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

I want to say at the outset that we'll be moving a second reading amendment at the conclusion of my comments, so my comments today will go to the second reading amendment and to the bill. Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021. The three amendments it makes to treasury laws are relatively minor and not controversial as far as they go. That said, the second reading amendment that will be moved, and which has been circulated in my name, highlights some specific failings of this government which I will come to in due course. Before I do that, I want to go through the bill and why Labor will support it.

Schedule 1 relates to the collection of data from companies operating in the gig economy by the Australian tax office. It implements a measure recommended by the Black Economy Taskforce some two years ago and is aimed at ensuring electronic platform operators pay the correct amount of tax. Some of those platform operators argued during this inquiry that the data-gathering requirements were too onerous. We did not agree. We took the same view as the Tax Institute—that the platform providers are well placed to collect such data. I'm pleased that the majority of the committee which inquired into this bill concurred with Labor's view.

Schedule 2 amends the financial complaints authority act to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The tribunal ceased operations in December last year and stopped accepting new cases in November 2018, so this bill relates to the transfer of information that the tribunal had over to the new body, AFCA, which now handles complaints about superannuation. It is nothing more than housekeeping, and we support those provisions.

Schedule 3 removes the $250 non-deductible threshold for taxpayers' work-related self-education expenses from next financial year. This is a welcome but minor change that will make things a touch easier for workers to train themselves up. Unfortunately, it's a paltry effort which represents the sum total of the Morrison government's plan to address the burgeoning skills crisis that is staring them in the face. It's not like this crisis is flying under the radar. Just last week, Infrastructure Australia issued the government its loudest possible warning. It says that, within two years, one in three skilled positions needed to build this nation's infrastructure will go unfilled. Just think about that. Over the course of the next few days, members of the National Party are going to press-gang the Liberal Party to accept billions and billions of dollars in untested infrastructure projects to assist them to grease through some media commitments ahead of the Glasgow climate change summit. Wouldn't it be extraordinary if, but for the want of workers, those projects could not go ahead or, if they do, they'll go ahead at exceptionally inflated prices?

That's 105,000 unfilled job vacancies for a huge variety of skilled jobs—electricians, painters and joiners, engineers and geologists, architects, and the list goes on. These people are quite literally building the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. That's billions of dollars of infrastructure projects we desperately need that either are going to be slowed down or won't be able to proceed at all because of the government's short-sightedness and incompetence on the issue of skills and workforce development. This warning is coming from the government's own independent infrastructure adviser, whose sole purpose is to keep our infrastructure-building pipeline on track to ensure that we don't have a stop and start, and so that we can ensure that the desperately needed economic infrastructure to build the recovery and get the economy whirring again is built and delivered on time. It simply cannot happen unless you have a workforce which is capable of doing it, and yet Infrastructure Australia advises that there are literally thousands of vacancies that will not be able to be filled. This warning has not been heeded by the government. That's just one sector of the economy, and it's coming at us in two to three years time.

As any member of this chamber will know if they've been listening to small businesses in their electorate, particularly in the hospitality sector, the skills crisis is already upon us. Whether it's bars, cafes, food and beverage establishments or fast-food stores, right across the hospitality industry, in accommodation services, there is a desperate shortage of skilled workers. The backpackers aren't filling those jobs as they once did, and it's uncertain when they will be able to. It certainly won't happen anytime this year, and it's unlikely to happen anytime in the near future. This applies to hospitality workers, retail workers and building and construction industry workers. If you cannot get a plumber, an electrician or a carpenter to your house to do a desperately needed repair at a decent price or to do that renovation that you've been thinking about throughout the lockdown, there's a simple reason for it: government failure. Government has failed to invest in skills, in apprentices and trainees, and every Australian household is paying the price, with the cost of renovation and simple repairs going up and up and up.

There is an answer. People used to come from the rest of the world to study it here in Australia. It's called TAFE. But successive coalition governments, with an absolute abject hatred of TAFE, have ripped the guts out of the system such that it will struggle to meet the needs of a growing economy. There's a fashionable view among some who sit opposite that the crisis is something new, brought on by the need to close borders during the pandemic. They no doubt agree with the New South Wales Premier, who is suggesting that we import workers from overseas in numbers roughly equal to the population of Perth to solve the problem. Let me tell you: they're having themselves on.

First of all, there was a crisis before the pandemic. In this government's first eight years, the number of apprenticeships fell by over 100,000 places. Every year, we have seen fewer and fewer apprentices and trainees in training. It's on the heads of those opposite, and Australian households are paying the price of this today. In other words, if those opposite had done nothing, we would have had a fighting chance of filling the skilled vacancies that Infrastructure Australia is now warning about. But they didn't do nothing; they cut places, and now it's this nation's workers and businesses who are paying the price.

Then there's a second issue. You can't simply import 400,000 workers at the drop of a hat. I'm familiar with the accommodation situation for hospitality workers in the Illawarra and the South Coast. They are met with a twin crisis: a workforce shortage and a housing crisis. Even if the government were able to find workers somewhere in the rest of Australia or the rest of the world and bring them to our region, there's nowhere for them to stay. We have an accommodation crisis and we have a skills crisis. It is upon us and it is choking the economic recovery, and all this mob over here can do is play parlour games as if, on those benches opposite, you have the government and the opposition in the one party room. These challenges are far too big to be subject to the hostage games of the National Party and the internal bickering and squabbling and incompetence that is the coalition government.

What we actually need to do is to invest in the long-term industrial future of this country by training local workers. The pandemic is not an excuse to import workers at the expense of reskilling local workers. In a few months time, there will be hundreds of thousands of kids who will be leaving our schools with the hope of finding a job, an apprenticeship or a traineeship. We don't have the training places to meet their needs and aspirations.

