The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Full details of the documents are recorded in the Journals of the Senate.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Autism—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) on Tuesday, 10 November 2020, from 1 pm.
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—Wednesday, 11 November 2020, from 11.10 pm.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—public meetings—
today, from 4.30 pm, for the committee's consideration of the 2020-21 Budget estimates.
Wednesday, 11 November 2020, from 9.30 am, for the committee's consideration of the 2020-21 Budget estimates.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—public meetings—
Tuesday, 10 November 2020, from 3.15 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Intelligence and Security Legislation Amendment (Implementing Independent Intelligence Review) Bill 2020.
Thursday, 12 November 2020, from 3.15 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2020.
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public hearings—
Tuesday, 10 November 2020, from 4 pm.
Wednesday, 11 November 2020, from midday.
Thursday, 12 November 2020, from 9.30 am.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1)—today, from 10.45 am, for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020.
The PRESIDENT (10:02): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:02): I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard and also to make a short statement regarding government leadership positions in the Senate.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Commonwealth Government
30 October 2020
SECOND M ORRISON MINISTRY
Title |
Minister |
OTHER CHAMBER |
Prime Minister |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for the Public Service |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Women |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Indigenous Australians |
The Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
The Hon Ben Morton MP |
|
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport |
The Hon Scott Buchholz MP |
|
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Kevin Hogan MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
The Hon Nola Marino MP |
|
Treasurer |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure |
The Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Treasurer |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Housing |
The Hon Michael Sukkar MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology |
Senator the Hon Jane Hume |
|
Minister for Finance
|
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
|
Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for the Environment |
The Hon Sussan Ley MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management |
The Hon Trevor Evans MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
The Hon Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Regional Tourism |
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam |
|
Attorney-General
|
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Industrial Relations |
The Hon Christian Porter MP |
Senator the Hon Marise Payne |
Minister for Health |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Youth and Sport |
Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck |
The Hon Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government |
The Hon Mark Coulton MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Home Affairs |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management |
The Hon David Littleproud MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon David Coleman MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs |
The Hon Jason Wood MP |
|
Minister for Education |
The Hon Dan Tehan MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business
|
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education |
The Hon Andrew Gee MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships |
The Hon Steve Irons MP |
|
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology |
The Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction |
The Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham |
Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia |
The Hon Keith Pitt MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Northern Australia |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
|
Minister for Defence |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
The Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs |
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Defence Personnel
|
The Hon Darren Chester MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Assistant Defence Minister |
The Hon Alex Hawke MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Defence Industry |
The Hon Melissa Price MP |
Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Families and Social Services
|
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Minister for Government Services |
The Hon Stuart Robert MP |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
The Hon Michelle Landry MP |
|
Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services |
The Hon Luke Howarth MP |
|
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the ‘Minister’ column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated ministry following my appointment as Minister for Finance on 30 October 2020. Updated representation arrangements are outlined in the ministry list. I also advise the Senate that I have been appointed Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator Cash has been appointed Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I congratulate Senator Cash upon her appointment.
This chamber and its practices are crucial to the good functioning of our country, our government and, particularly, this parliament. Senator Cash and I, as the government's leadership team in this place, look forward to working hard across the chamber with all parties and representatives to seek to achieve the best possible outcomes and to uphold the traditions and practices of the Senate. I thank the Senate.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:03): by leave—I congratulate Senator Birmingham on his appointment as Leader of the Government in the Senate and also Senator Cash as deputy. It is a very great honour and a very weighty responsibility to lead a party in this chamber, and I welcome him to this table and look forward to working with him and against him.
I'll make a brief comment. There is a fine tradition of leaders in the government in this place from my home state of South Australia. We've had Senator Nick Minchin and, of course, Senator Birmingham's mentor, Senator Robert Hill. I of course trust that, like Senator Hill, Senator Birmingham will be a voice of moderation from his new position. I am advised that this is the first time since the first decade of Federation that the leaders of government and opposition have both been South Australians, so we have a unity ticket on this being a great day. I look forward to working, as I said, with and against Senator Birmingham in his role, and I congratulate him on his appointment.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:04): by leave—On behalf of the Australian Greens, congratulations, Senator Birmingham and Senator Cash, on your elevation. It's good to see a woman in the leadership team from your side of politics, and we look forward to engaging strongly on climate, inequality and all the other issues that this chamber should spend more time talking about.
