Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Well, this is all actually kind of funny, isn't it, at least to the extent that it exposes, in the most ridiculous way, the entirely frivolous approach that One Nation has to actual decision-making in this chamber. Let's reflect on how we got here.

Some weeks ago, Senator Patrick moved a very similar amendment to the one that he has circulated for debate this evening in this chamber. Labor's very supportive of that amendment because it requires companies that received JobKeeper and the amount that they received to be disclosed. I won't go into the policy merits of that—I might come back to it later—but of course we support that. I acknowledge my colleague Dr Leigh, who has worked very hard to elevate this issue in the public debate and expose the significance of transparency. One Nation supported it at that time. Then Labor sought to move a similar amendment to this legislation. We got word back that, although One Nation had supported this position previously, they weren't prepared to support it if it were moved in the name of the Labor Party, because they felt that the Labor Party hadn't been sufficiently kind to them in recent times. What are you—five years old? This is not how public policy is made. Generally, people who seek to participate in the Australian parliament vote on the merits of the issue. It is rare indeed for a political party to actually concede that the reason they're not voting for an issue is not that there's any merit in the policy argument that's being brought forward but that they have hurt feelings. How absolutely ridiculous, although slightly terrifying. It's slightly terrifying, I would imagine, for Australians who look to the Senate to be the place where legislation is scrutinised and government is held to account, because that's what this amendment is about, of course. It is about accountability. It is about government accountability, and it is about accountability being placed on the businesses that received this money. Transparency and accountability—the bedrock on which this Senate has been built. But that's not important for One Nation, at least not if it's going to be moved by people in the chamber who have hurt their feelings from time to time.

So how shall we deal with this? Senator Patrick says: 'I'll put it in my name. If that's what's required to get support, I'll circulate it in my name.' He does so. Now we've got this backflip. We don't know what One Nation's voting position is on Senator Patrick's amendment, but we can assume—by their decision, at the very last minute, to circulate this amendment, a pale imitation of the policy position advanced in the amendment circulated by me and Senator Patrick—that they have changed their position again.

The amendment that they've circulated is essentially absolutely meaningless, because Australian listed companies have already been directed to report government payments. ASIC has already given them that direction, and that includes JobKeeper. So the effect of the amendment that's before us now—while it doesn't do any harm and it might make tracking down the information a little simpler—is simply to replicate, essentially, an obligation that already exists. As Senator Patrick pointed out in his contribution just now, it leaves untouched large numbers of organisations—companies that are not Australian listed companies. There will be no obligations for them under the amendment that's being proposed here.

It comes as the Australian public are increasingly demanding that there be transparency around this program. The Herald reported just recently that 65 per cent of Australians not only want to know who got the money but think that there ought to be some obligation to pay it back if you received it on terms that were not consistent with the original intention of the program. None of the amendments before us tonight go to that place, but they do ask for transparency, and it is not unreasonable that we do so.

In New Zealand, they've established an online register listing all of the recipients of their wage subsidy scheme. In New Zealand, about five per cent of businesses have repaid some of their receipts, because the truth is it was not really reputationally sustainable for them to hold on to them. Businesses do have ethical obligations. They are part of a political community, or they certainly seek to be part of it. All that we are asking is that the government be transparent about which businesses have been in receipt of funds. It is quite astonishing that the government are so afraid of this scheme that they have twisted and turned and turned themselves upside down. I will be intrigued to find out what it is that they've offered to Senator Hanson in exchange for the ludicrous amendment that's before us tonight, but that will have to wait until another day.

Progress reported.