Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the government amendment on sheet ZA122:

(1)—Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (lines 7 to 11), omit subsection 376-150(3), substitute:

(3) Expenditure incurred by the company to acquire copyright, or a licence in relation to copyright, is covered by item 2 of the table in subsection (1) only to the extent to which it does not exceed:

(a) in relation to a *tax offset under this Division for the 2021-22 or 2022-23 income year:

(i) if the *film is a *documentary—50% of the total of all the company's *production expenditure on the film; or

(ii) otherwise—30% of the total of all the company's production expenditure on the film; or

(b) in relation to a tax offset under this Division for a later income year—30% of the total of all the company's production expenditure on the film.

This amendment increases the copyright cap for documentaries from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of qualifying Australian production expenditure for two years, from 1 July 2021. The bill containing reforms to the Australian screen production incentive was referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee delivered its report on 31 August and recommended that the copyright cap, a measure that limits the amount of Australian held copyright that can be claimed under the offset, be set at an initial rate of 50 per cent instead of the proposed 30 per cent, in order to monitor the initial impact on the sector.

This change will increase payments by an estimated $1.3 million over the forward estimates. A copyright cap of 50 per cent remains consistent with the policy intent of encouraging the creation of new content. Accepting the committee's recommendation of a 50 per cent copyright cap on documentary productions for two years is consistent with the aim of the broader reforms. It will also provide the sector with an appropriate adjustment period. This change will alleviate concerns around the impact of the changes—in particular, for documentary-makers.

Based on historical data, it's expected that all documentary productions either will benefit from the change to the cap by being able to claim up to 50 per cent of their copyright costs instead of 30 per cent or will not be impacted at all. Additional funding, as mentioned by Senator Davey, has been allocated to Screen Australia, and setting the copyright cap for documentary productions to 50 per cent for two years will give the documentary sector more time to adjust to the broader reforms. The government will continue to monitor the impacts of its policy settings on the screen production sector.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

cALLISTER () (): Labor supports this amendment. It was recommended by the Senate committee that inquired into this bill, as the minister has pointed out. I do want to make clear, though, that Labor's position is that no change should be made to the existing settings on copyright expenditure eligibility thresholds at all. But we won't stand in the way of implementing this recommendation, which will at least blunt the initial impact of the measures contained in this bill on the documentary sector.

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

The Greens support this amendment. However, we would prefer that there were no changes being made to the copyright elements in relation to these matters, particularly for documentaries. We are extremely concerned that, through this piece of legislation, the government is cutting documentary-making in this country off at the knees. It's going to make it very difficult for documentary-makers in Australia to get finance to be able to tell their stories, to be able to report. Such an essential part of public interest journalism in this country comes from documentaries. Such an important part of our record of history and our telling of history comes from documentaries. Documentary-making is so important in helping policymakers and those of us in public life to understand how the community is feeling, to ventilate difficult issues, to come to a consensus of community. I don't understand why the Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce government is so intent on tearing down the documentary sector in Australia. Is it because you don't like people reporting history, telling things as they are, calling out issues that previously have gone unreported? Australia has a proud history of making documentaries, and really good ones, and that is being put at risk by several elements of this piece of legislation. This amendment will limit some of that damage but not all of it. It's just mindless insanity that the government continues to whack and destroy Australia's documentary sector in this way.

Question agreed to.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendment (5) on sheet 1351:

(5) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 23) to page 8 (line 3), omit the item, substitute:

28 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in respect of the tax offset under section 376-55 (the producer offset) to films commencing principal photography on or after 1 July 2021.

The opposition also opposes schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 14 and 15), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, items 9 to 23, page 5 (line 7) to page 7 (line 7), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed.

As I indicated in my remarks in the second reading debate, these amendments seek to remove the most damaging parts of this bill. This bill represents, as I indicated, the third stage in a rolling attack by the government on the Australian screen industry. Measure after measure contained in this bill creates circumstances where Australian television programs, Australian films and Australian documentaries will struggle to get off the ground. I point particularly to those parts of the bill that raise the threshold for eligibility from $500,000 to a million dollars. This is a very significant increase, and it means that many small-scale local productions—those productions which do indeed tell Australian stories—will not be able to get off the ground.

We recognise the urgency and importance of passing this bill, and, as Senator Griff pointed out, the way that the bill has been assembled places senators in an invidious position. Do we pass a measure that is desperately needed, that has been banked by the television sector, and, in doing so, pass other measures which film producers and documentary producers tell us are going to be a problem? It's on that basis that Labor is seeking to amend this bill. The amendments before you seek to excise those parts of the bill that would do the most damage. I do ask senators to give consideration to support for these. We're not going to stand in the way of the bill and hold things up, but it would be better for Australian industry—Australian film and television—if the amendments that are before you now were passed.

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

I rise just to indicate support for these amendments. They address issues that were covered by the Senate inquiry into this piece of legislation, and all seek to reduce the damage to the local Australian screen sector that is in this bill—in particular, damage to those small-scale productions which we know are so essential not just to telling our Australian stories, our local stories, but to the local industry. This house, being the state chamber, has senators from all around the country, and in our different states we have very localised, unique screen and film sectors. This bill, as it stands, is going to devastate those local production houses—the local stories coming out of our states—and we need to fix it. This is not asking for anything more than keeping the status quo. There's plenty more that could be done, but we're not asking for anything more. We're just asking for damage not to be done here. Let's take out the bits of this piece of legislation that drive a truck through Australian production, that drive a truck through Australian stories and documentary making. We're not asking for any more money, Minister, through you, Chair. We're simply asking that the government accept that the settings for these smaller productions and for documentaries need to be left as they are, otherwise we risk devastating an industry that, in fact, is only just starting to recover since the pandemic began.