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Parliamentary Procedure
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:04): by leave—I move:
That the rules for remote participation of Senate proceedings recommended by the Procedure Committee in its first report of 2020 have effect during the sittings of the Senate from 9 to 12 November 2020.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The PRESIDENT (10:05): I have received several items of correspondence regarding events and conduct at committee hearings. I have written to the Deputy President as Chair of Committees to address the matters raised through that forum.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (10:05): I move:
That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills:
No. 43 National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2)
No. 64 Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2)
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:06): Many families are doing it tough. Many families struggle to bridge the gap between their income and their basic needs. This has been true for too long and, in the recession that we are, unfortunately, experiencing, it is likely to be exacerbated. It should not be beyond us to ensure that, when these families reach out for credit, that credit is affordable and offered on just terms. Yet, too often, families who are most in need find themselves in the hands of lenders whose products are neither affordable nor fair. The consequences for those families and those individuals are far reaching. They are seen daily by the financial counsellors who struggle to attend to the spiral of debt and the problems that rack up for those families.
The bill before us, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2), responds to a gross failure by this government to respond to the needs of those individuals and those households. It's a bill that I am pleased to sponsor with Senator Griff. It replicates the exposure draft legislation introduced back in 2017 by the government itself. One wonders what has been happening since 2017. But the story is even worse than that because that exposure draft legislation responded to a review the government commissioned in 2015. It has been five years—five years during which the exploitation of people who entered into small amount credit contracts and consumer leases has been left unattended and ignored by a government that simply refuses to see the consequences for people who need its help most.
When that legislation was introduced in 2017, stakeholders and the broader community engaged in good faith; they perhaps expected that the government would listen to their responses, make some amendments, fine-tune the legislation and get on with it. But for three years there has been an absolutely deafening silence on this question. Instead of implementing the measures foreshadowed in the exposure draft back in 2017, the government has failed to act. In this same period of time, hundreds of thousands of people have been exposed to financial products without adequate protection from harm. That is why Senator Griff and I have introduced the government's own legislation—and that is the bill that is before us today.
In the past few weeks, there's been another announcement. The government has flagged further changes to consumer credit laws. We have little detail, and I'll return to that later in my remarks. But I make this point: based on the government's performance to date, we have very little reason to trust that it will bring forward the necessary changes to protect vulnerable people. Reform is urgent. The current arrangements are simply unconscionable. Payday lenders can charge equivalent rates of more than 200 per cent per annum. There is no capital on the costs that can be charged by consumer lease providers, and lenders continue to sign up people to loans and leases with unaffordable repayments, which can cause people to wind up in a spiral of debt. Struggling families are left entrenched in debt and poverty.
This bill directly responds to those challenges, and it's supported by advocates who work on a daily basis with victims of the current arrangements. It includes caps on the total payments that can be made under a consumer release. It includes better regulation of repayment and payment intervals. It removes fees for loans that have been fully paid. It prohibits door-to-door selling. It includes anti-avoidance protections and stronger penalties for wrongdoing in a sector where noncompliance with the existing arrangements is rife. The committee report for this bill speaks to the support from stakeholders for this legislation, and the Senate now has the opportunity to take the lead to do what the government should have done years ago. The parliament can act when the government will not.
There are many compelling reasons for the passage of this legislation, but I want to speak today about an issue of particular relevance for my role as shadow assistant minister for communities and the prevention of family violence. Financial counsellors tell us that women fleeing family violence are frequently turning to risky financial products at a time of great vulnerability. In addition, where perpetrators are perpetrating financial abuse, these products can be turned into a tool of abuse themselves. This bill includes reforms that explicitly identify family violence as a reasonable cause of financial hardship, for the purposes of the hardship provisions under the National Credit Code.
