Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise tonight to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. I'm not going to focus on the substantive aspects of the bill but rather on the amendment that has been foreshadowed for the committee stage by Senator McAllister. I will start by saying that Senator Scarr has risen in this debate and has presented a perspective and I will come to that in a short while. Everyone seems to like Senator Scarr. I'm wondering if he is trying to take the trophy off Senator Dean Smith. We will have to see as a function of time what happens in that space. But Senator Scarr did rise and speak about the benefits of the JobKeeper program.

I think everyone around the chamber would agree that JobKeeper was a necessary measure during COVID-19. There's no question that there were companies that absolutely needed to have a hand up or, indeed, a handout from the government to help them through a most difficult time. No-one begrudges those companies for having taken that money. We have to remember that the purpose of the program was, in fact, to try and maintain a connection between employers and employees, and it was effective in doing that. We didn't put in place a lot of constraints or controls. Part of the problem we have found ourselves in is that the government were mindful of the need to assist without having too much red tape and allowed companies to estimate what their profits and turnover might be moving forward. And everyone had a right to basically say, 'Things look pretty grim.' There's no issue with the approach that was taken by the government. However, we now know that there are a number of companies that have come through the other side of the pandemic with increased profits, which they've then directed at bigger dividends and executive bonuses. So what's happened here is that we've taken taxpayers' generosity, through the JobKeeper program, and basically funnelled that into the pockets of investors and the pockets of executives. That was never what this money was intended for.

I agree with Senator Scarr that none of these companies has broken any law; the law was created very loose, and that was done because of the uncertainty moving forward. But now it is incumbent upon the company directors, those who have taken the money and then managed to make a much larger profit than what they already had, to return money. We know from analysis that is being done by the PBO that the amount of money we are talking about is in the order of $12½ billion—$12½ billion that was handed over to companies who, in the end, did not need it.

The proper thing for all of these companies to do is to hand back that money. I'm talking about the companies that did better as a result of the circumstances of the pandemic. The taxpayer doesn't want money back from companies that struggled; I don't mind the fact that they've helped them out. But the companies that did well need to look long and hard at themselves. One of the ways we can assist them in doing so is to make public exactly how much each company received so that it's very clear who received JobKeeper and how much they received. That can be looked at in relation to how well they did, and we can use that to encourage companies to repay money.

We know that this has worked in New Zealand. In Australia, you can go onto a New Zealand government website—people can use Google to look for a site that goes to their wage subsidy programs—and type in the name of any company that is operating in New Zealand, including Harvey Norman and Qantas. It will tell you exactly how much they received in New Zealand's equivalent of JobKeeper and other assistance money, and, where it is a wage subsidy, how many employees were involved in the transaction—whether it was 100 employees or 200 employees. You can see that information. This is not information that is sensitive to companies; it is taxpayers' information; it's the amount of money the government has handed over. New Zealand has managed to get back five per cent of the moneys paid under its program. How much have we got back in Australia? We have got back 0.25 per cent, just a fraction. And the difference between the two countries is simply transparency—turning on the lights and letting everyone see and make their own assessment. That has brought about a return of money that can be used for many other things—many important things that we need in society.

We regularly come into this chamber and see cuts being made to programs. Just imagine what $12.5 billion could do. That would be of great assistance. That's why we can't turn our backs on this. That's why we need to look at what happened here. Again, I'm not suggesting companies have broken the law, but they have a moral obligation to return money that was provided to them for a different reason—money that was generously given to them by the taxpayer for a particular purpose—

Debate interrupted.