My electorate of Whitlam is a perfect example of why, if anything, the need for investment in skills and training is more urgent than ever. Over the pandemic, over 10½ thousand workers in the Illawarra lost their jobs. I hope, as the economy starts to open up again, the overwhelming majority of them will find their way back into full-time employment, some of them, perhaps, going back into part-time employment. We want each and every one of them to find their way back into a job, because we know that there is no economic recovery unless we are bringing all of those people along with us and leaving nobody behind.

We have 10½ thousand workers who are, in many cases, going to need retraining. Who's going to do it? This government has ripped the guts out of TAFE, weakening its capacity to retrain workers to meet the economic needs of recovery. We have had over 800 TAFE teachers lose their jobs over the last eight years on this government's watch. That's more than 100 TAFE teachers each year—each year less than the year before. In my own electorate, they've closed down an entire campus at Dapto, one of the biggest, fastest-growing suburbs in my electorate. It will be called a city within a few years time, and it doesn't have a TAFE. The TAFE has been closed down on this government's watch. We've seen a 20 per cent fall in the number of skilled training places available over the last eight years.

It's a pretty sorry record, when you look at it: 800 fewer TAFE teachers, the closure of TAFE campuses in my electorate and right around the country, and a 20 per cent fall in the number of skilled training places available to young Australians leaving school or Australians seeking to re-enter the workforce. That's what happens when you hollow out the skills and training system—you also hollow out the industrial capacity of this country and you hollow out the future of our workers. You imperil the economic recovery from a once-in-100-years pandemic. It's for this reason that I felt it necessary that we move the second reading amendments. This bill has all the right headings but not enough substance, particularly in the area of reskilling and retraining as we recover from the pandemic.

Imagine how those 10½ thousand workers in my electorate feel today. Do they look at the coalition and think, 'There's a Prime Minister and a government that have got my back'? No, they don't. They're not hearing from this government, 'We'll get more training places so you can get back into the workforce.' They're not hearing from this government, 'We want you to grab those job vacancies that industry needs to fill.' All they're hearing from the Liberals is a plan to import skilled workers from overseas to do jobs that can and should be done by locals.

Don't get me wrong: a level of skilled immigration is an important component in our economic growth, and I welcome it. But it can't be the only answer. It's a pretty lazy answer, isn't it? We don't oppose the removal of the $350 per annum threshold that is contained within the bill, but what we do oppose is this government's abject failure to confront the skills crisis. The answer cannot just be, 'Let's import workers from overseas.' That's laziness and that is incompetence. This government is always making decisions for the short term and only ever making a decision after it's way too late. Nothing can crystallise the approach of this government more than that issue. When confronted with a crisis, they do nothing until it's absolutely too late—always looking for the silver bullet in the form of a marketing catchphrase, never prepared to do the hard yards, and always putting local workers, local industry and skills training last. I predict that, come the next election, Australians are going to hear a lot of the tired old lines of those opposite about cranes in the sky and getting workers back to work. Everybody wants to see that. But what you won't hear from the Liberals and the National Party is what they are going to do to train the workers in those cranes and on those building sites and the generation of workers who are going to be needed to repair or renovate your house. Prices are going to go up and up and up, and the opportunity for young Australians and older Australians who are seeking a second chance is going backwards because of this government's abject failure on skills, apprentices and training.

With those very brief comments, I will formally move the second reading amendment in my name, which has been circulated. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has:

(1) driven growth in insecure work, including through the gig economy, leaving Australians earning less and suffering worse conditions at work;

(2) failed to adequately combat multinational tax evasion and provide tax transparency;

(3) mishandled reforms to superannuation, leaving Australians in bad superannuation funds and damaging their retirement prospects; and

(4) done little to improve Australian workers' capacity to improve their skills".

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the second reading amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021. Before I address the substance of the bill I will make a few comments based on the contribution of the member who spoke prior to me, the member for Whitlam, who has turned this into a discussion about investing in skills. I'm very happy to have a debate about that and to talk about what our government is doing when it comes to supporting the skilling of Australians, particularly in my home state of South Australia. About 12 months ago I was lucky enough to have the Treasurer come and visit my electorate, soon after the 2020 budget. I think that was October. We had the opportunity to visit a substantial infrastructure project in the heart of my electorate, the Magill Road and Portrush Road intersection. That was a day when a lot of workers were onsite. The Treasurer, the South Australian Premier, the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and I visited that site to see the progress. We spoke to some of the people working there—the tradespeople in the roles that of course come with a major infrastructure project like that nearly $100 million intersection redevelopment. The message from those workers was, 'Thank you so much for the investment that the Commonwealth and state governments are making in infrastructure projects and the government stimulus expenditure being undertaken.'

That expenditure was being undertaken to support the economy through a difficult period when, because of the challenges of the coronavirus, we had to put in place some necessary health restrictions that meant that large elements of our economy, particularly the private sector elements, were not able to operate to their usual standards. The government stimulus meant that we were able to step in and fill the breach. Respected economic forecasters—the Reserve Bank and Treasury, no less—believed there was potential in this country for unemployment to increase to double digits, over 10 per cent, soon after we had to put the necessary health restrictions in place. Of course, we've seen that that didn't transpire, thankfully—thanks to us as a government and thanks to the people of Australia. The Labor Party seemed very disappointed in that—that we didn't have an extreme increase in unemployment—and now they're complaining in the reverse, for some reason: that we can't get enough skilled workers. Well, that is a problem, but it's a much better problem to have than the other way around, where there are skilled workers who can't get jobs in our economy. I will just reflect on the situation in South Australia when it comes to skills and training, because the member for Whitlam talked about TAFE and talked about apprenticeships and traineeships.

Firstly, the situation has been very bright in South Australia in recent years. We are seeing record increases in the number of apprenticeships and traineeships in the South Australian economy, thanks to the partnership between the Commonwealth and South Australian Liberal governments. But I remember all too well six years ago, around 2015, when the then state Labor government made some debilitating changes to the way in which vocational education and training was funded in my home state of South Australia. It absolutely decimated the industry led registered training organisations—organisations that are best placed to know what the skills shortages are and to train people appropriately for those opportunities in those sectors. I'm talking about organisations like the Motor Traders Association, providing training for motor mechanics; the Australian Hotels Association, training cooks and chefs; and the Civil Contractors Federation, training people in civil engineering and earthmoving et cetera. These are people from the industry with training needs who are very happy if they can have partnerships with government to provide that training for skills that they know their industry needs.

