Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The reason we are having this debate today in the Senate about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 is that the government has mismanaged the parliament and has had to spin a schedule from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 into this bill in order to pass it through parliament—this week, I imagine. The TLAB 4 bill was quite an ambitious bill with lots of different component. Not many of the components were related to one other, but that is how these bills roll; I understand that. The digital currency taxation component of that bill has been cherry-picked by the government as part of its hotchpotch approach to regulating digital assets. The government doesn't think that regulating the industries of today—not even of tomorrow—is a priority. It's more important to work through the list of grievances from your favourite vested interests at the class-action law firms, the unions, the super funds et cetera. As a result of that, the government for vested interests has put Australia into the slow lane when it comes to key industry and economic policy.

This in relation to digital assets is one example. People will recall in the last calendar year there was a major collapse of a cryptocurrency organisation called FTX. Of course, the solution to a lot of these issues is having strong gatekeepers and having a decent licensing framework and a system of consumer protections in place so that, if a consumer decides to invest in a cryptocurrency market, there are capital requirements and key personnel tests—a set of regulations designed to protect consumers if things go wrong. Progressing the agenda would protect consumers but also advance investment into Australia, because, of course, this is a race for regulation. I believe that the countries that put the most regulation in place on digital assets, perversely, will be able to capture the most investment because there is a need for certainty here in relation to digital assets.

But what we see from this government, the government for vested interests, is an agenda with a hotchpotch tax approach on digital assets, trying to define bitcoin as a property asset, and a token mapping exercise released by Minister Jones last week. You see nothing on regulating the gatekeepers and nothing to protect consumers. As I've said before in this place, there will be more collapses in this area. There will be more cryptocurrencies and more digital asset businesses that cause consumers harm when they go under, and all of these failures will be on the head of the government, because the government only reacts to its favourite vested interests.

There aren't many strong organisations that are recommending these changes; therefore, they fall on deaf ears. It is a bit like the point Senator Rice made about how difficult it can be to get a DGR listing. You shouldn't have to be a rich and famous person to get a DGR claim assessed. You shouldn't have to have an individual listing. The average person—of course, no-one's average, but the typical person—does not have access to ministers, ministerial offices or departments to make their case.

As this TLAB No. 5, which was cut out of TLAB No. 4, continues on, TLAB No. 4 sits on the books waiting to be considered again by the parliament. The other thing that's in TLAB No. 4 is the proposed financial reporting changes for super funds. This takes us back to another favourite issue from the last calendar year. One of the first acts of the government was to strip transparency from members of super funds so they couldn't see when their money was being sent off to unions. When you are the government for vested interests over on that side of the Senate and you're only interested in the small rent-seeking issues put forward by small-minded people and you don't take the national interest into account, of course it makes sense that the first issue that you take on will be removing transparency from punters so they can't see if their money has been sent off to finance a campaign at the CFMMEU or some other union.

Helpfully—very helpfully, I have to say—we have to thank the Electoral Commission for releasing new information, new data, last week which shows that there are tens of millions of dollars each year being sent from super funds to unions, and the unions have to declare this on the AEC's website because they are captured under the reporting obligations in the electoral laws. We now know that in the case of one fund, a tiny fund called First Super, it paid 2.5 million bucks to the CFMEU out of members' money. They decided it was okay to take $2.5 million of their members' retirement savings and give it to the CFMEU as a gift or something. We know that because of the AEC disclosures, but we don't know whether members are able to access that information. We know that information is being cut out of the disclosures that go to the punters because, of course, Minister Jones made it his first order to cut out that level of transparency.

I note that this week—again very helpfully—the Senate will have an opportunity to consider whether it will disallow this regulation that was made by Minister Jones to prevent the people of Australia from seeing whether their super funds are taking their retirement savings and sending them to related parties for political and other purposes. I believe the Senate made a mistake last year in not knocking out that regulation. I hope that we will see a different result this week, so that the regulation made by Minister Jones will be knocked out and we will revert to the regulations made by the coalition government in the last parliament. If that regulation had been in place now then members would have been able to see everything that the AEC told us last week. That would have made a difference because, as this chamber knows well, most people don't have time to wade through AEC disclosures to find these pieces of information. Many members do look at their annual member statements because they are interested in their super balances—after all, it is their money—so stripping out that information was very detrimental, and we look forward to the Senate reconsidering this matter later this week.

I agree with Senator Scarr and Senator Rice that it is too hard to get a DGR listing. For the sake of transparency, I believe that it is good that we are listing the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, although that should have been made in the last parliament. I made some attempts to get that to happen, but I wasn't successful, so I'm pleased that it is happening now. It's also fair and reasonable that a no case should be listed. Some very good people are associated with AICR, including Rachel Perkins who is continuing a now multigenerational effort by her family to address some of the issues on the position of Indigenous people in this country, which concerns many Australians. Those of us who took the opportunity to watch her recent program on the Australian wars were reminded that just half a generation ago people in our schools were not taught a balanced version of Australian history. When I was taught the history of Australia in Victoria, where I lived back then, it was more about the history of Victoria and there was no emphasis on the dreadful policies of the 'Black Line' in Tasmania and the grotesque policies that should be known to all Australians. I take this opportunity to commend Rachel Perkins on her work, and look forward to the efforts of the AICR, which is due to receive deductible gift recipient status.

I restate my point from before that it is only fair that the no case should be put forward. I would say it is premature for most people to flag whether they will be voting for or against this proposal because, at this stage, we don't have a final proposal from the government. I won't take up any more time in the Senate, and I thank you for the opportunity to make a few random comments about things that I think are important but not necessarily connected, just as a TLA bill has random things that are not necessarily connected.