Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021. Before I go into some detailed comments I'd like to provide some initial observations.

The first is this. There are a small number of people in this country who are in very high positions of authority who are doing the best they can in extraordinarily difficult circumstances to make decisions, to make choices—in many cases they are choices between options neither of which would be preferable in the usual times—and they're having to make those calls and those choices in real-time, based on the best evidence and advice that they can secure. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, especially those of us who are not in executive positions, to demonstrate a little bit of empathy for people who are in leadership positions and who are doing the best they can in very trying circumstances. I extend that principle to those in executive or leadership positions, whether or not they are in leadership positions in a parliamentary sense or in a Public Service sense, such as those in our police forces, other emergency organisations, business organisations, the union movement, right across the board, and I extend that empathy to everyone in those positions, regardless of their political colours. We're all Australians and we're doing the best we can in the extraordinary circumstances of a once-in-100-years pandemic. That needs to be acknowledged at the outset. I don't think it helps or is in the national interest for the rhetoric to get out of control in that regard and for it to seek to link specific health outcomes with the performance of individuals when those who are making those statements and those comments know that individuals in those positions are making decisions on the basis of the best scientific advice that they can obtain and the best expert advice that they can obtain. Are they getting it perfect? Does anyone ever get it perfect? Where did this expectation that we're going to achieve perfection in terms of responding to a situation like COVID-19 come from?

Certainly, those opposite need to perform their role of keeping the government accountable. That's their role, absolutely, and I respect that deeply, but I think at times we all need to consider our rhetoric and whether or not it's in the national interest when the rhetoric gets out of control and, I think, goes beyond that which is necessary for us to discharge our functions. Communication needs to be measured and respectful. It needs to take into account the fact that different Australians under great stress at this point in time are saying and doing things which they might consider are correct and right. We need to extend respect and empathy to every single Australian in our country at this point in time and seek to unite our country, not to divide it, and I apply that principle with respect to all communication by stakeholders, including those in the political sphere. It's so important that at this point in time our language unites us, not divides us.

My friend Senator Watt from Queensland said the Prime Minister had only two jobs. I bet the Prime Minister wishes he had only two jobs, but unfortunately, the reality is extraordinarily different. At this time in our nation's history we're in a position where we have to face certainty of security issues, especially in our region. We are living in a challenging world in that respect. The Prime Minister tomorrow will deliver a Closing the gap report in relation to Indigenous health, education and economic participation in our society. There's the issue of our veterans, and those of us who were present in the chamber yesterday saw the very animated discussion with respect to issues relating to veterans and veteran suicide. There are a plethora of jobs, a plethora of responsibilities that come with being the Prime Minister of this country, and I think that needs to be respected.

Secondly, I say to Senator Watt that I think it is grossly unfair—grossly unfair—to connect our Prime Minister with a particular lockdown situation. I think it is grossly unfair and, from my perspective, it is an example of the rhetoric exceeding what is called for in a respectful constitutional democracy. I think it's just not called for. The fact of the matter is that the lockdown has arisen from the delta variant of the COVID-19 virus. That's the cause, and one only has to look at countries all over the world to see that every country on the face of this planet is having to confront this delta variant of the COVID-19 virus and the disruption that it causes to economies and societies. It is extraordinarily unfair and unhelpful to seek to link our Prime Minister to a particular lockdown. To be frank, when the rhetoric gets out of control, when the rhetoric goes beyond what is reasonable and rational, it actually undermines constructive points that are made by those on any side of the chamber. When the rhetoric is overblown, it undermines whatever is constructive and positive in senators' contributions to debates in this chamber. I think that needs to be recognised.

Senator Watt quite legitimately wanted us to consider the issue of the $300 cash incentive for people to get vaccinated. Let's consider that on a fair and reasonable basis. On the one hand, one can see the prima facie argument for offering $300 to someone and that that will provide them with an incentive to get vaccinated and, by reason of their getting vaccinated, that will decrease the chances that they're going to get COVID-19 and therefore decrease the risk of transmitting it to someone else. That is how the $300 payment is being justified. Let's accept that on face value. But let's also accept on face value that there are arguments against the utility of that proposal. I want to run through a few of those arguments. As at 2 August 2021, 8,537,516 Australians had received one dose of a vaccine and 4,061,924 had received two doses of a vaccine. Taking on board the constructive suggestion and that the intent is constructive, we would be paying $300 to 4,061,924 who've already received two doses of the vaccine. That equates to something in the region of $1.2 billion. I don't see the public policy argument to pay $1.2 billion to people who've already done what you're trying to incentivise them to do. I just don't see the public policy argument in trying to motivate people to do something that they've already done.

In the case of the 8.5 million people who've received their first dose, if we extended the $300 cash bonus to them, that would be $2.55 billion in payments. Those 8.5 million people have already demonstrated their intention to go through with the vaccination program. I'm one of those as I've had my first AstraZeneca shot, and my second one is scheduled for the first week of September. Again, it is hard to justify why you would be paying $300 incentives to someone who has already demonstrated that they're going through the process of getting vaccinated. If we add the $2.5 billion to the $1.2 billion, we get $3.7 billion that would be paid under Labor's proposal to pay $300 to people who are vaccinated by 1 December. So, on a public policy basis, on a public policy argument, we've got to consider the opportunity cost of that $3.7 billion and how it could be better spent. Senator Siewert, to whom I listen very carefully whenever she makes a contribution in this place because of her passion for those Australians who are in difficult positions, is certainly recognised by me.

Surely to goodness we should be deploying that $3.7 billion to assist Australians who are in specific difficulty and who need that support, whether that's through mental health support, through augmenting disability services, in case of jurisdictions which are in lockdown, or through providing targeted and proportionate assistance to small business. The $3.7 billion which Labor proposes to use to pay people who have received either one or two vaccine doses could be far better spent in terms of targeted support to people who genuinely need it at this point in time. Our response needs to be proportionate, targeted and temporary. Those are the guiding principles which the Australian government has adopted throughout this pandemic, and they are the principles which should continue to guide our public policy decision-making in that regard.

The bill before the Senate has five schedules. The first schedule provides the power for the Treasurer to make rules for economic response payments to provide support to an entity where it is adversely affected by restrictions imposed by a state or territory to control COVID-19, and it applies to all states and territories equally, as it should. Whether it's Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland or wherever, the same rules should apply. Those amendments are required so that those rules can be introduced in a timely and efficient way to ensure the support starts flowing as quickly as possible. Schedule 2 provides for the disclosure of tax information to Australian government agencies to facilitate COVID-19 business support programs. That's clearly something which is warranted. Schedule 3 deals with the taxation of business support. Payments received by eligible businesses under certain COVID-19 business support programs administered by the Commonwealth government will be non-assessable, non-exempt income so that the payments will not be subject to tax. It's very important that that clarity is provided as soon as possible so that those who are providing financial advice to small businesses are able to do so with some certainty. We should always remember that this is an extraordinary measure for extraordinary times. Schedule 4 provides for a modification power, which essentially provides flexibility to adjust information and documentary requirements in order to ensure the continuation of business transactions and government service delivery. Schedule 5 provides, again, for tax exemptions for COVID-19 disaster payments, in this case those payments received by individuals, from the 2020-21 income year onwards so that those payments are free from income tax.

In summary, this is another step in the process of the government responsibly dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic—a once-in-100-years pandemic—and it applies the principles which the government has applied throughout its COVID-19 pandemic response: temporary, targeted and proportionate assistance to those who need it most.