Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a great deal of pleasure in talking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 because it has critically important aspects, even though some of them might be quite simple, straightforward variations of the bill for many.

This bill has been a matter of discussion for some considerable time. Parts of it come out of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, which found that the corporations and financial services law needs to be simplified to ensure that its intent is met. There are also reforms coming out of the ALRC review, which go to the point of unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version of the act applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the ASIC Act, creating a single glossary of defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act; repealing redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repealed provisions; correcting errors; and improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. In effect, this bill makes it more straightforward and easier to apply. These are critically important aspects of making sure that we have a more effective and efficient system.

I noticed that the discussions yesterday regarding the bill went to some of the efficiencies that could be driven but also the importance of looking at what's happening in the insurance industry. There are a number of very important inquiries relating to the insurance industry going on in other areas—in particular, the parliamentary inquiry into insurers' responses to the 2022 floods, which is being held by the other place, the House. That inquiry also has an important role to play in making sure we have a more efficient system when dealing with insurance. That inquiry will be looking at the February to March 2022 floods in South-East Queensland and New South Wales, which are the costliest natural disasters in terms of insurance. When we say 'natural disasters', we should say 'natural disasters that become humanitarian disasters', because natural events are a regular occurrence, of course, in this country, but a humanitarian disaster is one that we have to make sure we are fit for purpose to deal with. One important aspect of that is insurance costs. Another is the capacity to build back better when those disasters hit.

I know that that inquiry was called after the Assistant Treasurer visited communities impacted by floods in South-East Queensland, with Graham Perrett MP, and in the Northern Rivers, with Janelle Saffin, the New South Wales state MP. Following a visit to flood ravaged towns in the Central West of New South Wales last month, Mr Jones announced an inquiry alongside the member for Calare, Andrew Gee MP. Those terms of reference are incredibly important because they go to the issue of how we deal with multifaceted issues that face us with insurance—not only making sure that we have an easier process for dealing with financial matters, including insurance matters, but also looking at the broader insurance questions that are plaguing many within our community with the ongoing challenges from the increasing number of natural hazards that are becoming humanitarian disasters within our community.

Also discussed yesterday was the fact that this will drive a series of efficiencies and get rid of some of the cumbersome red tape. Those on the opposite side see red tape often in the sense of when there are protections for workers or protections for various people. That's red tape they want to get rid of. Getting rid of this red tape will actually drive efficiency. Through these amendments it is replaced with a clearer and more purposeful way of dealing with these particular matters in this legislation.

I note the number of people who have been killed in the food delivery industry. In the last two years 13 people have lost their lives—and those are just the ones that have been reported. Thirteen young people were working in Australia. Many of them were visa holders. In the food delivery industry they are paid by the job and are paid such a small amount of money. They have to push themselves to get the job done. If they don't get the job done, they find themselves deactivated by an algorithm.

I really dislike the terminology 'termination'. It sounds horrific when somebody has just lost their livelihood. It's very blunt language. The language has now turned to something that is even more blunt and even more disconnected. It's a bit like the language of the 1970s that was used to describe lives lost overseas in a war—'collateral damage'. In the food delivery industry where there's no regulation or exceptionally very little regulation—certainly no labour regulation and rights—people are deactivated. They are having their jobs terminated and having their livelihood deactivated by an algorithm.

When we talk about the cost of living and more efficiencies to drive the economy to have fewer costs, including the issues talked about in the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations that go to this treasury laws amendment bill, we have to look at the broad cost-of-living impacts. The cost of living impacts right across the economy and the community.

I look again at food delivery workers and the effects of not having regulation, in comparison to the regulation we're getting rid of here. I've heard a number of people on the opposite side over a period of years say that it's incredibly important that we have a more efficient and productive workforce. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. In actual fact I'd be really disappointed if someone disagreed with that. I'm looking in a certain direction in the room to see whether there is disappointment from everybody in the room here, but I hope certainly all of us here believe that productivity is a positive thing for the economy, community and business—and, importantly, when I say 'community' I mean the workforce and those who live and work in it, because that's really why we're striving to get better outcomes.

When we look at productivity we also have to look at the decency of what we deliver as a community. One of the things Australia is so proud of is delivering, by and large, a better society in comparison to many other communities around the world by giving people rights. Giving people rights and working people rights brings not only better outcomes but also more fairness. I describe it this way. Good companies abide by the laws and strive to do the right thing to have a productive company and have a good outcome for their shareholders and their business. Also driving that is having good outcomes for their customers and, incredibly importantly, their entire workforce.