The need is acute. The Stop the Debt Trap Alliance is a national coalition of over 20 consumer advocacy organisations from around Australia, including financial experts, community advocates and service providers. They offer the story of Sarah, a 43-year-old woman who moved to Australia with her child and now ex-husband. Shortly after that, Sarah was forced to flee her family home to escape violence. With only a few dollars in her pocket and nowhere to turn she found herself, effectively, homeless for months couch surfing, staying in refuges and in short-term accommodation. Fortunately, as so many women do, Sarah found full-time work. She was able to start looking for a permanent housing option. However, her financial circumstances were such that Sarah took out six loans, over a five-month period, in order to pay the bond and rent for rental properties, including four small amount credit contracts, SACCs. At the time of taking out the fourth small amount credit contract, Sarah was already behind in repayments on the other three SACCs and two other loans. She also had two buy-now, pay-later debts. While the fourth SACC recorded on the documents that the purpose of the loan was to pay for rental bond and the first month's rent, they didn't include these costs when they were assessing the sustainability of the loan. This is a sector that is ripe for poor practice.
It is time for the government to take the exploitation that is occurring daily in this sector seriously and to take actual steps to protect vulnerable people like Sarah. The protections offered in the legislation before us today will go some way to reducing these risks. Unbelievably, at the end of September, the government, effectively, ditched the position they'd established—the result of the process that had commenced five years ago—and indicated that there are new changes to consumer laws. As is so often the case with the government, there is an announcement, there is a press release and there is very little detail. There is no indication from the government's recent announcement that they intend to deal with most of the matters covered in this bill.
To name just a few examples, this bill requires small amount credit providers to have equal repayments and equal repayment intervals over the life of the loan. It prohibits small amount credit providers from charging or requiring payment from an unexpired permitted monthly fee where the consumer fully repays the loan. It prevents unsolicited invitations. But years after work on this process began, it is unclear whether the government intends to offer these protections in the legislation that it says it will bring forward.
I look forward to the Senate having the opportunity to examine this legislation, should it ever be introduced. But I would say to this chamber that we should not wait. If we want to take action to protect consumers, we have the power to act now. We have a bill before us. It is the result of extensive review and consultation. It is supported by stakeholders, and we could pass it today. With the ongoing economic fallout from the pandemic and the winding back of support measures, it is absolutely critical that the parliament now, finally, implement key reforms to protect people from exploitative lenders who seek to take advantage of their financial vulnerability. The power of these lenders, the payday lenders and the consumer-lease providers, must be curtailed. Passing this bill will reduce the vulnerability of people on low incomes to these harmful financial products and put in place better protections for consumers.
There is substantial evidence in favour of change. The technical arguments for change are logical and they're well substantiated. But the most compelling argument for change is found in the voices of the victims of exploitation, let down by the operation of the law as it currently stands. When it comes to meaningfully responding to the overwhelming evidence presented time and time again through inquiry after inquiry, the government has chosen inaction. This inaction has consequences for vulnerable Australians. There should be no more excuses or delays.
In closing, I'd like to acknowledge that many of my Labor colleagues here and in the House of Representatives have campaigned on this issue for years and years. We take seriously the voices of the victims—the voices of those who've been exploited. We take seriously the negative impacts that unscrupulous lenders have on people in our communities, and we are not giving up. My colleagues and I will continue to fight until there is meaningful reform in this area.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (10:17): One of the great privileges of serving in this place is being able to hear the stories and experiences of Australians from all walks of life, in all manner of situations. Some of these stories are inspiring; others are moving reminders of what defines us. Some are stories which challenge us in any number of ways, and some are deeply affecting and stick with you for weeks and months after.
One such story for me was from a witness to the inquiry for this bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2). He was a last minute inclusion and, I suspect, was somewhat reluctant to share his story a with a roomful of strangers. I am glad he did. He spoke about his son's hospitalisation, the long hours he spent at hospital, the worry that he felt and the stress as his savings ran down. To make ends meet, he contacted a payday lender. It was clear how effortless the process was. The lender made it so easy to go from an inquiry to an application to finalising a loan. I have no doubt that this is a process intentionally designed to avoid moments of reflection or decision. Sadly, and as happens so often, this one loan became a series of loans and the debt was rolled over again and again, each time requiring a new application with new fees and more interest and each time leaving the borrower in greater debt and distress. This is how a single small loan becomes a financial catastrophe. It can be an extremely easy, rapid transition to the point where a loan is able to ruin a person's finances, their credit and also their relationships. There should be no doubt that these are dangerous financial products and their use requires close regulatory oversight.
