Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Burston for bringing on for debate the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018, and I appreciate what Senator Burston has said today with regard to the intent behind the introduction of the bill—what it does and how he believes it will benefit Australians who are doing it tough. As Senator Burston outlined for all of us here and for those listening, the bill would set up a parliamentary committee to consider the matters relating to relief and support for those manufacturing and regional businesses that would be impacted by natural disasters or global economic events and allow these businesses to continue to operate through these adverse circumstances, whatever they may be. Obviously, there are a great number of events that might fall into the category we're talking about here. Natural disasters come in all shapes and forms and, indeed, sizes these days, and with very little warning as well, and they have many, many flow-on and knock-on consequences for many regional communities across the country. Additionally, when we talk about the economic factors, events like world global financial crises, or even local issues, such as commodity prices et cetera—those things have an impact. I'm not quite sure whether all of those things are covered by this bill, having a look at the functions of the committee and of course the definitions relating to the term 'crisis'. But that's something I'll come to a bit later on.

This Australia Fund that would be set up, should a parliamentary inquiry run its course and recommend that the fund be set up and should a government then give effect to those recommendations, would provide a range of various mechanisms to support businesses, as Senator Burston outlined: loans, interest waivers and financial grants, either through industry bodies or directly to individual businesses, obviously taking into account the specific circumstances of the situation the fund would be dealing with. Indeed, Senator Burston also mentioned that the committee would look at assessing whether bankruptcy and insolvency laws could be or should be relaxed as another means of trying to assist businesses get through these tough times, largely—in fact almost always—not of their own doing.

It is important though, I think, to reflect on the fact that the parliament—not this one but the one that preceded the one we are now in—inquired into a very, very similar matter, a similar bill, to assist businesses with the same sorts of issues. I think it was chaired by Dr Andrew Laming and had a number of hearings across a number of cities across the country, including Hobart. I'll turn to some of the evidence that was given to that inquiry, particularly at the Hobart hearing, from a number of industry bodies and the like a little later on. I think it's important to point out that, given this parliament—or at least the preceding parliament—has inquired into a virtually identical issue previously and given that the matter has been discharged, the parliament, with the limited time we have before us between now and whenever an election may occur, should spend its time wisely. Reconsidering the same issue, in effect the same terms of reference, would not be a good use of time. Particularly when it comes to issues of urgency like this, dealing with natural disaster relief—things like drought and other types of natural disaster—I think Australians want the government to just get on with it.

I'm all for trying to restore the Australian people's faith in politicians, but I don't think having another parliamentary inquiry into an issue of such significance, when one has already been conducted, is a great way of trying to get an outcome on this issue. I think a government, perhaps with the input of other senators and other political parties, is better off dealing directly with the communities affected and understanding directly what they need, not through a parliamentary inquiry but just by getting out of this building, getting out of our Senate and joint committees, and going and talking to people. I think it's a novel approach, but it's one that does seem to yield results, particularly in places like Tasmania.

The previous inquiry did go to a number of issues that were cited as mechanisms for support already in place for regional communities and businesses that do suffer and face the consequences of these disasters, both environmental and economic. Of the three hearings that were held throughout the country, in Canberra, Melbourne and, of course, Tasmania, the parliament heard from peak bodies, including the National Farmers' Federation, AUSVEG, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council and also experts in disaster relief and recovery, including the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce, who had a lot of work to do following the 2013 bushfires in south-east Tasmania. The committee also took evidence from public service officials from a number of government departments and, indeed, a number of individual businesses. The committee received around 18 submissions.

Going back to that point, during the conduct of that inquiry, about a degree of evidence provided around programs and initiatives already on offer to support Australian communities, individuals and businesses, we have things, as I mentioned already. There are programs to support those suffering the impact of the drought that this country faces. There's the $5 billion Drought Future Fund that's been set up, that will, over the next 10 years, grow to the value of $5 billion, noting that drought relief and dealing with environmental conditions is dynamic and an ever-changing occurrence that is sadly becoming more common. We need to just get on, hit the ground and support people with the these programs, rather than talk about them and rather than reprosecute the issues in a parliamentary inquiry. We need to get out and actually provide the support and the resources necessary. Of course, there's always room for improvement. People who want the best for their communities and who are on the ground, who run programs like this, will always listen to that feedback. I think it's important to take it all into account.