When you look at the gig industry those opposite have said that they believe that having workers being paid minimum standards is something that doesn't work for the community. So many people have lost their lives. Their loved ones have seen the devastation on our roads. They have lost loved ones as a result of chasing wages that are as little as $6 an hour. Having to make those deliveries in all sorts of weather, regardless of the consequences of having to rush from point A to point B—those same workers operated and worked during the COVID period, at great risk to themselves, to make sure they were able to put food on their tables and provide medicine for their families and themselves. To say that they don't deserve to have minimum standards and shouldn't have access to things like workers compensation, sick leave or, at least, a minimum hourly wage rate or flexibility arrangements to bring their payments up in line with similar payments, no less than the minimum wage—when they say that it's all too complicated, it reminds me of what they've said before.

There's been consistency from those opposite regarding gig workers. I have to give the Liberal and National parties some credit here, because they have been absolutely consistent. They believe that having low wages in the economy is a way to drive the economy forward. When it comes to gig workers, many on the opposite side—I hazard to say it's not all of them, certainly in private—have said that it's too complicated to give gig workers rights. That would be adding red tape, putting more regulation in.

Heaven forbid! For someone not getting paid at least the minimum wage, not getting workers compensation and not getting potential access to sick leave, delivering food to the doors of Australians right across the country or picking people up to take them from point A to point B, let alone delivering a parcel with Amazon—to say that those people don't deserve minimum standards and minimum rights is an absolute outrage. When you don't give minimum rights to those people working in those segments of the community and the market, you say to the entire labour market outside those industries that that approach is okay. You then say that this is the way you can run a workforce, so, you have situations with companies like Mable.

Many of Mable's workers are paid well below the minimum wage. That company is making profit on the revenue that it receives from the federal government, in comparison with companies where people are employed as employees and they get sick leave, they get training, there is accountability, there are requirements and the aged care royal commission standards are met. Mable don't give workers compensation, don't have training requirements, don't have ongoing obligations, don't meet the standards that need to be met by any decent A-grade company—the good employers—but they do one thing: they are driven by a profit margin. They are driven by an ambition to make more money. For those people that aren't getting paid minimum wages in those sorts of industries, that aren't getting training or getting skilled, it is actually having an affect on some of the most vulnerable people in our community and the chance of those people getting the right services, which they deserve.

I'll make this very clear: this is not to say the people working at Mable deserve anything better or less. Those people working at Mable, and many good, well-meaning people working at Mable, deserve to get paid the minimum wage. When they don't get paid the minimum wage and they don't get the minimum standards, not only do the carers and the people they're caring for lose but also those companies and workers that provide a better standard of service lose.

When we're looking at what we should be doing about regulation, this is an important bill, because it does start moving an efficiency within regulation, getting rid of red tape. This is an important aspect of how we make things more efficient. It says very clearly that there's a way and means of coming together and doing things in a smarter way. But when we start looking at cost-of-living questions right across the economy, we need to look at all the cost-of-living packages that can help Australian people.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

tor DUNIAM (—) (): I'm delighted to be able to make a contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 second reading debate. I wasn't going to make a contribution, until I saw the quite interesting contribution made by Senator Ayres yesterday on this debate. I thought I might come have my two cents worth too. We are here to legislate and to review, and this is a good opportunity to talk about things that are important to many of us. I'm sure Senator McKim will be interested in some of the things I have to say.

I want to kick off my contribution today by talking about something important to the state of Tasmania: the matter a GST and our fair share to ensure that our state gets its fair share of what we need to run our small jurisdiction under our great federation. I love being a Tasmanian. To be one of the 12 senators representing that small state is quite the privilege, I must say. Each of us that comes here has a very important job to do: to protect our state and what we deserve. We are grateful for other states' contributions to our economy, but we worry about, of course, decisions made by governments that are not in the interests of the state of Tasmania.

