming to this place I was a practitioner, but I'm pleased to tell you, Deputy Speaker, I was much happier dealing with defendants facing criminal proceedings than I would have been working for jilted lovers, so I stayed very much away; I never acted in relation to family law matters. But within the practice, particularly the one I was employed in before establishing my own practice, there were family law practitioners. I've got to tell you; the stories about trying to get basic information about a spouse's superannuation balance would beggar belief. They would involve rifling through filing cabinets and producing a document that might be four or five years old. Quite frankly, if a request were made formally from practitioner to practitioner for disclosure of that information, there was no legal requirement for that to be provided, and often clients would instruct practitioners not to provide that information. This meant that the parties were entering into negotiations, mediations, settlements et cetera effectively blind to the balance of the pool. That's unacceptable. It's particularly unacceptable, as we've heard from others making contributions this evening, that on average women have lower balances in their superannuation than men and that there are very many occasions in which that asset in the pool was hidden from the wife seeking a fair distribution of that pool.

Schedule 5 seeks to correct that. It seeks to make it permissible, on application to the court, from 1 April 2022, that the parties to Family Court proceedings may seek an order for disclosure of superannuation material. It stands to reason. In a way, it's surprising that we've gotten to 2021. Forget about arguments from those opposite that this was announced in 2018 or otherwise. I'm quite frankly surprised that we've come into this century having to establish this particular requirement. It should have been done in the last one, and it should have perhaps been done upon the establishment of superannuation itself. I can't reiterate enough how gobsmacked I was as a young practitioner to learn that there was no requirement on a party to disclose this information in effectively what amounts to a civil proceeding—that is, a family law settlement matter. I'm very pleased to have been part of a government and—given the support of those opposite—part of a parliament that is righting what is a very obvious wrong. With that, I'll conclude my contribution.

Debate interrupted.