These programs, like the Drought Future Fund, will provide community services and assistance when it comes to the conduct of research and will also assist with the adoption of various new, emerging and innovative technologies. They provide advice when it comes to the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure, to make sure we are futureproofing the investments we are making now so we don't have the same problems. All too often we see timber bridges that were washed away in regional communities being replaced with timber bridges, and we know, next time we have a one-in-50-years event, it will wash away again. We've got to make sure we're using the best technology possible. While that is a flood related example, programs like the Drought Future Fund will assist farmers, communities and businesses related to this sector to be equipped into the future.

Similarly, the government, rather than talking about it, gets on with investing in things like the Medical Research Future Fund. It is about putting aside funds to make sure that we can invest in the future to make sure we can support emerging innovative technologies, rather than just talking about it here in this parliament. In terms of supporting industry, the Medical Research Future Fund does exactly that: it supports the manufacturing sector in a number of our communities. We have the $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the $238 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative, the $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry program and the $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. These programs do deliver tangible outcomes. They are there to support industry, business and these communities that are affected in the way that, as I think Senator Burston rightly points out, is felt particularly in regional communities. They have tangible outcomes that people benefit from. That's why I don't believe it's right for us to initiate another inquiry into a matter we've already inquired into as a parliament, but, rather, get on with the job of actually doing what people want us to do—that is, support those regional communities.

Earlier on, I did refer to the Hobart hearing of the previous inquiry, which was held in February of 2015. A number of very credible witnesses appeared at this hearing, including representatives of the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Unions Tasmania, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, the Tasmanian Fire Service, WAFarmers, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce. Upon hearing what a number of these witnesses had to say, I thought there were a number of things borne out of this that are important for government to take on board when it comes to considering the design and construction of programs to assist communities, businesses, families and individuals to be resilient in these times of need.

At this Hobart hearing, a number of the members of the other place were present and a number of issues were canvassed, starting with the evidence given by Professor Carter from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, where it was difficult to sort of pinpoint the definition of what is a natural disaster, particularly when it comes to issues that impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries. In Tasmania in recent years we've had Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome hit our oyster industry, which wreaked havoc for quite some time. It cost jobs. Whether or not that could be classified as a natural disaster is something that Professor Carter questioned in his evidence. This was in response to questions from the member for Denison—soon to be the member for Clark—Mr Wilkie: how would a fund like this support businesses like that, if they happened to fall outside the definition of a natural disaster? Those things needed to be taken into account. Through the course of the conduct of this inquiry, and through the recommendations that have been presented as a result, those are things the government has to listen to.

Indeed, it was acknowledged that we need to make sure that there is funding available for research to increase the resilience of these businesses. Professor Carter, as a research scientist, is very keen to make sure that we do structure these industries—particularly ones like the oyster industry, for example—which provide hundreds of jobs in very regional communities in Tasmania, so that they are geared up as best as they possibly can be, using the best technologies available them into the future.

Moving now to the advice provided by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the two witnesses who appeared were Mr Michael Bailey and Mrs Susan Parr, who was then the chair of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They were very frank about their views on what was being proposed here. They were concerned about the narrowness of the terms of reference of the inquiry and about what the resulting fund would cover, should one be established. The biggest concern they held—in the evidence that I was able to read from their contribution to that hearing in 2015—was around the unintended consequences of perhaps providing support to businesses who feel less inclined to make wise business decisions, knowing that there is a safety net. I'm not sure I share that view 100 per cent, but it is something the chamber did point out as a matter of concern when looking at how you would structure such a fund. All of these things can't be discounted. We need to make sure that whatever the design is, whatever the government does in terms of supporting communities, actually does do the right thing by the community more broadly, that it ticks those boxes when it comes to the original intent of being able to help those industries sustain themselves through the tough times, and that it keeps those jobs in those regional communities and enables those businesses that people have invested in—that create jobs—to carry on business and not go to the wall, which we have seen before, sadly.

