Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The second objective of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, is to establish a tax offset—it's called the location tax offset—to encourage foreign and overseas film companies to come to Australia and to make their films here. We need this as part of our film industry ecosystem. But what I am concerned about, and what the government are clearly avoiding by rushing this bill through today without considering other amendments, is that, while they're giving a handout to Hollywood, they have done nothing to help local Australian film producers and creators right here domestically.

The government promised at the last election that they would introduce legislation to regulate the big streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon to ensure that they are required to make Australian films and Australian content and tell Australian stories on their platforms, as free-to-air broadcasters have been required to do for quite some time. This is a local content quota: regulation that helps to ensure that Australian stories are able to be seen, heard and easily found on these big streaming giants. The government promised that they would bring in this legislation and that it would be in place by 1 July 2024. That was three days ago. We've missed that deadline. The government have broken their promise—they've rolled over and kowtowed to the big streaming giants; they're letting Netflix write the rules—and instead we have a tax offset for Hollywood, bundled up in a bill with all these other things that are not related to the film industry.

The government talk a big game on the arts, on the creative industries and on backing Australian stories, but they are failing dismally. Why? It's because they couldn't even work out in their own ministry who would have responsibility for this piece of legislation. We don't know whether it's Minister Burke or Minister Rowland. Every time we're in Senate estimates and we say, 'Where is this bill up to?' there's always confusion as to who's in charge. It's just not good enough. You promised to have regulation on these big streaming giants done and in place by 1 July 2024, and we still don't even have the legislation. We still don't even know what is going to be in the legislation or what model the government will use. But we do know that Netflix, Amazon and the big American streaming giants are all getting warmed up. They're ready to tear down any moves to regulate them.

Australians have a proud history of telling our own stories and having them shown on screen, celebrating our own history and making good-quality Australian children's content. But it is all being consumed and cannibalised by the American screen industry and the big streaming giants. Rather than standing up to America, what we see is this government folding. We were meant to have this legislation done and started by 1 July, and we still don't even have a draft of legislation. It's just not good enough. When the government decide to finally get their act together after the Americans have pulled it all apart, we will have quite a debate in this chamber about whether it's good enough—because just skipping to the tune of the Americans is not going to cut it. We need to be backing our creative industries here in Australia and be proud of our Australian stories.

The size of the contribution that the Australian screen industry and our creative industries make to the Australian economy is extraordinary, yet time and time again they get shunted off the priority list by the government. In other countries, like Canada, the EU and the UK, governments have decided, rather than allowing the creativity of their domestic industries to be cannibalised by America, to stand up for them and put in place regulation. Here we have the government breaking a promise, leaving the industry in limbo and, all the while, saying, 'It's all too hard to do because America doesn't like it.' We should not be dictated to by what the American companies or the American administration would like. This is our culture. They are our stories. They are our workers. They are our creative talent—and we should be backing them in.

It seems that over and over again the Labor Party talk a big game on standing up to the big corporations, but, when they're forced to make a decision, they crumble. That's what we've seen happen again. This location tax offset will help some here in Australia, and that is good. But, most of all, it is helping Hollywood and the American companies. Meanwhile, our domestic industry is left waiting, with promise after promise being broken. The government is dragging the chain, and our industry is being told to wait. The only people who are really cheering now that 1 July has passed without legislation and regulation are Netflix, Amazon and the big US global giants. The ministers need to do better.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is just the start of the government's response to the Quality of Advice Review, with tranche 2 of our Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms on the way as well. Despite all the hyperbole from the Greens and all the negativity from the Liberals in this chamber today, these are reforms that are well supported. These are reforms that will allow more Australians to access financial advice and make it more affordable for them. It's as simple as that.

This is critical reform as more and more Australians approach retirement. Our government is committed to making it easier for Australians to receive the financial advice they want. So, again, this bill delivers tranche 1 of our Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms. The measures in the bill will streamline ongoing fee renewal and consent requirements into a single form, provide flexibility in how financial service guide requirements can be met, simplify the rules banning conflicted remuneration, introduce new consumer consent requirements for certain insurance commissions and clarify how financial advice is paid from a super balance when it relates to retirement outcomes. We know these reforms will slash red tape for financial advisers and reduce the cost for Australians to access this advice. We know that because stakeholders have told us that, and we know that because the sector has told us that. And, again, this is a bill that is simple in intent and well supported by the sector.

The Economics Legislation Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the bill, and the support from across industry was overwhelming. Representatives from the financial advice industry, super funds and insurers told us that these reforms are a crucial first step. The Financial Advice Association Australia told the hearing that these reforms 'will materially reduce costs involved in providing financial advice'. The National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia told the committee that they are 'supportive of the reforms because they will enable Australians to get access to quality advice'. The Council of Australian Life Insurers noted, 'This bill is a critical first step to expanding Australians' access to financial advice and reducing red tape for financial advisers.' The Super Members Council told the committee that this bill is a critical 'first step to achieving wider and better access to affordable financial advice for millions of Australians who urgently need it'.

So, again, despite the rhetoric in this chamber, there is wide support from across the sector for these reforms, which will make financial advice more affordable. And industry recognises and welcomes that we are reducing red tape and costs for financial advice.