The Labor government in South Australia basically ended that overnight, deciding that it would divert all funding in that sector back into the TAFE network. There's no problem with the TAFE network whatsoever—I see some excellent outcomes from TAFE education—but to say to someone like the AHA, the Civil Contractors Federation or the Motor Traders Association, 'You're not best placed to train people for your industry, even though you've been doing it for decades and decades, and we're going to end the funding that we've provided to you to do that,' was absolutely appalling. We were seeing the impact of that in the poor training outcomes and shortages of key trades and traineeships that were needed for the roles that the industry groups knew their sector needed. That, thankfully, has been changed substantially since we've had a change of government in South Australia. Equally, as a federal government and a state government we're investing record amounts into training. So the whole premise of this second reading amendment couldn't be further from the truth, certainly not in my home state of South Australia.

Equally importantly, there are a couple of key elements to the substance of this bill—which I note those opposite are still supporting—that I want to make some brief remarks on. The first is in schedule 1, bringing in new obligations on the share economy or the gig economy—those businesses that operate third-party platforms that bring people together in a marketplace. Of course, as Liberals we support that and think it's excellent that new technological solutions are being found to create more efficient markets. All of us in in this chamber probably have experiences with a wide variety of platforms that we can now use on our mobile phones to access services. Some of those involve a marketplace where there's a buyer and a seller, and they are just providing the online marketplace and collaboration between a buyer and a seller. They also have all the information that is relevant for the ATO to be able to understand what transactions are happening on those platforms. I think it is really important that we pass this measure to bring in place that obligation to make sure that the ATO is in receipt of that sort of important information which will place the ATO in a position to make sure that it is adequately capturing and has the full view it needs of what's happening in that part of the economy.

Some of these platforms can be hosted offshore, and it's very important that in these changes we make it clear that whether the platform happens to be hosted overseas or in this country, no matter where that is, if they're undertaking transactions in this country there's an obligation to provide the Australian Taxation Office with the sort of information that it needs to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share of tax. As a Liberal I'd like to see as little tax as possible in our economy, but one of the fundamental principles is fairness and that we have a tax system that is as broadly based as possible. That means that the amount of taxation on everyone can be as low as possible. We don't want to have a situation where in this sector of the economy, which is emerging and growing so rapidly, there is a risk that we won't be capturing the fair share of tax that is obliged to be paid under Australian laws by people operating on those platforms. It may be at times that some aren't fully aware of their tax obligations, and the ATO is very good at working with people to understand what their obligations are. But we want to make sure the ATO gets access to this important information so that they can do their job in this section of the economy like they do in the rest of our economy. This is no different from what happens in the bricks-and-mortar businesses, which have those obligations. We want to make sure the same obligations are in place in the gig economy and the virtual economy. My understanding is that in the EU and the UK very similar measures are being put in place in their tax codes, and I'm sure this is something that we will see replicated by and large across the planet.

These major platforms can be resistant to individual governments putting in place necessary measures for us to properly collect our fair share of tax and also understand what sorts of transactions are happening in our economies. Sometimes they claim that these burdens are high on them, because they aren't the same requirements in other jurisdictions and they've got to change the way they might operate their platform in one jurisdiction or the other. Well, the evidence seems clear that this is going to be happening across the globe. Frankly, these platforms are doing very well—and good luck to them; they're making a lot of money—but in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for them to believe that they don't have the same responsibility, if they're going to operate in our economy, to make sure that they're providing the sort of information that other businesses are required to provide in order to make sure we are adequately taxing transactions out there in the marketplace.

Schedule 2 covers the repeal of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal or the shift of jurisdiction over those complaints from that tribunal to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, who I had a little bit to do with via some constituent matters in my first few years in this place. I think it's very sensible to have this sort of efficiency and move this process into AFCA. These changes in schedule 2 effectively fix the tail end of that transition, which has already occurred. My understanding is that there are two elements to this. One is that there are a couple of matters that are still outstanding and did originate in the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. It is clear in the legislation that, for the purposes of those outstanding matters, they now come back to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Of course, all the work that was done by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—all the records that they've kept et cetera—should be appropriately transferred across to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If they're going to be providing this mechanism into the future, it of course makes perfect sense that they hold the records of the agency that previously undertook that.

In schedule 3 we have what I think has been described as some sensible house cleaning around the $250 prescribed education expense deduction. My understanding is that this is a measure that was brought in way back in 1975. It relates to self-education expenses and the threshold before you can claim deductions that equally these days are simply offset by other expenses against that threshold. This just makes it a lot easier for people to do their tax return, because they don't have to provide all this information that is now, in many cases, highly unnecessary given people are not receiving the deductibility for that first amount but equally are claiming other deductions against that amount. It's effectively netting out to nothing. My understanding is that this will come into effect in the 2022-23 tax year, and it's just a sensible way making life easier for people who are undertaking self-education. They won't have this unnecessary complexity in their tax returns when they are lodging them. They won't have to deal with what is a very significant legacy going back all the way to 1975.

Having made at the beginning of my remarks those comments about skills and training, I reiterate that we are a government that is passionate about investing in skilling Australians and making sure that we are training Australians—young Australians in particular—for the job opportunities of the future. There are skills shortages in this country right now. One of those reasons is that, of course, we don't have the skilled migration intake being undertaken, but another one is that this government is investing so comprehensively in infrastructure and in stimulating our economy. That, of course, is doing what it's meant to do, which is creating jobs. It is a problem to have skills shortages, but it is a much better problem to have skills shortages than to have high unemployment—people with skills who can't get a job.