There is something that I've spoken about a number of times in the past, and that is the matter of the stadium in Tasmania. A deal is being done, and funding has been committed by the Australian government to the tune of $240 million to build a stadium on Hobart's waterfront. We saw a great front page of the newspaper in Hobart, the Mercury, talking about an economic report, entitled Economic benefits to Tasmania from the introduction of a Tasmanian AFL team and a new stadium in Hobart at Macquarie Point, authored by Mr Russell Hanson. I have had the time to read it, and I think Senator McKim would know Mr Hanson, who is also the former CEO of the national body of the Wilderness Society.

From looking at that report, it was very interesting to see his analysis of the benefits or otherwise of having a team in building a stadium and that contribution from the Australian government, but he also makes the point of—and this is something every Tasmanian member of this parliament should be worried about—whether that $240 million that has been allocated by the Labor government to fund the waterfront stadium is exempt from GST calculations. In the past we've been able to do things like fund the Mersey Community Hospital back in 2017. That is an important piece of health infrastructure in our state, and we were able to secure in excess of $700 million to continue operating that hospital in the interests of north-west-coast Tasmanians. That $700 million would have been subject to the calculations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and impacted on our share of GST funding, but we requested, as federal Liberals as part of the then Turnbull government, that that funding be exempt from those calculations. We were successful. We've asked for this government, the Albanese Labor government, to exempt that funding—that $240 million—from GST calculations. Do you think we've had an answer yet? I can tell you we haven't.

The Prime Minister was asked when he was in Hobart last week whether, four months after having announced the funding, he had made his mind up about whether the money was going to be exempt from GST. We were given word salad in response. He could not guarantee that that funding would be exempt. It is a yes-or-no question, and the answer should be very straightforward. Sadly, though, it's not, and I'll tell you why I think we won't get an answer on that. It is because they intend to rip it out of the GST allocation Tasmania gets. I don't think they have our state's best interests at heart. They certainly want to keep their powder dry for as long as possible, until the last moment, when the decision is made that we are not getting our GST.

Every Labor member of this chamber—Senator Urquhart, Senator Brown, Senator Bilyk, Senator Polley—has a job to do on behalf of the Tasmanian people, who sent them here, and that is to ensure that the government they are a part of actually does the right thing by our state. Exempt that funding allocation from GST calculations so we can pay for health, education and roads—essential services. The Prime Minister knows it, the Treasurer knows it and the Tasmanian Labor Senate team know it, but have I heard boo out of them on this issue? Not once. They need to do their jobs properly to ensure that the people they represent get what they deserve.

Mr Hanson even points to this. The worst-case scenario analysis in his report included that the Labor government was dudding Tasmanians by not honouring our GST share—in effect, ripping that money out of health and education.

So we're keeping a close eye on that. We're going to make sure that Labor senators in this place from Tasmania, and Mr Mitchell and Ms Collins from the other place—Labor members from the state of Tasmania—are held to account for whether or not they deliver on this. We're going to make sure of this, and I'm sure Senator McKim will join with me in making sure—as I'm sure will Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrell as well—that we get what we deserve and that the people of Tasmania are not dudded by this.

In terms of productivity: there are a lot of elements of what's going on in Tasmania that concern me with regard to federal government decisions. We heard from Senator Sheldon that everyone in this place supports productivity. But government decisions often have an impact on productivity. Senator Sheldon touched on industrial relations legislation and framed up the government's proposals in that space—noting that is a separate piece of legislation yet to come to this chamber. It was all about protecting workers and he dismissed as irrelevant any claims around what that might do to productivity and what extra costs might be imposed on businesses. That concerns me. It's similarly so with decisions around infrastructure projects. For example: we have this government reviewing a range of infrastructure projects which are vital for the continued successful growth of our economy. The Australian government's review into infrastructure projects has put many, many projects in jeopardy, and if we're talking about productivity then funding for these projects should be guaranteed.

Again, this is something where Mr Brian Mitchell, the member for Lyons, and Ms Julie Collins, the cabinet minister from Tasmania—the minister for housing, I think; she has a big job ahead of her—and the four Tasmanian Labor senators should stand up and ensure we aren't dudded on. The projects that are under review at the moment amount to a significant amount of taxpayers' money—$720 million worth of taxpayer money is going to these projects. It isn't wasted and these aren't just flights of fancy; they're projects that we need to keep growing our economy. There's the Hobart to Sorell Corridor and the Midway Point Causeway—it's the fastest-growing municipality in Tasmania and we need proper roads to get commuters to and from there. And we have the Old Surrey Road and Massy-Greene Drive upgrades; the Rokeby to South Arm Highway upgrade; and the Bridport Road freight efficiency and safety upgrades. These are not small projects with no purpose; they will save lives. The last speaker, Senator Sheldon, is a supporter of workers' rights and of course of ensuring that people who work on our roads, and any other user of our infrastructure, are provided with safe conditions to be able to do what they do. Well, fund these projects! Stop the uncertainty! Don't dud Tasmanians! To my Labor Tasmanian Senate colleagues: I look forward to you saying something in order to save these projects. But, again, I've heard nothing today.