This bill was introduced almost a year ago by Senator McAllister and me. We both felt deeply frustrated by the government's inaction on payday lenders. It is a well established fact that many of these lenders are dishonest and exploitative. But, when we heard from them at the inquiry, you'd think that butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. The existing regulatory framework does little to lift the standards in the industry or to protect consumers. So back in 2017 the government at that time decided to act. They drafted a bill that would cap fees, ban door-to-door sales and increase penalties for unscrupulous actions relating to payday loans and consumer leases. It wasn't enough, but it was a step in the right direction. Treasury circulated an exposure draft and the industry lobbying immediately began. The lobbying must have been incredibly effective, because the government soon gave up. They stopped all work on it. They didn't give up on some of the more controversial aspects or water down their proposal; they just gave up on it completely. The government preferred to keep a few lobbyists and loan sharks happy than protect financially vulnerable consumers from exploitation. After years of inaction, Senator McAllister and I introduced the bill in the hope of passing the government's own legislation for them—or shaming them into doing the right thing themselves. It turns out shame doesn't have much effect on this government. In the three years since they walked away from this legislation, thousands of borrowers have been conned into loans they didn't need and couldn't afford. Many of these people could have been protected if the government had acted.
In the last few years, as has become clear, the 2017 proposal was not going to be enough. The restrictions, protections and penalties all need to be stronger. I had hoped this is what the government's new proposal would provide, but, no, they've gone in the other direction. They've actually watered down their proposal when it needs strengthening. It's not hard to see what's going on. They have heard and seen the stories of exploitation by dodgy lenders during the pandemic. They know the community expects the government to protect them from this kind of behaviour. This weak response allows them to claim they are taking action but without delivering any greater protections for consumers and without doing anything to upset the dodgy lenders.
Under normal circumstances, the government would be actively making the case for its legislation. There would be a discussion paper, press releases, dozens of interviews with a minister and an army of Treasury officials out to explain the details, but on payday lending reforms there is silence. It's not surprising. Who would want to front up and defend it? Who would want to face the question: why has the government softened its position on payday lenders in the middle of a recession? Nothing justifies this approach—nothing that the community would find acceptable.
This campaign isn't over. We still have to proceed with this bill, because someone has to change the rules. Someone has to recognise that COVID-19 financial support doesn't reach everyone in the community, and that there are people in desperate financial situations who are vulnerable and are being exploited. Lenders are there who are making a living by preying on that vulnerability. The government has made clear that they are not willing to stop this, so I hope the Senate will support this bill, and I hope members of the coalition in the other place will consider their most vulnerable constituents and their conscience when this bill comes before them.
Senator SCARR ( Queensland ) ( 10:24 ): At the outset, can I say I've listened carefully to the contributions from Senator McAllister and from Senator Griff. There is absolutely no doubt that they both feel passionately about this issue, and I commend them on their interest. I want to talk, from my perspective, about a threshold question in relation to this whole area. I come to this debate as someone whose term commenced on 1 July this year, so I haven't been here for many of the previous debates in relation to this subject, but it seems to me that the threshold question with respect to regulation of credit in our society, whether or not it's payday lenders, whether or not it's consumer credit products, is about achieving a balance. That balance is between, on the one hand, seeking to protect the most vulnerable in our community—we heard stories from both Senator McAllister and Senator Griff which drew out in stark relief vulnerabilities of particular people in our community—and, on the other hand, seeking not to overregulate the industry, seeking not to exclude mainstream players through overregulation, additional costs and regulatory burdens.
The last thing we want to do in this place is create an environment where mainstream operators are sent out of business and these sorts of credit options for the most vulnerable in our community go underground and become unregulated, where loan sharks and other people who don't agree or comply with any procedures of governance or responsible lending practices at all, people who aren't mainstream and who really are the sharks swimming in the ocean of our world, take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society. So there is a need to achieve that balance between protecting the most vulnerable in our community and recognising that the credit business is a legitimate business and there are ethical operators in this space who are trying to do the right thing.
I read the report into the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2) provided by the Economics Legislation Committee, and I thought that tension between those two issues—of protecting the vulnerable but also making sure mainstream credit options are available to the most vulnerable in our society—was brought out by two sections of the report, and I'd like to quote from those sections. In relation to protecting the most vulnerable, paragraph 2.76 of the report provided an example of a lady called Amanda. Amanda is an Aboriginal woman in her mid-40s who lives in a regional New South Wales town and is reliant on Centrelink benefits. In 2016 she entered a four-year consumer lease contract to acquire a seven-piece dining set and a three-piece lounge suite. The sum of the payments under the contract was $9,000. The best estimate of the value of the goods, some of which were second hand, was $1,550. That's $9,000 in terms of total payments and $1,550 in terms of the value of the goods. Clearly Amanda, an Aboriginal woman in her mid-40s, who was vulnerable, was taken advantage of and was left in a catastrophic financial situation. This place should seek to introduce legislation which addresses that sort of exploitation of the vulnerable. That's one peg in the ground.
