Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—At the request of Senator Hanson, I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1442:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Disclosure of information

Corporations Act 2001

1 At the end of Part 2M.3

Add:

Division 9—Disclosure by listed entities of information about jobkeeper payments

323DB Requirement to notify market operator about jobkeeper payments

(1) A listed entity must give each relevant market operator a notice, for release to the market, in accordance with this section for a financial year if the listed entity, or a subsidiary of the listed entity, received a jobkeeper payment (within the meaning of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules2020) in the financial year.

(2) The notice must set out the following information for the financial year:

(a) the listed entity's name and ABN;

(b) the number of individuals for whom the listed entity or a subsidiary of the listed entity received a jobkeeper payment for a jobkeeper fortnight (within the meaning of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules2020) that ended in the financial year;

(c) the sum of all jobkeeper payments the listed entity and each subsidiary of the listed entity received in a jobkeeper fortnight that ended in the financial year;

(d) whether or not the listed entity or a subsidiary of the listed entity has made one or more voluntary payments (whether or not in the financial year) to the Commonwealth by way of a repayment of jobkeeper payments received by the listed entity or a subsidiary of the listed entity in the financial year;

(e) if the listed entity or a subsidiary of the listed entity has made such a voluntary payment or payments—the sum of those payments.

(3) The notice must be given:

(a) if the listed entity has lodged a report for the financial year under Division 1 with ASIC on or before the day on which Schedule 3 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Act 2021 commenced—within 60 days after that day; or

(b) otherwise—within 60 days after the listed entity lodges a report for the financial year under Division 1 with ASIC.

(4) If the listed entity becomes aware that a notice given in accordance with this section for a financial year has become out of date or is otherwise not correct, the listed entity must give each relevant market operator, for release to the market, an updated notice within 60 days of becoming so aware.

(5) An offence based on subsection (1) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.

323DC ASIC must publish report

(1) ASIC must publish on its website a consolidated report of all notices given to relevant market regulators under section 323DB and released to the market.

(2) ASIC must publish the consolidated report as soon as practicable after a notice or notices under that section are released to the market.

(3) ASIC must ensure the consolidated report is regularly updated.

2 In the appropriate position in Schedule 3

Insert:

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I speak on behalf of Senator Hanson on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. The key point here is accountability. I know now of organisations that had a disastrous first two months of JobKeeper and then very quickly recovered. They tried to stop JobKeeper payments and couldn't. We also know that some businesses gamed the system. What this shows is that we need a proper audit.

I'll give you some background. March and April 2020 was a time of great uncertainty. Deaths overseas were reportedly very high—in the tens of thousands. There was a lot of fear and uncertainty, and that meant erring on the side of safety. So all the parties in the Senate supported the government's approach on JobSeeker and JobKeeper. We basically gave them a blank cheque and waved it through because it was a time of perceived threat. I warned at the time of a need to get data and develop a proper plan, and that we would hold the government accountable. I noted Taiwan's stellar performance and Ivermectin.

The government got it wrong with JobKeeper. We all saw that, and that's not a criticism of the government—so long as the government doesn't make too many mistakes it's very easy in hindsight to see that JobKeeper and JobSeeker could be open to criticism. I'm proud to say that I erred on the side of caution and safety in a time of great uncertainty. Senator Hanson and I are not afraid of admitting errors. But it was an error that was based on making sure that we erred on the side of safety, so we cannot hold that against anyone. Senator Hanson later questioned continuing JobKeeper. I did the same. Parliament did not stop it. Labor wanted to extend it and widen it. The parliament failed to hold the government accountable. The federal government continued to support capricious and unjustified lockdowns, and still does. The parliament condones the lack of a proper comprehensive plan, yet has blasted billions out into the community.

That's the broad perspective. We were faced with a lot of uncertainty. The government made some initiatives. We supported them, and some parties wanted to continue them through until now. Let's have a look at some specifics. Labor is claiming that, out of the $90 billion paid out in JobKeeper, $25 billion has apparently been paid to companies that did not suffer a decline in revenue. The Treasurer says he doesn't know because he does not have companies' profit and loss statements. And some of them had an increase in revenue and some have paid huge bonuses to executives. So we have a problem. Naming and shaming by itself does nothing, though. The people need action to get the money back from those who've rorted the system. We need a better system. We need more accountability to the public. We need a plan and a system in place for the future.

I want to comment on tax law. Tax law has always had secrecy provisions, unless there's a higher purpose—for example, criminal prosecution. There are many practical occasions when the Australian Taxation Office releases data. Its JobKeeper administration, though, is not part of the income tax system. The Australian Taxation Office systems were used not for tax but for shovelling taxpayer money to companies. That does not affect tax office secrecy provisions.

Our tax system is based on voluntary compliance, including for company tax. Prior to 1986, every individual's tax return was checked by the ATO. That hasn't happened since 1986. It is done on a sampling basis. We need to remember, also, that 75 per cent of tax raised is from individuals, so it's the individual's confidence in the taxation system and confidence in government spending that needs to be maintained.

Now, the parliament makes the laws. There is only one position in the Australian tax office that is of significance: that's the taxation commissioner. Why should the commissioner approach the Senate President? Why did he write to the President, when he reports to the parliament? The parliament hires him and fires him. The commissioner, on this occasion, has overstepped the mark.

ASIC will publish the JobKeeper figures for publicly listed companies, and, for them, the context, including the number of employees and revenues, is available. That's not the case when it's published for private companies because there's a need for context. There can be unintended consequences if people simply know the JobKeeper payments without the comprehensive context. We need to prevent various third parties targeting the businesses and taking JobKeeper out of context.

Now, the government will support this in the House of Representatives, whereas Senator Patrick's original amendment—which we acknowledge and appreciate—would have been defeated. I'm sure that Senator Patrick is doing this to do good, not just look good. So we thank Senator Patrick for his idea, which we have built on and enhanced. Those in the Senate who believe in transparency with safeguards will support this amendment.

I want to make two final points. This highlights yet again that central government quite often gets it wrong. We highlight parliament's lack of accountability. Instead, parliament has been posturing over this COVID situation. We must restore parliament to serve the people. So that's why we're moving this amendment, on behalf of Senator Hanson, and I would welcome people's support.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be supporting the Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 1442.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to 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)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to 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.