Nonetheless, we will make sure that as a government we continue to invest in training our next generation. We will keep working with the industry sectors to understand from them what the current requirements for training are and what the requirements of the future will be, because there are exciting emerging industries that will need tens of thousands of trained workers into the future. In my home state the defence sector is a very good example of that, where we have made significant decisions to invest in naval shipbuilding, centred in Adelaide. There will be thousands if not 10,000 or more jobs in naval shipbuilding over the years to come across the country—centred in Adelaide but across the country—throughout the supply chains, which will be in every state and territory. Those are going to require existing skills, but there will be skills that are not yet in our economy that we will need to train people in, because they are new roles that are providing an exciting future for the next generation of Australians.

On that note, I commend the bill to the House and I thank the Treasurer and everyone who has done such excellent work more broadly on these budget measures. I'm proud to be a part of a government that is investing in skilling the next generation of young Australians.

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

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021 and, in particular, to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow Assistant Treasurer. As speakers on this bill have pointed out in the debate so far, this bill has three schedules. I wish to focus my remarks today on the first of those schedules, which deals with a new requirement for gig economy companies to provide information on transactions made through their platform to the Australian Taxation Office. In particular, I want to draw attention to the first element of the second reading amendment, which is that this government 'has driven growth in insecure work, including through the gig economy, leaving Australians earning less and suffering worse conditions at work'.

I want to focus on schedule 1, which received the most comment of all of the schedules in this bill when this was reviewed by the Senate committee. Most were in general agreement with this schedule, but I think where the opposition stands is with those who made the observation that this schedule doesn't go anywhere near far enough. The Tax Institute of Australia expressed the view—and this was a view shared by the committee—that, as digital native companies, electronic platform operators are well placed to collect the data required to comply with this schedule. They indicated that the sharing economy platforms 'are well equipped to collect, store and report the data required under the TPRS'.

Labor senators and indeed members of the opposition in this place support this measure, but we have made the broader point that it is a missed opportunity to examine the way in which legislation and regulation more broadly deals with the gig economy. Everybody should of course be paying their fair share of tax. And, of course, the ATO requires sufficient information to be provided to it in a timely way and information of a sufficient quality in order for it to do its job. But there is a broader and fast-evolving issue that relates to a burgeoning number of workers in a part of the economy where there are too many people who aren't benefiting from flexibility but rather are experiencing poor wages and poor conditions and all too often are experiencing these poor wages and poor conditions outside of the visibility of regulators and indeed outside of the visibility of this place. If the government is willing to take steps to regulate the gig economy when it comes to taxation and when it comes to providing better information to the ATO, why isn't this government willing to deal with the very substantive issue of worker pay and conditions in the gig economy—an issue which members on this side of the House have raised time and time again over recent years but which the government has not seen fit to look at at all?

I want to quote a couple of the organisations and individuals that provided evidence to the Senate committee, because they provide a very compelling insight into some of the downsides of the gig economy. Later, I will make some observations on its productivity gains, because there are many upsides to the gig economy. But, while accepting those upsides, we have to deal appropriately with the risks that can also come with technological innovation and that can all too often fall on those least well placed to deal with it.

The secretary of the Transport Workers Union made the following observation:

… this bill …is like a kick in the guts to the thousands of workers in the food delivery, rideshare and parcel delivery sectors of the gig economy.

He continued:

This bill does nothing to limit the ability of companies to evade tax responsibilities in our country. What it does do is set a tragic double standard…

Again, what we see here today is a sensible enough measure on its own, but, when looked at in the broader frame of government regulation, it is a failure to address the need for broader regulation of the sector.

The committee heard from the Australian Services Union, who shared this broad perspective, saying that the bill fell short in examining at all the need to deal in a more functional and effective way from a regulatory perspective with wages and conditions in the gig economy. The secretary of that union said:

We are supportive of the taxation law amendments being proposed to create greater regulation and transparency of the gig economy … We just wish that there was similar regulation and transparency about minimum wages and conditions in these platforms.

Workers who work in the sector made some very compelling statements to the Senate inquiry. Indeed, one doesn't need to look too far to find similar observations being made in a range of other forums. One person was Ms Rosalina Pirozzi, a rideshare driver, who described the lack of action on a broader scale as 'heartbreaking'. She said:

I don't think it's fair … it's very unfair… Workers' rights are not being addressed at the moment—

and—

I've got no super, no sick pay and no workers comp …

That sums it up. There are too many workers who are taking on a great deal of risk and a great deal of regulatory burden onto their own shoulders, by essentially setting up their own company, but who, in doing so, are having to lose core conditions that so many of the rest of us take for granted.

Again, in very compelling evidence, Mr Ashley Moreland talked about his experience. He said:

I actually found myself in an accident—I sustained an injury—only 2½ years ago … because of the … high feelings of pressure that you're under to make these deliveries as quickly as possible, knowing that every single step of the way—from the time you accept the trip on the app to the time when you race into the restaurant, making do with traffic rules if you can—is monitored and noted against your profile and recorded.

So, yes, there are gains from these platforms for us, the users—and I've used Uber Eats extensively over the last months of the lockdown—but we should of course always bear in mind that there is a person on the other end who is adding to our comfort and who is providing all of these goods and services to us. The committee also heard from Mr Jason Ward from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, who suggested:

While CICTAR supports the concept of this legislation, there are concerns that the reporting requirements will be unfairly passed on to workers. In many cases, so-called 'gig workers' are already struggling to make a decent income. As is already the case in several jurisdictions, the Australian Government needs to take a closer look at regulating platform companies to ensure basic labour standards and increased transparency of multinational transactions.

I want to make some broad observations on the gig economy. I do believe that the gig economy, on balance, is a significant gain in productivity across our society and across our economy. Robert Wright described the gig economy as 'the biggest change in the American workforce in over a century'. It's already a huge part of the economy and it is forecast to grow significantly. Mastercard estimated that the global gig economy generated approximately US$204 billion in gross volume in 2018 and that this would more than double to US $455 billion by 2023. Of course, Australia will be caught up in these broad global trends. In 2015, the World Bank found that, by some measures, 40 per cent of US workers would be in non-standard jobs by the year 2020.

