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

[by video link] There will be companies—big private companies—clinking their champagne glasses tonight, toasting to Pauline Hanson. This is a strategic victory for companies that have received taxpayers' money and funnelled it straight through to their dividends and executive bonuses. Senator Roberts suggests that this is an improvement upon my amendment, but it is not. Look, I'll end up supporting it on the basis that it does help to consolidate some information, but in actual fact what his amendment seeks to do is to cause companies who are listed to disclose their details or ASIC to disclose their details, in circumstances where most of them have to disclose them anyway. It's a dud—it actually doesn't do very much.

We know that there are a whole range of different companies that received JobKeeper and did much better than they had originally thought they would. We know that because they are businesses that are listed and have a requirement to disclose details to their shareholders. Most of the ASX companies, such as Harvey Norman, have already disclosed. Senator Hanson is pushing an amendment to disclose information which is already published.

What we need to understand about this amendment is what it doesn't do—what my amendment does do but theirs doesn't. It does not include hundreds of foreign controlled companies operating in this country that may have put up their hands for JobKeeper, because they're not listed on the Australian stock market. So everyone should absolutely know what's happening here. Senator Hanson and One Nation are permitting foreign controlled companies to get away with taking Australian taxpayers' money that was given to them by way of JobKeeper. That's what's happening—companies such as the Bank of China, Jemena and Wilson. They're all companies that are Chinese owned and are not listed on the stock market yet may well have received JobKeeper. I'll go to some other ones. The big four consultants, with their very secretive partnerships, are not required under this amendment to disclose how much JobKeeper they may or may not have received. Thank you very much, Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts! Those companies get to take the JobKeeper and keep it, even if they did not fare poorly as a result of the pandemic.

It doesn't include clubs. It doesn't include private schools. It doesn't include political parties that have stuck their hands up for JobKeeper and may not have had a change in revenue at all but are basking in taxpayers' money and will continue to do so because Senator Hanson and One Nation have moved an amendment which will get government support, and I presume that, as a result of that, they're not going to support my far more encompassing amendment. So those political parties may well enjoy that taxpayer funded benefit, money that could have been used for other things.

What about the very large private companies? We've all been talking about these large companies that don't even have to file financial reports because they're grandfathered. Not only do they not have to file financial reports but One Nation has given them a free kick. Again, they'll be sitting in their private jets thanking One Nation for permitting them to get away with a huge strategic victory. Meanwhile, Treasurer Frydenberg will be getting a pat on the back from them because he's managed to successfully talk One Nation down from support of my amendment. I'll tell you One Nation have previously supported my amendment. They've supported my order for production. But they've been talked down by big business somehow.

What about companies such as Salesforce, Dow, GE, IBM, KKR, McDonald's and McKinsey—all US companies? What about the tax haven entities that are not listed on our stock market? They are likely not paying much in the way of tax but potentially are collecting JobKeeper—companies like Wilson Group, Brookfield and EnergyAustralia, which is domiciled in Jersey, off the UK. What about those companies, Senator Roberts? Are you happy for them to get bucketloads, trailer loads or truckloads of Australian taxpayers' money by way of JobKeeper? They may not have suffered the downturn, as you accepted in your speech. They just truck this money off overseas to a tax haven where we'll never, ever get to know anything about them, and you have just exacerbated the problem by doing this.

This is nothing but a dud. That's all I can describe it as. It was circulated in the last 15 minutes. It's not well thought through. How about some of the banks that operate here that are not listed on our stock market, that may well have employees here and that may well have put up their hand for JobKeeper? I'll be asking the minister to assure us that no foreign controlled entities receive JobKeeper, and I'm absolutely sure that the representing minister won't be able to tell me that. They won't be able to say: 'No, no, it's okay, Senator Patrick. All of those companies are all good. They didn't receive JobKeeper.'

This is an honesty system that was put in place. The parliament said we needed to help Australian companies, and no-one begrudges that sentiment. We passed laws back in April, on 8 April, last year that had no detail. I remember it well because I'd just got out of isolation from COVID and flown to Canberra to deal with JobKeeper. We basically had flyers being passed around the chamber, talking about what JobKeeper would do, but in actual fact the legislation that we passed was only a head of power. We left all of the rules to the Treasurer. He created an honesty system. He created an honesty system that said if you predict you are going to have a loss in turnover then you can put your hand up and get JobKeeper. But he made a massive prudential failure that will now cost us billions. It has cost us billions. In fact it hasn't cost us billions; it's cost our children billions because it came from debt, and it's cost our grandchildren billions because it came not from the bank accounts of government but from the debt side of the ledger. That's what's happened here—no safeguards.

For people who put up their hand and say, 'I want to protect the privacy of these companies,' well, sorry; this is not their private money. If they go to a bank and get some money from the bank, that's a matter for the company and for the bank. If they go to the public and get some money, that is a matter for the public. In this country, we disclose grants that go to companies, including the total amount. We disclose government contracts that go to companies. The total amount is on AusTender. This is no different. This is money that went from the taxpayer to a company. It is not private information.

I do not understand for one moment why it is that One Nation has decided to limit the disclosure to companies that have to disclose anyway. That's the stupidity of it. It makes no sense. I urge One Nation to reconsider not supporting my amendment, because my amendment does do the job of capturing all the people that I just labelled. I will have some more to say on this shortly. (Time expired)