Senator McAllister was correct in her articulation of the wicked problem we have here. It is that, while there is one element of this bill whose passing is desperately needed, there are a whole lot of other elements of this bill that are going to devastate the rest of the industry. They will pit our creatives, our filmmakers and our producers—our storytellers—against each other. This is not a very good thing to do to a sector that is already struggling to get back up and running.

Why on earth the government is being so pig-headed about this is beyond me. I know that over there on the government side Mr Morrison has hardly put himself up as the hero of the arts. He rarely utters the word. He has continued to talk down to the broad arts sector. He refuses to deal with the very harsh reality that the sector is feeling right now because of COVID. Let's not forget that this is the government that cut the department of the arts in the first place. We understand we're dealing with a very difficult mindset when it comes to Mr Morrison and his approach to arts and creatives in this country, but, honestly, this is an unnecessary attack. It's nasty. Pitting the sector against itself is a nasty thing to do. That's what the government's doing here. It is picking winners and letting everybody else fail.

These amendments go some way to trying to fix this and, for those of us in smaller states where our production industry is really starting to become part of our local economies, it is essential that these amendments pass to protect the sector. I hope the crossbench will support the amendments.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes this amendment. The government is pursuing an integrated package of reforms, including support to attract a pipeline of inbound production, changes to the Australian Screen Production Incentive, and additional funding for Screen Australia and the Australian Children's Television Foundation.

Changes to the Australian Screen Production Incentive are designed specifically to refocus government support to that sector, encouraging it to target expenditure towards on-screen quality and incentivising the creation of original Australian stories that can better compete in the global marketplace. They will also support producers to create content of ambition and scale that will meet audience expectations. This is being achieved through careful balancing and targeting of the Australian government's tax offset policy settings to achieve the objective of supporting a mix of domestic and international production, generating jobs and stimulating the economy. Major amendments to this bill, like the amendment proposed by Labor, will significantly diminish the effectiveness of the changes and upset the balance that's needed to achieve the objectives of creating local Australian content which can compete for domestic and global audiences while also generating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is phrased in a particular way, that if you support the opposition amendments you will vote no and if you support the government's position you will vote in the affirmative. The question is that items (2), (6), (9) to (13), (15) to (23), and (25) of schedule 1 stand as printed and that item (14) of schedule 1, as amended, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that amendment (5) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Patrick has a further amendment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that I don't intend to move my amendment. There's a difficulty with the government in that currently it's hiding the financial reports of 1,119 large proprietary companies. That creates a situation which, when these large proprietary companies—and these are not my words; these are the words of ASIC in response to submissions made to an Economics Committee inquiry into corporate tax avoidance—don't disclose their financial statements publicly, can give rise to aggressive tax avoidance. Sadly, this is an exemption from reporting that applies to only a limited number of companies. These are very wealthy family companies and, also sadly, as has been shown by Michael West, mates of the Liberal Party—donors to the Liberal Party.

Whilst I would love to move this amendment, I understand that the Greens and Labor won't support it. I understand that they aren't supporting it because they don't want to withhold money from the television and movie sector. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, because the government has in fact let this languish on the Notice Paper for some considerable amount of time. So, whilst not moving the amendment, I think it might be appropriate for those other parties to state why they won't support it in this instance.

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

Just in disclosure to the chamber: I thank Senator Patrick for withdrawing his amendment. Again, this is the difficulty we're in: this government plays a game with the lives, livelihoods and jobs of everyday Australians in that if you don't do it their way you get zilch. It's their way or the highway. That just totally characterises this Prime Minister, doesn't it? If Mr Morrison doesn't get his way then it's all somebody else's fault and the whole show is off. Bang! Tantrum! Point your finger somewhere else; that's what the government does every time—every time!—the pressure is on.

We need a bit more strength of character from someone who wants to lead the country, I would suggest. Rather than just thumping a fist and saying, 'My way or the highway!' being a leader actually requires listening, consulting, talking and showing. But all we get from Mr Morrison is thumping, grumping and pointing at someone else. That's all we get. So thank you, Senator Patrick, but, really, this is an indictment on the government.

We on this side and in the Greens understand that the disclosure of this information is important and that the government hide this information to cover up for their mates in big business. We don't think it's appropriate. This chamber has said that time and time again, but of course Mr Morrison runs this country as if no-one else matters. That's why we're in the position we are in. It is with great reluctance that we're not able to progress those particular amendments today.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to accept Senator Patrick's invitation for an explanation of Labor's approach to his amendments. Of course Labor fully supports the principles in the amendments Senator Patrick has circulated. I know that this is something that Senator Patrick has been concerned about for some time. Indeed, we've cooperated in this chamber to try to get this outcome in different bills. Unfortunately, the government consistently resist this proposition—for reasons best known to them.

Why is it that large private companies are not subject to ordinary transparency measures? Why is it that the government persist in this protection racket, this grandfathering arrangement, that they seem totally unable to walk away from? It's part of an ongoing culture of secrecy. It's a depressing indictment on their approach to government in general.

Unfortunately, we have seen amendments of this kind that are passed in this chamber be rejected in the other place. I have indicated throughout this debate that we do not want to see this bill held up. We know that there are television producers depending on the passage of this bill. It's on that basis that we did indicate to Senator Patrick that on this occasion we would not have been in a position to support his amendments had he moved them.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.