What are some of the productivity gains? Of course, the gig economy, the share economy, can see shared infrastructure and infrastructure utilisation at high rates. This can be a good thing in that it allows scarce resources to be used more efficiently. It can allow for greater individualisation of services, and of course any of us who have used share platforms, gig platforms, knows that the service standards for individuals using those platforms can indeed be significantly higher than was able to be offered by the means with which companies connected with consumers under old platforms. It can provide for more timely services and on some occasions for an effective surge capacity.

But it's important to note that all of these platforms which rely upon incredibly sophisticated IT, which rely upon incredibly sophisticated artificial intelligence, which rely upon incredibly sophisticated telecommunications, in addition to all of this science fiction technology rely upon people. In addition to all of these incredible AI algorithms housed in Silicon Valley, in addition to all of these telecommunications signals being bounced around the world, being bounced out to space and back, we should never forget that, at the end of all of this incredible technology, there is a person who is actually delivering the pizza from a restaurant to our house or there is a person who is actually taking us on a car trip from point A to point B. I feel that all too often we talk about the incredible productivity gains of this sector—and it is true that there are gains—but we forget about the person who is just as important and just as integral to making all of this work as the incredible telecommunications and AI and computing advances. Without that person actually physically delivering the meal or driving us around, this would essentially amount to nought. That's why it's absolutely critical that we as a society and, indeed, as a parliament think harder about how we share the benefits of all of this technology, because at the moment we don't really think about that at all.

What are the downsides of the gig economy? At the moment the downsides can fall under three broad categories. One I would classify as risk transfer, another would be wages and conditions and the third would be a lack of transparency. On the first, risk transfer, I would argue that a large part of the gig economy is transferring risk from these major multinational corporations to individual workers, who essentially have to set up what are small businesses and take on an incredible amount of demand-side risk themselves. That's all well and good if it's done in a fair, balanced and voluntary way. But all too often we find people are doing that work in a way that makes them incredibly stressed. Sometimes they're earning less than the minimum wage and are having to bear incredible regulatory burdens themselves, so one has to seriously question whether the risk transfer is appropriately balanced in the way that it's set up at the moment.

The second, wages and conditions, is clearly another downside. It takes two forms, in my opinion. One is that basically gig workers all too often, in the way that their employment arrangements are structured, are denied sick leave entitlements, automatic payments into pension schemes, appropriate occupational health and safety protections, portable entitlements—many of the things that we take for granted. Again, in some contexts it's appropriate for people maybe to trade off some of these benefits for greater flexibility or for greater hourly remuneration. But one has to ask whether the balance is right in the gig economy. The other component of working conditions is the remuneration, but there's not a lot of transparency of this component. If one looked at a study by the Economic Policy Institute in the US, it estimated that Uber drivers earned an average of US$9.21 per hour after netting off expenses, which was less than the minimum wage in many jurisdictions in the United States. In evidence provided recently by Uber to a parliamentary inquiry, they indicated that, at peak times in Sydney, Uber drivers could expect to earn around $21.55 an hour, and it was pointed out to them at that inquiry that the minimum wage for casuals was $24.80. Uber responded by saying that people who were earning $21.55 could be doing other things at the same time in between jobs. How realistic is that given that somebody would be working at peak time trying to fight traffic conditions to deliver as many meals as they possibly could?

That dovetails into the third problem at the moment, which is that we don't really know what's going on in too much of the gig economy. Whenever we ask ministers in this place questions about minimum wages and conditions in the gig economy or more broadly, they say, 'Oh, it's complicated.' Well, it's complicated and non-transparent because of the way that we've chosen to deal with it. What we find is that it actually takes academic studies even to make a guess of how many workers are earning the minimum wage. What we find at the moment is that regulators, frankly, can't pin down how many workers are earning the minimum wage and, for those who aren't earning the minimum wage specifically, what trade-offs they've made and how voluntary and meaningful those trade-offs were.

I want to reiterate that I do believe the gig economy is a significant gain for our society, for consumers. I do believe that it is a technological marvel. I do believe that it is going to grow and that on balance that's a good thing. But, as I said earlier, this technological marvel that combines incredible advances in computing power, artificial intelligence and telecommunications, and that spans so many fields of technology, ultimately requires a person to provide a service. It requires a person to deliver a meal, to drive us from point A to point B. We need to make sure that we respect their role in the economy and that we have a full understanding of the deal they're getting.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm more than happy to disagree to the amendment put by the members opposite. Listening to the comments made by the member for Fraser just then and by others in this House today around these issues, I note with particular interest the discussion of the lack of skills, training and support to business. I'd like to remind those opposite that over the last little while there have been 50 per cent wage subsidies, there's been funding for 100,000 new apprentices and trainees, and there have been up to 450,000 JobTrainer places for school leavers and jobseekers to upskill.

We regularly hear in this place about the lack of skills and training or the lack of apprentices and opportunities. Well, I can say quite safely, from my experiences in the past seven or eight weeks as I have been out in my electorate talking to businesspeople and engaging with the community, that they are concerned about the lack of skills and training. But what they're more worried about is the fact that, when they talk to the schools, the focus of the schools is still on sending students to university, and that the success of the school is measured by the number of students who go to university. They don't take into account the value and the importance of the number of students who seek to take on a trade or a vocation and a profession in that space. I think that's emblematic of many of the issues that we're discussing.

