|
senate vote 2021-09-02#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-09-03 11:17:32
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021; in Committee- Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I am in the hands of the chamber. Senator McAllister, are you seeking the call? I'm going to end the committee stage if I don't get a call.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-09-02.23.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means they failed.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-09-02.23.1):
- > *This amendment is in relation to a much-needed avenue of support for our arts and entertainment industry, which we know has been smashed throughout the COVID-19 period and the pandemic. Lockdowns, border closures and health restrictions have meant that live performances and other types of live events, in particular, just don't have certainty going forward.*
- >
- > *The insurance industry has, of course, done what the insurance industry always does: it has put up higher premiums, which effectively squeeze anyone in the real world out of being able to access them. This amendment simply requests of the government that they establish an insurance guarantee for live performance and live events going forward.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:*
- >
- > *Schedule 3 — Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund*
- >
- > *1 Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund*
- >
- > *(1) There is to be a Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund.*
- >
- > *(2) The Treasurer must, by legislative instrument, make rules to provide for and in relation to the establishment, governance and operation of the Fund, the purpose of which is to provide for a fund to underwrite an insurance scheme for the live performance sector to fill a market failure in the insurance industry as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic.*
- >
- > *(3) Money for the Fund is to be from funds appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this Act.*
- >
- > *(4) The Treasurer must make rules for the purposes of subsection (2) within 30 days after the commencement of this Act.*
<p>I had understood that Senator Hanson-Young was going to persist with her amendment. I just wondered if now was the moment.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Now can be the moment, Senator McAllister. This amendment is in relation to a much-needed avenue of support for our arts and entertainment industry, which we know has been smashed throughout the COVID-19 period and the pandemic. Lockdowns, border closures and health restrictions have meant that live performances and other types of live events, in particular, just don't have certainty going forward.</p><p>The insurance industry has, of course, done what the insurance industry always does: it has put up higher premiums, which effectively squeeze anyone in the real world out of being able to access them. This amendment simply requests of the government that they establish an insurance guarantee for live performance and live events going forward. Even once we get to the phase of opening up, once we have an appropriate number of people vaccinated in this country—including young people, I might add—companies, small businesses and those in the entertainment and live performance sector simply can't plan without access to insurance. There is a market failure. What this amendment requires is for the government to establish a mechanism to underwrite and guarantee insurance. It's not going to cost the government any money. Companies and businesses will pay into it, as they would an insurance company. It's simply to fill the gap, because there has been a market failure.</p><p>If the role of government isn't to step in at times like this, what is the role of government? It is simply unworkable for this industry to continue limping on without proper support from the government of the day. This doesn't solve all the problems, but it would go some way to giving the industry a helping hand. I hope the government considers this proposal in good faith and, if they don't take this one up, does something that will help—that will deliver insurance going forward for this sector so that we can get the show back on the road. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1402:</p><p class="italic">(1) Page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 3 — Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund</p><p class="italic">1 Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund</p><p class="italic">(1) There is to be a Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Treasurer must, by legislative instrument, make rules to provide for and in relation to the establishment, governance and operation of the Fund, the purpose of which is to provide for a fund to underwrite an insurance scheme for the live performance sector to fill a market failure in the insurance industry as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic.</p><p class="italic">(3) Money for the Fund is to be from funds appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this Act.</p><p class="italic">(4) The Treasurer must make rules for the purposes of subsection (2) within 30 days after the commencement of this Act.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>The government will not be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. I should remind the chamber that this bill is, in fact, about the administration and oversight of organisations with deductible gift recipient status, and it's about removing preferential tax treatment for offshore banking units. It's not about COVID support measures for any industry.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>Senator Hanson?</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Hanson-Young. I will just correct you, Temporary Chair. You've said 'Senator Hanson' a few times. The minister said 'Senator Hanson'. I just make it really clear I am Senator Hanson-Young.</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>Yes, my apologies. I think we know you are Senator Hanson-Young.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Labor does support this amendment. It would be far preferable, of course, if the measures contained in this amendment were, instead, contained in a bill brought forward by the government. That would be better, wouldn't it? We would much prefer that the government actually dealt with this challenge. At the moment, we have an uncosted amendment that's been brought forward by a Greens party senator. We are in this position though because the government is dragging its feet.</p><p>The opposition has joined with the live entertainment industry to call for an insurance fund for live entertainment and events. We've been calling for it for months, and I think anyone who enjoys live entertainment, anyone who enjoys festivals, understands why—because there is a heartbreaking list of events where enormous amounts of time, money, energy and commitment from festival organisers and artists have all come to nothing. The pandemic brings significant uncertainties, but the lack of support for the industry is crippling it. The people I know that work in the festival sector are beside themselves. The artists are beside themselves, because they can see a lifetime's investment in building their businesses, in building their audiences, in building their reputations, in building their financial resources draining away, with almost zero interest from the government.</p><p>The government, I should say, announced a very similar measure for the screen sector more than a year ago. That's worked very well since, and the screen industry is doing well. But the federal government says no to the live entertainment and events sector when it asks for exactly the same thing, and it's impossible to know why. Certainly there's been no explanation provided here in the chamber on the substantive policy issue. The minister for arts tries to say that this should be a responsibility for the states. It's a pretty common refrain, isn't it? Passing the buck to someone else, making it someone else's responsibility. Well, I happen to think that having a thriving live entertainment sector, a thriving arts sector, a thriving live performance sector is in our national interest. It's part of our national identity. It's a core part of our economy. It's a key element of soft power. There are so many reasons why supporting this sector should be considered an absolute priority for this government. But they have washed their hands of the live entertainment sector from the very beginning of the pandemic. It is time for the government to sit up and listen, to pay this industry some respect. It's time for the government to introduce its own bill for a live entertainment and events insurance fund.</p><p>In supporting this amendment, I do have some caveats to put on the table. We strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We've argued for it publicly. We are concerned that it's not costed. It gives us some comfort that the amendment as proposed leaves it up to the government to decide the level of appropriation. This kind of fiscal uncertainty is not Labor's preference, but we are only at this point because of this government's failures. I ask the minister to consider asking her colleagues why it is that they will not lift a finger for the live entertainment sector. The live entertainment sector is desperate. It's crying out for help and support, and so far it's crickets from your side of the chamber.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1402, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</p>
|