Down in Tasmania there are a couple of projects where of course I suspect I'm going to disagree with my friend over here Senator McKim on. That includes the proposal to construct a new tailings dam near Rosebery to extend the life of the MMG mine, which has been in operation for more than a century—and successfully so. It's an important economic contributor to the Tasmanian west coast, with hundreds of jobs directly at the mine and many more indirectly. The Labor government, under Ms Tanya Plibersek from the other place, is assessing whether or not to grant the approvals required to proceed and build this tailings dam. Without the tailings dam the mine shuts down. I've been asking the minister to hurry up and make a decision; it has been a very long time since the proposal was brought into question. I respect that there are many views on this, but a decision needs to be made so that there's certainty. Where are the Labor senators from Tasmania on this issue? It's a bit like, 'Where's the Tasmanian Labor opposition?' Nowhere to be seen! I know where Dr Woodruff and Mr Bayley from the Tasmanian Greens are on this. I know where my colleagues, Mr Rockliffe, the Premier of Tasmania, and Deputy Premier, Mr Ferguson, are on this issue but I have no idea where Tasmanian Labor are on this or the GST issue. They are not standing up for our state at all. They are pussyfooting around on all of these issues and allowing bad decisions to be made up here. They are allowing funding to be ripped out of our state. The only people standing up for their respective views are parties that are not the Labor Party.

I will conclude my remarks there. I just want to put on record again my great disappointment in this government and its Tasmanian representatives for not doing anything on issues I have raised. I look forward to asking my Tasmanian Labor colleagues where they are on the GST issue, where they are at on the MMG tailings dam, where they are at on the question about the future of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. Where do they stand on these issues? Or is it not their problem anymore because they are in government? They should be taking a stand and I hope they do soon.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. The expenditure of this government is always in question. Their priorities should always be subject to analysis and we should be looking at what they are doing. One of the things I am very concerned about is in my home state of Western Australia. In an area that I know you know particularly well, Acting Deputy President Smith, the Canning Vale area, there is a significant project committed to by the former government. It was the Garden Street flyover bridge. Sadly, that project is subject to the 90-day review. It has been about 130 days and counting since that review was commenced and we still don't have an answer. This is a considerable concern to local residents in that area because this is a key project that really should go ahead.

The RAC, the Royal Automotive Club, in Western Australia has identified this as one of the top accident hot spot intersections in all of the metropolitan area. Significant accidents, significant injuries occur there every year. Those local to the area know that when you drive through there it is heavily congested, particularly in peak-hour period. It is currently a roundabout with a huge amount of traffic going through it. You really do have to run the gauntlet when you pull up to that intersection. My parents live down the road from that area and there is no break in the traffic in either direction; the four roads intersect. It is very, very dangerous. There needs to be a flyover bridge built. It was identified as the solution for that intersection. Sadly, it is subject to this review, too much time has lapsed and no decision has been made. Further to that, we have learnt this government has done nothing in planning for this particular project.

This was a project committed to some 18 months ago under the former government yet nothing has happened. There has been no progress whatsoever. I know this because I met with the City of Gosnells last week to discuss this particular project and there has been no forward planning, no engineering and no design has been done. So it does beg the question: What is the priority of the government and will they bring it forward? This is a critical project.

The member for Tangney, Mr Lim, says this project will go ahead but we haven't seen any evidence that in fact it will. Why is the government not coming out and saying what projects will be included, what projects will go ahead? It's not acceptable, because every day and month that goes by is further time during which accidents can happen and congestion can continue in this vital area. This is on the edge of Canning Vale, in the industrial area, which is a significant industrial area in Perth. We have huge industry there. There are trucks that come through there. Significant amounts of freight flow through that area, and it's incredibly unsafe.

