Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill. I'm just going to pick out three key areas: firstly, the Renewable Energy Target, or, as the member for Indi said, the RET; industry codes of conduct; and also—no surprises—superannuation transparency, where women's economic security will be improved.

The Renewable Energy Target or the RET is a scheme that's designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources. The target is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator under two schemes. The first is the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, which encourages investment in renewable power stations to achieve 33,000 gigawatt hours of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020. The second is the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which supports small-scale installations like household solar panels and solar hot water systems. According to CSIRO, Australia has the highest uptake of rooftop solar globally. The Clean Energy Regulator data shows that more than 2.68 million rooftop solar power systems in total have been installed in Australia as of 31 December 2020. That means that one in four homes across our country have solar panels on their roofs—including my own!

The Renewable Energy Target works by allowing both large-scale power stations and the owners of small-scale systems to create large-scale generation certificates and small-scale technology certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate. The certificates are then purchased by electricity retailers, who supply the electricity to households and businesses and submit it to the Clean Energy Regulator to meet the retailer's legal obligations under the Renewable Energy Target. This creates a market which provides financial incentives to both large-scale renewable energy power stations and the owners of small-scale renewable energy systems.

It's always been the case with the RET scheme that energy retailers and other liable entities are required to surrender large-scale generation or pay a shortfall charge. Should businesses later surrender outstanding certificates within the allowable time frame, they receive a refund of the shortfall charge. This was intended to provide flexibility to help these businesses manage the costs of their compliance. This schedule provides certainty that energy businesses will not be taxed on the amount of shortfall charges refunded to them. This will clarify the operation of the tax treatment and ensure the market for large-scale generation certificates works as is intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers. That's something that we all want in Australia. So this measure will apply to refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges paid since 1 January 2019, and it's estimated to cost $70 million over the forward estimates.

Schedule 2 in the bill is the industry code penalties under part IVB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Industry codes of conduct can provide the necessary regulatory support and environment for industry. They can guard against misconduct and opportunistic behaviour while fostering long-term changes to business culture. They can be described as a set of rules or standards of conduct for an industry, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. Codes of conduct can be mandatory or voluntary.

Voluntary codes are a form of industry self-regulation. Voluntary industry codes are usually flexible and can change in response to industry or consumer needs. They set out specific standards of conduct for an industry, including how to deal with its members and its customers. An example of a voluntary industry code, for those listening, is currently the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which was introduced to improve standards of business conduct in the food and grocery sector. I once worked in this sector as a food merchandiser, filling the freezers in Woolworths and Coles with frozen peas. I also worked as a food sales representative. So I've experienced this code in action, and a very important voluntary code it is as well.

Mandatory codes provide a set of rules or minimum standards for an industry—again, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. An example of a mandatory code is the Franchising Code of Conduct, and, now, the new car dealership agreements which fall under that code; I will talk about those as well. The government recently announced a suite of reforms to the automotive industry. The reforms transformed the voluntary principles into mandatory obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct. The guidance was developed in consultation with industry to improve fairness and transparency in dealership arrangements, and the amendments to the code follow the government's response to the Fairness in franchising report and also reflect further automotive franchising reforms that the government announced on 12 March 2021.

This schedule is about the establishment of a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with industry codes of conduct. For industry codes generally, the maximum civil penalty amount will be increased from 300 to 600 penalty units or $133,200. For a breach of the franchising code by a corporation, the maximum civil penalty available will be the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained from contravention of the code or 10 per cent of annual turnover. For non-corporations, the maximum civil penalty available will be half a million dollars. This increase in penalties in the franchising code is necessary and appropriate, given the significant harm that can be caused to the lives and livelihoods of small and family business—music to my ears. I know a little bit about this in terms of conditions that existed some years ago before this code became mandatory for franchisees and franchisors. In some industries, franchisors, unfairly, did have the upper hand.