The other peg in the ground of trying to achieve balance in this debate was drawn out for me in paragraph 2.9 of the report. Paragraph 2.9 provides some statistics as to the number of loans that we're referring to in this space. It says, 'The National Credit Providers Association, NCPA, submitted that in 2018 there were 839,036 small amount credit contracts.' So that is nearly one million small amount credit contracts. It should be noted that there was a total of 1.36 million applications for those small amount credit contracts, so close to half a million were rejected. The report continued:
The Consumer Household Equipment Rental Providers Association … indicated that, at any given time, there are up to 700 000 active consumer lease contracts.
Clearly, there are many people in our community who are seeking small amount credit contracts to tide them over. Sometimes repeated entry into these contracts can lead to catastrophic financial results. There's no question about that. But, at the same time, there is demand for these sorts of smaller amount credit contracts and also for consumer lease contracts. So a balance needs to be achieved between making sure that appropriate credit facilities are available for the most vulnerable in our society and, at the same time, providing that the most vulnerable in our society are protected.
The second point I want to make in relation to this debate is on the context in which the debate is taking place. It was announced in the 2020-21 budget—changes to responsible lending obligations. In Budget Paper No. 1, on page 121, a summary is provided with respect to the government's proposed changes to responsible lending obligations. That included:
The Government is simplifying Australia's credit framework by removing responsible lending obligations for most credit products. The Government's reforms will make the credit application process easier for consumers and allow eligible borrowers to obtain credit faster, improve competition by making it easier for consumers to switch lenders and enhance access to credit for small business. The new regime will support the more efficient flow of credit in the economy by removing the current prescriptive framework and 'one size fits all' approach to ensure credit assessments are attuned to the needs of borrower and credit products.
Importantly in the last sentence of that description in the budget papers it says:
Responsible lending obligations for small amount credit contracts and consumer leases will be retained and laws strengthened to ensure the users of these products, typically more vulnerable consumers, are properly protected.
So that is the articulation of the government's position with respect to these matters.
That articulation was amplified upon in a fact sheet which was released by the Australian government, by Treasury, entitled 'Consumer credit reforms'. That outlines a lot of the steps which have been taken by the government in relation to credit generally and also consumer credit. I must say, if you were to listen to some of the contributions from those on the other side of the chamber, you would be led to think that the government had been asleep at the wheel with respect to this matter and nothing had been done. The reality is quite to the contrary.
Let me give you some examples of what the government has done in this space. Firstly, ASIC has been provided with a product intervention power that allows ASIC to ban or amend a credit product where that product has resulted or is likely to result in significant consumer detriment. Secondly, a design and distribution obligation has been imposed which requires product issuers to identify and distribute their products to appropriate consumers. Thirdly, a best-interest duty was imposed for mortgage brokers. Fourthly, the maximum corporate and financial sector civil and criminal penalties under the credit act were more than doubled. Fifthly, there are enhanced protections for credit card customers by banning unsolicited offers of credit limit increases, simplifying how interest is calculated and requiring online options be available for consumers to cancel cards or reduce their limits. Sixthly, there was the establishment of AFCA, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, increasing access for borrowers to external dispute resolution. Those are some of the steps that have been taken by this government in relation to addressing matters relating to the flow of credit in our society.
The fact sheet also announced some more detail with respect to policy that will be introduced in legislation in this place. That includes the following in this space:
Imposing a cap on the total payments that can be made under a consumer lease …
I gave the example of Amanda, the Aboriginal woman on Centrelink benefits, who purchased goods worth thought approximately $1,550 and ended up paying $9,000 for those goods. I quote again from the fact sheet:
The permitted cap on costs—
for that sort of consumer lease facility—
will be equal to the sum of the base price of the goods hired under the lease, permitted delivery fees and permitted installation fees multiplied by 4 per cent per month (up to a maximum of 48 months). Lessors will additionally be able to charge a one-off establishment fee of 20 per cent of the good's base price.