For the past 20 or 30 years the whole discussion has been about sending kids to university, because if you get a degree you've got your future made. I say to this House and to those outside of here: if you get a trade or get an apprenticeship then your future is made. As I look around my electorate of Forde, manufacturing industries are screaming out for welders and engineers, and infrastructure projects need myriad workers. We're now seeing hold-ups in infrastructure projects because of a lack of those employees. When I look at the building industry I see the plumbers, electricians, carpenters, bricklayers and ceramic tilers who are required. Those discussions are either not or very rarely being had with the students at school today. They may be being had with the students who they think are 'non-academic', but there are plenty of kids who are academically gifted at school but who don't turn out to be so at university. There's not a fulsome and wholesome discussion with our kids at school about the opportunities that are there for them in the future with a vocation or trade.

I'm very proud of the fact that largely my electorate is built on people who have skills and who are working in manufacturing, in construction and in trades of all sorts, because they are the people who build this country. We get to stand in this place because of carpenters, electricians, stonemasons, concreters and bricklayers. If we don't have those people then we don't have buildings like this, we don't have our houses, we don't have our roads and we don't have our bridges. So we need to change that discussion to realise and to educate our children that the option of pursuing a trade or a vocation is as valuable and as important to this country as becoming a doctor, a nurse, a teacher or—heaven forbid!—a lawyer. We need to have that discussion and refocus on what's important for this country.

I've also heard the comment today about employees in various sectors of the economy being employed through labour hire firms and potentially getting less pay than somebody who is paid on a direct basis. Well, it's interesting: when you reflect on what those sectors are—and predominantly those sectors are highly unionised sectors—the question for those opposite is, what are their union representatives doing to ensure that those conditions don't arise? From talking to the businesses in my electorate over the past eight weeks I can say that they want people on full-time pay; they're not interested in employing people through labour hire companies. These are the small-to-medium businesses in my electorate who want to employ people on a direct basis and keep them there for the long term if they're up to scratch. That being said, one business said to me the other week that some of their employees have just enjoyed a very significant pay rise. That was to ensure that the business keeps those very valuable employees, that they don't go off and work somewhere else.

As usual, what we hear from those on the other side is a lot of myth and innuendo that actually, when you get out and engage with the business community in the real world, doesn't hold any validity or any water. As I've said many times in this place, don't listen to what those opposite say but have a look at what they do. This government is very focused on ensuring that we have the necessary workforce for the future. I talked to local businesses that have production lines, and when you talk about electricians today, these are not the ordinary, everyday electricians; these are very, very skilled tradespeople who can do electronics, who can repair electrical circuits that are very intricate and who can service multimillion-dollar machines. These are highly skilled, highly trained employees who bring enormous wealth and opportunity to this country.

More importantly, with regard to schedule 1 of this bill, which is the reporting of the sharing economy regime, this has been something that has been done in the past. The building industry has been required, and still is required, to report annually its range of payments to subcontractors to ensure that taxes are paid, that GST is paid and all those sorts of things. So, this change to the tax administration is a worthwhile and important change. We've seen the value of that in the building industry. I remember talking with the building industry when those changes were introduced about how many of the builders had to work with their subcontractors to make sure they had the systems in place to properly manage their GST requirements and their tax affairs. In fairness to them, a lot of the subbies were somewhat lax in their bookkeeping and other arrangements. I would say that these measures are critically important because what they do is more accurately show what is actually going on in this sector of the economy, as occurred with the building industry when those changes were introduced. They will ensure that everybody in this economy is paying the proper amount of tax, or the tax that they are due to pay, and enable us to lower the tax burden as a whole across our economy.

Schedule 2 of the bill focuses on some transitional provisions relating to the repeal of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act. This is as a result of the setting up of AFCA to replace the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, and the transfer of the remaining cases, of which there were six, to AFCA. With this change, which combines all these complaints bodies into a single complaints body, AFCA, we've seen a much smoother transition and administration of complaints. I note that AFCA has been working assiduously in dealing with complaints as they're brought forward. With these systems there are always different views on how things can be improved, and I'm looking forward, down the track when we do a review of AFCA, to see how we can further fine-tune those systems and processes. Overall, I think the combination of these various complaints bodies by this government in 2017-18 has been a great success.

The last bit is schedule 3, which removes the $250 limit for prescribed educational expenses. Whilst a small measure in the context of the overall tax act, it's just another example of finding small opportunities to improve the operation of the tax system and make it more efficient. Equally, it builds on the range of initiatives that this government has made over the years to streamline the tax system and reduce the tax burden on everyday hardworking Australians through the tax plans we've put in until 2025, which will mean approximately 90 per cent of people will pay no more than 30-odd cents in the dollar in tax.

In conjunction with myriad other economic supports that we've put in place over the past 18 months, it just shows how much time and effort this government, we on this side, is putting in to ensure that we support the Australian economy through this COVID crisis. I acknowledge that this bill is not directly related to that, but it's an example of the government continuing to look for opportunities to simplify and streamline systems and processes, no matter how small they are. As the old saying goes, if we look after the pennies, the pounds will follow. It's no different with these things. Where we can find small wins that make the system more efficient and better for everyone involved, everybody benefits.

Likewise, with the stuff we're doing with apprenticeships and traineeships, I encourage people to take the opportunity to engage with their local businesses. I've encouraged my local businesses to engage with their local schools because many of the schools actually don't understand the apprenticeships, traineeships or other job opportunities that are out there. There's also an obligation on the business community to do a better job of engaging with the school community to identify these opportunities. I commend the bill, in its unamended form, to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A hallmark of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has been to be as soft on multinationals as they are tough on the vulnerable. We've seen, during the time the government have been in office, continued attempts to try and reduce taxes on multinationals, defences of tax havens—particularly under former Prime Minister Turnbull—and an ongoing unwillingness to act on the scourge that is multinational tax avoidance. Those opposite voted against important measures that the previous Labor government put in place to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share, and they continue to mislead this House by falsely claiming Labor has not supported their measures. It's not true. They haven't done enough, but in what little they've done they've had the full backing of the Australian Labor Party.