The other thing that's happening is that there is a new train station that's being built there as part of the Metronet project, the linking of Thornlie to Cockburn, and when that train station is finally built it will obviously drive—excuse the pun—significant traffic through that intersection, even more than there already is, because it will be literally right in the vicinity of the entrance of the car park to that train station. They're building a car park with many thousands of bays at this train station. It's going to be a major pedestrian and vehicle ingress and egress area, and of course this project is vital to ensuring the safety of people going through that area.

A week or so ago I took down the shadow minister for infrastructure, Bridget McKenzie. We personally went there. She was good enough to come out and visit the location, and she joined me in calling for the government to just get on with this project. The fact is that there's been an absolute silence from the government. Admittedly the member for Tangney has said that he's committed to it, but what is the government doing about this? This is a critical project that must go ahead.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Pratt?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Chair. I would just seek to have you draw the relevant bill to the attention of the senator who is speaking. The infrastructure bill is in fact the next bill. There are some tangential links to some of the issues in the Treasury bill in relation to ASIC, corporations et cetera, but I just wanted to make sure that he's speaking on the right bill.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, just on Senator Pratt's point of order, I'm not sure if she had the benefit of being in the chamber earlier when her colleague Senator Sheldon was delivering a speech about the industrial relations bills, which the government has not yet even introduced to this chamber, at some length, and we allowed him to do so, even given the tangential connection to this bill.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Paterson. I have every confidence that Senator O'Sullivan will have heard the remarks of Senator Pratt, so I'm sure Senator O'Sullivan will oblige.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed I have. Of course, this is about the priorities of this government and its expenditure and the things that it is committing to as part of its budget and its program. What we're seeing, unfortunately, is an unwillingness to be upfront with the Australian people about what the government's priorities are in terms of key infrastructure projects that are occurring around the state.

So I would urge the government to just get on with it. You said you commissioned a 90-day review. It is well past that 90 days. Key projects have been put on ice. All of them are subject to cancellation. This is a project that must not be cancelled, and it ought not to be delayed any further. It should be done. It should be completed as part of the overall roadworks program in that area. It would make sense. The feedback I've had from people to the campaign that I've been running on this is that it must go ahead but it should happen in conjunction with the roadworks program that's already ongoing in the area, because the last thing that locals want, of course, is protracted roadworks. Sadly, we're seeing under the state Labor government in Western Australia that it is taking an extraordinarily long time to deliver projects. They don't deliver them on budget, and they certainly don't deliver them on time. The impact, of course, is on the budget, but it's also on people and their time. Any time that people are spending on the road, in their commute to and from work, school, the shops or wherever they have to go, is time that they are not with their families. They are not able to enjoy that time restfully being at home with their families. Of course, it's a serious issue. I really do call on the government to hurry up and announce what you intend to do with this program. I have serious doubts about it now, given that it's been well over 90 days and given that this government is not progressing with this and not coming forward with any concrete answer about what it is going to do. It's disappointing for the local residents.

It's an important project that must go ahead, as I said, for safety. It will also drive efficiency in and out of that area, particularly into the Canning Vale area, where there are significant, major businesses operating. There's a defence precinct in that area that will play a key role in AUKUS and other programs essential for our nation's future. This particular project not going ahead in a timely way will seriously impact the delivery of those programs. I question the government's priorities when it comes to their management of budget and expenditure, because it's clear that there will be a productivity dividend if this project is delivered. It will drive efficiency through our economy, and further delay of these projects means you will add additional cost. If it is done at the same time as the other major roadworks occurring in the area, that will bring financial and, as I said, timing efficiencies for road users that go through the area. The government's priorities seem to be askew, and I would urge the government to get on and move ahead with these important projects.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ARTHY (—) (): Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 contains measures designed to maintain and improve Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure it remains current and fit for purpose. It forms part of the government's regulatory stewardship role, the work of which is ongoing. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill make amendments to implement some of the recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in Interim report A and Interim report B of its review of the legislative frameworks for corporations and financial services regulation. The amendments improve the navigability and clarity of the law within existing policy parameters by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The schedules will create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act, repeal redundant provisions, correct errors and make other amendments to improve clarity.

Schedule 4 to the bill makes amendments to the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments being remade will be up to date and fit for purpose. Schedule 5 to the bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters contained in ASIC instruments into the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The amendments will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations. The minor and technical amendments in schedule 6 to the bill will amend various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent, will make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes and will remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.