Taking a look at the advice of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry particularly, they went to the issue of insurance premiums. If a fund, like the Australia Fund, were to be set up, one of the concerns the TCCI had related to whether a business may decide, for instance, not to take out appropriate insurance, knowing that, being in a regional community, they thought, 'Well, you know what? If things go bad, if we have a flood or a bushfire or something like that, or if there is a major economic event, I might be covered by the fund.' So therefore businesses might see this as a disincentive to taking out appropriate insurance, because they know that, if things do go wrong, they can save themselves the cost on the way through, on the premium, and if things do go wrong they will still be covered. That was a matter drawn out by, as I say, the member for Denison, Mr Wilkie. These unintended consequences could create an uneven playing field for businesses in the community, and that is not what we want to see. I think that would be classified as an unintended consequence, and I'm sure Senator Burston would agree with me as well.

Moving to the evidence provided by Unions Tasmania, there were concerns there about, again, the breadth of the terms of reference; whether the fund and its intentions had missed the mark; and whether the fund might have been a way of perhaps investing in entities that were looking to shed workers, using natural disasters and economic events as a reason for doing so and using the funds from such a fund to support themselves in mechanising their workforce and doing away with the jobs. Again, that would miss the point of what we're talking about here. The families who require funds to pay their bills, to pay the mortgage and to be able to afford to send their kids to school need jobs. A fund like this could potentially end up with jobs being lost, because it assists a business in basically doing away with employees and replacing them with a mechanised workforce. That would definitely be an unintended consequence.

The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council similarly had a number of concerns around whether this type of fund would apply to sea based or aquaculture industries equally as it does to terrestrial based industries—on-land farms, viticulture and other forms of business. That was a concern for them. That was not clear for them. It remains the case. Going back to the evidence provided by Professor Carter from IMAS, it is difficult to properly say whether something like this would help businesses that operate in our waterways and on the sea as well.

So there was a whole heap of evidence provided there, raising a whole lot of questions which I'm not sure were properly answered at the time but that give a government food for thought when it comes to structuring programs to provide direct relief to regional communities and to businesses that need it and to ensure that we have those jobs that we so desperately need. All members of this place talk regularly about doing what can be done and doing our best to ensure that regional communities have the economic benefits of larger population centres. It is regional communities—Senator Burston is right—that bear the brunt of the effects of these sorts of events, so we need to make sure that we gear ourselves up properly. That's why I point to the Future Drought Fund and other industry related future funds to make sure that communities, industries, families and businesses get the support they need.

It's also important to point out that it's not just the realm of the state government. We've seen it in in many parts of this country. Again, if I turn to Tasmania, in 2013 we had the Dunalley bushfires. We've also had, as I've already referenced here, the POMS outbreak in south-eastern Tasmania which decimated our oyster industry and took with it many, many jobs of young Tasmanians; the 2016 northern Tasmania floods, which we experienced during the double-dissolution election campaign; and, of course, in May of this year the extreme weather events in southern Tasmania, which had a huge impact on businesses, households and a number of industries right across the south of Tasmania. State and local governments have a huge responsibility in that respect. The state government in Tasmania, in those examples, provided huge resources in supporting these communities and initiating programs to make sure that appropriate action was taken to support communities and industries and protect those jobs. So it's not just about the Commonwealth. It's not just about a fund.

Fundamentally, I don't believe having a parliamentary inquiry into something we've already, in effect, identically inquired into is the way to support Australian communities, Australian industries and Australian jobs. So I'm not a supporter of this bill, I'm afraid to tell Senator Burston, but, as I say, it's important to debate these issues thoroughly.