Now we can see the world moving against the coalition. We can see very clearly the United States, under President Biden, now moving to increase the corporate tax rate. We see in Britain, under a Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, an attempt to pay for public services by increasing the corporate tax rate. And we can see, with the latest announcement through the OECD-G20 report Statement on a two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, 138 countries around the world committing to a two-pillar solution. This solution will, in pillar 1, allocate taxing rights of 25 per cent of the residual profits of the most profitable multinational enterprises to the jurisdictions where the consumers are located, and, in pillar 2, provide a global minimum tax of 15 per cent on all MNEs with annual revenue over 750 million euros.

The argument that the conservatives in this country and in some others have made—that we need to engage in a race to the bottom in company tax—is belied by recent moves from the United States, the United Kingdom and the global community. Yet the Morrison government is nowhere to be seen on this. Australia used to have a key seat on the steering committee in the OECD in charge of these conversations around multinational taxation. We no longer have that role. And, at a time when tax havens are being recognised as a danger to the global tax system, you don't hear a peep out of the Treasurer about them.

It is a fact, according to careful research that's looked at tax havens, that some 40 per cent of multinational profits are now being channelled through tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions. Tax havens aren't simply a means of reducing the tax bill; they're also a hidey-hole for illicit wealth. Tax havens have been used by Mexican drug lords and by al-Qaeda. Tax havens have been used by those involved in extortion and kidnapping. Tax havens have financed terrorism. They should be ruled out of any engagement with the sensible multinational tax community. But we've seen from this government an approach of being soft on tax havens—of being unwilling to recognise the sheer amount of money that is hiding in tax havens. On one estimate, some A$100 billion is in tax havens at the moment. Another study has found that four out of every five dollars in tax havens are there in breach of other countries' tax rules, often because the secrecy surrounding tax havens means that tax authorities, such as the Australian Taxation Office, simply aren't able to get to the bottom of what's happening there.

We've seen leaks from tax havens—such as the Panama Papers; the Pandora Papers; and LuxLeaks, the PwC leaks—which have revealed the abuse of tax havens and highlighted very clearly the way in which tax havens are being misused. The Australian Taxation Office has taken up a range of the cases which have been exposed through these leaks, but we shouldn't be relying on whistleblowers in order to crack down on tax havens. We need a government that is as tough with tax havens as it is with social security recipients—a government that is as tough with multinational tax dodging as it is with people with a disability.

We've seen from this government a failure on multinational taxation and, as a result, Australian small businesses and individuals pay more tax. In order to pay for the public services that we all use, the revenue has to come from somewhere, and too often under this government we've seen an expectation that it will be ordinary Australians that pay those taxes, rather than multinationals and those who are tax dodging through tax havens.

This bill contains some perfectly sensible measures, but the reason that the member for Whitlam, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, has moved this important second reading amendment is to highlight the importance of multinational tax dodging to this side of the House. Under an Albanese government, we will crack down on multinational tax avoidance. The shadow Treasurer, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Kingsford Smith and many others on the Labor economics team are firmly of the view that we need to do far more to crack down on tax-dodging multinationals, and we will continue that campaign right up to election day.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill 2021 and its intentions. It has been referred to the Senate committee for a report. That report is now following an inquiry focus on the tax compliance measures in schedule 1 and tax compliance in the gig economy more broadly. Schedule 1 establishes a new requirement for gig economy companies to provide information on transactions made through the platform to the ATO. This measure implements a recommendation of the report on the Black Economy Taskforce. The government committed to implementing this measure back in the 2019-20 MYEFO.

The focus will now be on gig economy participants adhering to a new compulsory reporting regime, which will be implemented by applying the taxable payments reporting system to certain transactions undertaken under these platforms. Ride-sourcing and short-term accommodation platforms will be first up, with the likes of Uber and Airbnb to report information of all transactions to the ATO from 1 July next year. Asset-sharing, food delivery, tasking based services and other services will be included from 1 July 2023. Back in 2019 both Airbnb and Uber said that they supported this change. The government has talked up the new rules as a way of bridging the transparency gap created by the rapid growth of Australia's gig economy and the current inadequacy of the tax reporting system to capture data about transactions that take place there.

We all know that the government has been slow to react in other areas associated with the gig economy. Although they're taking action here, it has to be matched with other areas where there's probably a need for regulation around gig economy workers, most notably around safety at work. We've unfortunately seen several examples of gig economy workers, particularly riders, being killed or injured in their workplace, on the road or on the footpath, in unsafe conditions, with very little guidance from those that they are engaged to work for about health and safety. There has been a lack of access to personal protective equipment, a lack of audits associated with the equipment that's used to perform the role, be it as a contractor or as an employee of these companies. It has taken, unfortunately, the death of several of these workers for governments and the companies to wake up and understand that they have a duty of care to make sure that there's safety about the way that people are engaging with these companies and then going about performing work on their behalf. Let's never forget that they wear the logos of Uber, Deliveroo et cetera when they are performing these duties. There is a responsibility that comes with that from those companies, and that has been sadly lacking in the past. So, although we're taking action on this, it's time for the government to recognise that there are other areas of regulation where gig economy workers need the support of government.

Schedule 1 is also a missed opportunity and highlights the government's failure in priorities. Labor agrees that everyone should be paying their fair share of tax; however, this legislation sees that burden placed on the workers rather than on multinational tech companies. It also shows that the government is happy to pursue these workers for more tax but does little to ensure that they have secure, fair wages and safe conditions. If the Morrison government is willing to take steps to regulate the gig economy when it comes to tax, it needs to do the same, as I mentioned earlier, for workers' pay and conditions. It's not good enough to allow these workers to receive substandard pay and conditions in an unsafe work environment.

During the Senate inquiry, workers who used these platforms were asked about their views on this bill and if they thought it was fair that it appears the government's priority isn't legislating fair pay and safe conditions for gig workers and the share economy. One of those workers, Ms Rosalina Pirozzi, a rideshare driver, described the lack of action as heartbreaking and says she thinks, 'It's very unfair that workers' rights are not being addressed at the moment.' We know that gig workers, including Ms Pirozzi, don't get superannuation, don't get sick pay and aren't covered by workers compensation. The committee also heard from food delivery rider Ashley Moreland, who talked about his experience. He highlighted the high-pressure environment caused by these platforms' monitoring of performance, which led him to being injured on the job. He said:

This facade of flexibility and low levels of control is a bit of a farce.