We're pleased that the opposition will support the bill, because it is a good bill. We are providing the certainty that the advice industry and the super sector need around facilitating that advice as well. We know that it's important for Australians to have access to financial advice, particularly as they approach retirement.

That's why we're getting on with the job of implementing these reforms. They are well supported. They cut red tape. They deliver better financial outcomes. And it is a good thing that, through a process of consultation with industry and with stakeholders, we have a bill before the parliament, supported by the opposition, that will do just what it says on the label: deliver better financial outcomes.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a real pleasure to make some remarks in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It was only a few weeks ago that we had a hearing into this bill. At that hearing, the government appeared to defend drafting that was pointed out as being problematic by parts of industry and by the opposition. This is another bill that Minister Jones and the government have bungled. In fact, so many of these Treasury laws amendment bills have been bungled and have needed to be heavily amended.

One of the roles that I perform here in this parliament is working with Senator Walsh on the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. We scrutinise the Treasury laws amendments regularly. I am staggered by the scale of the amendments that have been required to be delivered to not just this bill but all these bills. Sometimes it is a bill which has been proposed by Dr Leigh and sometimes they're bills from Minister Jones. I don't think it really matters; they all seem to be hugely messy processes.

The point that was made on this bill is that the drafting was going to mean that every piece of advice needed to be checked by the trustee and that it may have introduced some uncertainty around whether or not financial advice can be paid for from the superannuation account. This position was defended by government, as I said before. Now the government has capitulated and agreed to make the amendments we had flagged that now give confidence that people who wish to pay for financial advice from their superannuation account can do just that. That is a positive.

I give credit to the government for agreeing to amend the legislation in the way that we had suggested they do, but I put on record that this is a very small reform in the financial advice space. The government inherited a very good review by Michelle Levy which pointed out that financial advice is now almost unaffordable in Australia if you are an average worker. That is very bad.

There is no question that this particular sector has had a great journey of improvement over these last 10 years or so, and there is no doubt that parliamentary inquiries, royal commissions and the like have pointed out that there have been a lot of bad apples in the financial advice sector. But my sense now is that, with all the reforms that have passed through this parliament over the past few years, the bar is at a point where not many people can meet the bar. There are very few financial advisers, and the result of that is that it is very expensive to get financial advice. That is a bad thing, because we want Australians to avail themselves of the best possible financial advice, given professionally and without conflicts.

We recognise that Australians live in a country where taxation affairs are complex—financial affairs are always complex—and financial advice can actually help people get the outcomes that they want for themselves and for the people they love. That is why it is so disappointing that the government inherited a very clear and concise review into financial advice which showed how it could strip away the bureaucracy, strip away the red tape and ensure that there would be a greater supply of financial advice at a lower cost and all government has done is cherry-pick a few little ideas, which it has bungled up until now. Here we are at the last hour, in the last few minutes before the guillotine blade comes down, and the government has had to amend its own legislation after previously arguing that the legislation was all good.

I welcome the government's flexibility. We're very pleased that the sector can benefit from having clearly drafted legislation which is going to allow people to get advice from their super fund. But we want to see the government move on the rest of the Levy review. We want to see the government deliver the rest of those reforms. We'd like to see the government do a lot of things in this space. But I have to say that now, having had more than two years in office, the government is very slow and, generally speaking, only gets out of bed for the unions and the big super funds if they ask for something. It is a consequence of being a government for vested interests that really the only focus of the government, and the thing by which all their economic policies are driven, is feathering the nests of their best friends and fellow travellers, in financial terms and in policy terms.

So we very much welcome this capitulation from Minister Jones, who has battled in the job, you've got to say. He really has struggled in this job, but we're very pleased that he has seen the light in the last few minutes before the guillotine.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of this bill and further bills has expired.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will first deal with the second reading amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, starting with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2678 be agreed to.

Australian Greens circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Government promised to implement local content quotas on streaming giants by 1 July 2024, but it is yet to introduce any legislation, breaking this promise; and

(b) calls on the Government to support Australia's screen sector and prioritise the introduction of its legislative reforms for local content quotas to protect and promote Australian stories and jobs".

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. As the amendment was circulated after 11 am, it can only be considered by leave. Is the senator seeking leave?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I seek leave to move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 2706.

Leave granted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that recent changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax were co-authored by the Government and the gas industry and do not represent a fair return for the sale of Australian gas; and

(b) calls on the Government to reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to capture the true value of Australian gas sold to multinational companies and shipped overseas".

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2706 be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments on ZB323, circulated by the government, be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendment—

(1)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the cost of providing financial product advice," substitute "the cost of financial product advice provided to the member".

(2)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 16 and 17), omit "and is wholly or partly about the member's interest in the fund".

(3)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph 99FA(1)(b).

(4)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit note 1, substitute:

Note 1: The other obligations under this Act, including to act in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries (see paragraph 52(2)(c)) and to comply with the sole purpose test (see section 62), continue to apply to trustees.

(5)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 17), omit "providing".

(6)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 22), omit "providing".

(7)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 25), omit "providing".

(8)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 26), omit "providing".