Before coming to this place, I worked as a national development management for a national buying group with over 100 stores. That particular buying group had an excellent deal in place for its members with minimal fees and a raft of value measures in place that enhanced the retailer's business model. If I may say, the store owners and staff were supported well with business coaching and national and local marketing campaigns at virtually no cost to them. Often mums and dads owned those small and family businesses; in fact, 100 per cent were owned by mums and dads. That is not the business environment that I encountered when I spent a short time working for a franchisor not long after that—a franchisor, whose members were, unfortunately, in minus four per cent growth. It was a very high stress environment for me as the national BDM, trying desperately to turn their businesses around, but the franchisees themselves, of course, were in great distress, and even the most successful of them did not enjoy a sustainable retail business model.

Mums and dads who owned these franchise stores couldn't pay their bills or meet their commitments, which, ultimately, meant losing their business and, often, their homes. Large shopping centres where they were located charged exorbitant fees to fit out stores, and they forced retailers to pay the union costs associated with accessing their sites to fit out new stores, which, at the time, I found unconscionable. In addition, they then charged defit costs to the retailer when they either broke their lease or walked away from their failed businesses. I experienced one instance where the shopping centre, shamefully, charged $30,000 to the retailer for a defit of their store and then leased the store fully fitted out to the next retailer at a higher rate because it was fitted out. That is known as double dipping. It's taking advantage of mum-and-dad retailers and it's not fair business practice. So I say to the Australian public: this is why we have mandatory codes of conduct. It is to stop this sort of practice going on.

One contributing factor to failures of small and family businesses was the fees payable to franchisors that were not reasonable when compared to a percentage of these small businesses' turnover, and another was the lease agreements with large shopping centres that were tied to franchise agreement terms—often five years or five years plus five years. I've also worked to assist those struggling mums and dads who were locked into franchise contracts. I've been with them when they have had to let go of staff and default on their mortgage payments. These are not good times. Therefore, it's necessary to have these mandatory codes of conduct. I have seen it from all perspectives, and I stand up for the mums and dads and the small businesses, of which there are many across Moncrieff. There are 32,000 small businesses in Moncrieff. Many of them are franchisees, and many of them are also good franchisors, I must say.

I want to move forward now to schedule 5, which relates to improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings. This schedule implements the improving the visibility of superannuation assets in family law proceedings measure which was announced as part of the government's Women's economic security statement in 2018. These amendments provide the legislative basis for an information-sharing mechanism to allow separated couples undergoing family law proceedings to apply to the Family Court registries to request superannuation information of the other party held by the Australian tax office. Parties will then be able to use this information from the ATO to seek up-to-date superannuation information from their former partner's superannuation fund.

With the divorce rate at over 50 per cent, we know that many women find themselves at a distinct economic disadvantage later in life, for a couple of reasons. What often happens is that women leave the workforce early in their career to take care of their young family while their spouse continues in the workforce to support the family. Once the children are grown up it is often difficult for women to retrain or to re-enter the workforce, and, of course, all those years have passed and their superannuation balances have not compounded over a long period of time. They simply cannot catch up, although there are concessions for women to be able to deposit larger sums if they earn enough to be able to do so. So, during divorce, women often get a raw deal when it comes to the superannuation that their spouses have accumulated. I have some experience in that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the Minister for Women's Economic Security, Senator Hume, for the work that she has done to improve the economic conditions for women through this bill. These amendments will make it harder for parties to hide or underdisclose their superannuation assets in family law proceedings by reducing the time, cost and complexity for parties seeking information about their former partner's superannuation. Improving accessibility to superannuation information will support more separated couples to divide their property on a just and equitable basis and will help alleviate the financial hardship and negative impact on retirement incomes that women can experience after their separation. It will give women the opportunity for clarity and transparency in their divorce settlement with their spouse when it comes to dividing the real assets of the marriage. Parties to family law proceedings will be able to apply to the courts for access to superannuation information from 1 April 2022.

To close, this is good news for Australian women, delivered by Senator Hume and delivered by this government, the Morrison government.

See this speech in context