Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We were having this debate in the Federation Chamber about whether deputy speakers are acting deputy speakers or deputy speakers, but you definitely look like more than a deputy speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker! It's very good to be here in the chamber as you president over it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter remains that the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 4) Bill 2020 is clearly a sensible piece of legislation that is about reforming exactly the sorts of things that we need to reform. This is the sort of stuff that the parliament does day in and day out to ensure that we are delivering the sorts of services and creating the types of markets and providing the very incentives that we need so that ordinary Australians can get on with their lives. We are deep in the weeds on these ones.

I heard the member for Burt's contribution to this debate. It was excellent, as always. However, it may have slightly been gilding the lily. I know the member for Burt has never been accused of gilding the lily previously to this; however, it really pains me to say that franchisees in this country know that this government has their back. Small businesses in this country know that this government has their back. We know the very engine room of economic growth, employment, competition, innovation and consumer choice lie with small businesses. We know that they're the ones that day in and day out get up, have their houses on the line, employ people. They're not just the ones at risk; their family and all their funds are at risk. They're the ones who have taken a punt on making this country a better place because they believe in the promise of Australia. And that's what this legislation goes to.

This legislation goes to the fact that we are about trying to create a fairer and more equitable society, a just society, in this country by giving people more hope, more opportunity and more choice. I know that a lot of these things are deep in the weeds, but they're important. So when schedule 1 of this bill, which talks about removing the tax on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges, it is a great way to solve the problems of insomnia that are prevalent in so many suburbs and regions of this country! However, it is important. It's important because these are the places where this parliament creates the framework that allows people to make the sorts of choices that make this nation a better place.

As has always been the case, the Renewable Energy Target scheme, energy retailers and other liable entities are still required to surrender large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. This makes perfect sense. Should businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of that shortfall change. Once again, this makes perfect sense. This was always intended to provide the flexibility to help these businesses manage the cost of complying with the scheme. So this is what schedule 1 continues to deal with. This schedule provides certainty that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall changes that are being refunded. This ensures that no anomalous situation occurs as a tax deduction is not allowed for the payment of shortfall charges. This will clarify the operation of the tax treatment and ensure the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended: meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.

The question that I have for those opposite is: Why are you opposed to this? Why has the member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, moved amendments to this bill? If you are in favour of reducing emissions, if you are in favour of creating investment certainty so businesses can come into this market to reduce emissions, why wouldn't you support this? Why is the member for Whitlam once again putting the interests of producers ahead of those of ordinary hardworking Australians?

The schedule makes it clear that there are no changes to the Renewable Energy Targets. There are no decreases in penalties for noncompliance. This measure will apply to refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges paid since 1 January 2019. It's estimated to cost $70 million over the forward budget. I quote the Assistant Treasurer from when he introduced this bill:

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges.

This measure will apply to refunds paid since 1 January 2019.

Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, energy retailers and other liable entities must surrender large-scale generation certificates or pay a shortfall charge. This shortfall charge can be refunded where the outstanding certificates are surrendered within the allowable refund period.

This measure will therefore clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.

Is this not yet another example of this government demonstrating that its interests lie with the interests of hardworking ordinary Australians and the environment?

Schedule 2 talks about the transitional provisions relating to the repeal of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. In 2017 this government, the government of the Australian people, agreed to the recommendation of the Ramsay review to establish the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to replace the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. That tribunal was closed on 31 December 2020. These amendments ensure that the closure of the SCT is smooth, that administrative arrangements are in place to allow ASIC to undertake ongoing management of SCT records and that any outstanding cases are appropriately passed on to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. The SCT will work to resolve all open complaints by 31 December. However, there may be a small number that cannot be resolved before then due to reasons outside the tribunal's control, including the impact of the coronavirus on business continuity. These cases will now be transferred to AFCA for resolution.

Why is the member for Whitlam moving amendments to schedule 2? Why does he not want to protect the interests of Australian consumers? Is it because there is no greater spruiker for industry super in this place than the member for Whitlam? Why is he always looking after the interests of industry super and not the interests of its members? The complaints will not be adversely affected, as AFCA is now the primary external dispute resolution body responsible for handling superannuation related complaints and is appropriately resourced to resolve outstanding tribunal complaints. The AFCA Act will also be amended to allow for the transfer of the tribunal's records and documents to ASIC for ongoing records management and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA where previously these had been remitted back to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.

Schedule 2 to the bill will also introduce a rule-making power to the AFCA Act to allow the minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. There is no financial impact associated with this measure. Yet the member for Whitlam puts the interests of industry super ahead of that of ordinary Australians, ahead of their members. Deputy Speaker, I know that you are equally concerned about this matter. We are, at the moment, witnessing industry super spending hundreds of millions of dollars of members' money on themselves in threatening the elected government of this country that, if we do not do what they tell us to do, they will cry havoc and unleash the dogs of an advertising war.

And whose money are they spending? Are they spending their own? Are they spending that of their trustees? Are they spending that of the union movement to whom they send hundreds of millions of dollars a year? No. They are spending the money of ordinary Australians. And who is standing up for ordinary Australians? This side of the House. What are those on the other side of the House doing? What is the member for Whitlam doing? The member for Whitlam is trying to neuter this proposal so that ordinary Australians have no redress for the complaints and problems created by the superannuation sector, a sector I might add that Australians have no choice as to whether they make contributions to. This parliament determined that they must contribute to it, and then it took away their choice in so many instruments. The Labor appointed head of the Fair Work Commission can preside over determining where hardworking Australians get to put their money, hundreds of billions of dollars, without choice and without discretion. This is appalling. It's appalling that the member for Whitlam would not come into this place and give full-throated support to such a measure to protect the rights and the interests of ordinary Australians. What's happened to the modern Labor Party, where they don't care about working Australians, where they only care about the interests of industry super and not those of ordinary Australians, who we have forced to make contributions and often give them no choice as to what fund they make those contributions to?

I say that this is a very sad day. I would hope that the member for Whitlam would reflect upon what he has done and would come back into this place and withdraw his amendment to this bill so that ordinary Australians do have some right to make complaints and to seek redress when their money, as we speak in this place today, is being misspent by industry super on industry super. Let this House make it clear that superannuation exists for the people. It's provided by the people and should be of the people, not as it stands at the moment, where it is superannuation for the millionaire fund managers—for them, by them and of them. No. That is not what this parliament created when it created the retirement income system. I note that there is no-one on the other side that is willing to make those arguments.

In the short time that I have left, I would also point to schedule 3 of the bill, which is the industry code panel under part 4B of the Competition and Consumer Act and changes that we are making there, which the member for Burt referred to. The member for Burt recognised that these changes are indeed brilliant, and I accept his congratulations of the government. I can add no more to it than that, because the member for Burt is far more eloquent than I, having been trained as a lawyer and indeed whose genius is often on display in this place.

Schedule 4, which is extension of the modification power, is another important schedule. I will just briefly speak to this because I am running out of time. This measure will extend the power which allows responsible ministers to change arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation in response to challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic. The extension of this power addresses continuing difficulties experienced by individuals, businesses and government agencies in complying with information and documentary requirements, including requirements to witness and sign documents. All determinations made under this power will cease to have effect when the schedule ceases to have effect. These are important changes to our law. It's important that this House deal with them. As Steve Crawford of Col Crawford motors and Bill Buckle of Bill Buckle motors have told me, these matters are critical for them in them supplying goods and services to the people of the Northern Beaches.

See this speech in context