I actually found myself in an accident … because of the extraordinarily high feelings of pressure that you're under to make these deliveries as quickly as possible, knowing that every single step of the way—from the time you accept the trip on the app to the time when you race into the restaurant, making do with traffic rules if you can—is monitored and noted against your profile and recorded.

That paints a pretty damning picture of the pressure that many of these workers are under. The constant monitoring and the pressure that they feel to report and make sure that they're meeting delivery guidelines are in some respects unfair, particularly in the context of having to drive through busy traffic in peak hour and the like. If the government can regulate the data that's being captured by these employers for the purposes of fair taxation, which they should, then the government can regulate the wages and working conditions of these workers. Given that these platforms record all of this data, why are they not being given the responsibility for reporting earnings for all the people who work on their platform? That is the question that needs to be answered by the government. It's clear that the rideshare companies, the gig economy companies, accumulate a massive amount of data in respect of not only their taxation reporting requirements but also the health and safety of those that are engaged to perform work for them.

Labor supports this legislation, but it's clear that the government needs to do more to ensure that gig economy workers are provided with fair wages and conditions. If the government is happy to regulate tax, it should be happy to regulate fair pay and conditions for Australian workers.

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

I rise to speak briefly in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 7) Bill. This bill has three schedules, which, among other things, implement changes to enhance compliance with tax obligations, further clarify the role of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and simplify the tax return experience for hardworking Australians. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the reporting regime for the sharing economy and extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms. The sharing economy includes ridesharing applications, like Uber; food delivery services, such as Menulog, DoorDash, Uber Eats and Deliveroo; and accommodation services, like Airbnb and Stayz. Living in a tourist hotspot, many Central Coast residents take advantage of the ability to rent out their home, a spare room or a secondary dwelling at their place through these providers, which offers greater choice to visitors and generates additional income for the local economy. I know it's certainly become very popular over the last couple of weeks in my region.

Of course, food delivery services have also become extremely popular across the Central Coast, particularly during the pandemic. These services helped many small businesses over the last year and a half. They offered a convenient and COVID-safe way for local residents to have food delivered, and, at the same time, they supported Central Coast residents and helped others to supplement their income. At the same time, the sharing economy offers a range of benefits, by reducing waste and helping to distribute and use resources more efficiently, which of course impacts our economy and the environment in a positive way.

But, with these significant benefits to our local and national economy and the rapid growth that the sector has seen, it's also important to ensure that tax requirements are being met on the income that is earnt. Under this bill, sharing economy operators will be required to report information regarding certain transactions to the ATO, which will help to ensure those earning an income are meeting their tax obligations. These platforms are used in the sharing economy where two parties agree to provide services or loan personal assets for payment. Tax reporting systems haven't been able to keep up with recent developments, and there's some confusion in the community as to whether payments from these platforms are taxable, creating a risk of noncompliance. These amendments are expected to result in increased voluntary compliance and more targeted work by the ATO, and they'll apply to all platforms that do business here in Australia, regardless of whether they're based locally or overseas.

Nations around the world are implementing similar reporting requirements for the sharing economy, and cooperation is really building to ensure that all participants are meeting their tax obligations. Australia must join with other countries to play our part in limiting poor tax compliance, which only disadvantages the businesses and individuals who work hard and report their income correctly. I know there are many residents in my electorate of Robertson who are actively involved in the sharing economy, and I certainly hope that this amendment provides some greater clarity and gives them the confidence to continue to be able to earn income from these platforms.

Schedule 2 of the bill relates to transitional provisions on the repeal of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. In 2017 the government established the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, to replace the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. AFCA provides consumers and small businesses with fair, free and independent dispute resolution of financial complaints when they're unable to resolve an issue with a member organisation. These amendments ensure that the transition to AFCA is smooth and that any outstanding cases can be dealt with appropriately. Parties to a dispute will not be adversely affected by these changes and can be assured that AFCA has the resources needed to be able to resolve outstanding issues. The AFCA Act will also be amended to allow for the transfer of records and documents from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to ASIC for ongoing records management. These are important administrative changes which ensure financial complaints are handled efficiently and effectively.

Schedule 3 of the bill relates to the of the removal of the self-education expenses threshold. This measure is part of the Morrison government's plan to simplify the tax-return experience for hardworking people right across Australia. Currently, the first $250 of a prescribed course of education expense can't be deducted, but certain expenses that are compulsory but not otherwise deductible—such as childcare costs incurred while attending self-education activities, for example—can be used to offset the $250 reduction. These amendments simply remove this exclusion and the related compliance burden for individuals who are claiming this deduction, and will apply to assessments from the 2022-23 income year. This is just another measure that will benefit taxpayers right across the Central Coast and is in addition to tax relief of up to $2,745 that around 61,600 people in my electorate of Robertson will benefit from this year.

These are some important amendments that will improve tax compliance, clarify the role of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and simplify tax returns for workers around Australia. This bill forms part of the Morrison government's plan to cut red tape, to simplify taxes and to promote economic growth, which is so important at a time when Australians are beginning to come out of the COVID-19 induced lockdowns. I commend this bill to the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 of this bill extends existing third-party reporting requirements to operators of electronic platforms. Platform operators will be required to report to the Australian Taxation Office information regarding certain transactions that occur on their platforms, such as seller identification and payment details. This information will assist the ATO in its administration of the tax system and ensure that sellers on these platforms are meeting their tax obligations. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act 2018 to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and any transitional arrangements associated with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority replacing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Schedule 3 to the bill reduces compliance costs for individuals claiming self-education deductions by removing the exclusion of the first $250 of deductions for prescribed courses of education. I commend the bill to the House.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.