So there will be protections with respect to the imposition of caps on total payments that can be made under a consumer lease.
In addition, there will be new protected earning amounts for small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. Again, I quote from the fact sheet released by the Australian government in this regard, noting that there are two limbs to the relevant caps, firstly:
A person who receives 50 per cent or more of their net income from Centrelink from devoting more than 20 per cent of their net income to SACC and consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of this being allocated toward SACC repayments.
So there is a general cap of no more than 20 per cent for SACC and consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of this being allocated towards small amount credit contracts. The second limb of the protected earnings amounts provides:
A person who receives less than 50 per cent of their net income from Centrelink from devoting more than 20 per cent of their net income to SACCs or consumer leases (these are separate caps).
So the government is proposing to introduce those protected earnings amount caps in legislation to address some of the concerns which were raised by those opposite and, indeed, were raised by those writing the majority report of the Economics Legislation Committee in relation to this matter.
I want to conclude my speech with a number of general reflections in relation to this legislation. I have read the draft bill in its entirety and I want to provide these reflections that are, perhaps, the reflections of someone who is looking at this bill with a fresh pair of eyes. Firstly, I think it's important that the protected earnings amount caps are actually in the bill and not in regulations. I say that because I think protecting the vulnerable in our community goes to the heart of this legislation. I would hate to see a situation where those caps were decided not by members of this place but, perhaps, by other agencies, through regulations or otherwise. I think that we, as representatives in this place, should be mindful of and consider this matter.
Secondly, whenever I see strict liability provisions in any draft bill I always pause to reflect. It does cause me concern, because we must always seek to endeavour to achieve a balance between appropriately penalising those who engage in bad faith, reckless indifference or wilful disregard for the law, as opposed to those who, through some form of inadvertence, albeit they've acted in good faith, trip up and make a mistake. This comes back to a number of principles: first, the general principle of rule of law. I'm always somewhat uneasy when I see a strict liability provision. I think it is incumbent on the government to explain why there should be strict liability provisions in any case where they're invoked. Secondly, we have to be careful that mainstream operators can continue to act in this space.
The last point I'd like to make is that this isn't a matter just for government. Clearly, there are a number of non-government organisations that are doing great work helping people in this space, and I commend each and every one of those organisations. But I also say it's up to everyone in this chamber and everyone in our society to reach out and help their fellow Australians in their times of need, to be available to provide counsel to the most vulnerable in our community, to provide advice, to assist them so they don't commit the mistakes that are frequently committed and frequently lead to financially catastrophic circumstances. That's certainly something that I've reflected upon, in terms of listening to the contributions to the debate today and also reading the report from the economics committee.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:39): The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2) effectively copies, word for word, the government's 2017 draft bill to better regulate payday lending. Of course, we do need to better regulate payday lending in order to protect people from rapacious lenders and, on that basis, the Australian Greens will be supporting this legislation.
Unfortunately, after releasing a draft bill in 2017, the government walked away from any reform of payday lending, until it decided to include a new set of reforms for payday lenders in its recently announced package. Again unfortunately, the government's recently announced package basically blows up the entire system of consumer credit protection in this country so that the banks can continue to profit at the expense of the lives of so many Australians and their families.
We need to be clear about what the government is doing here. The government is walking away from the primary recommendation of the Hayne royal commission into banks in Australia—that is, recommendation 1.1 made by Commissioner Hayne:
The NCCP Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability.
We now know that, in fact, the government is intending to amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act in those terms—a blatant rejection of Commissioner Hayne's primary recommendations.
When this came out at estimates recently, I have to say government senators were particularly well scripted in their responses. I might add that their responses bore no relationship to reality, but they were very well scripted. Their defence of the decision by government to abandon its acceptance of recommendation 1.1 of the banking royal commission centres on what they say is the context for recommendation 1.1, namely Commissioner Hayne's consideration of the suggestion by some consumer groups that the test under the NCCP Act should be changed from assessing whether a loan is not unsuitable to whether a loan is suitable. In the government's contorted logic, government senators have equated the commissioner's rejection of this suggested change to mean that the commissioner didn't endorse the current test. This is a positively Orwellian attempt by the government to rewrite the history of the banking royal commission. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The commissioner was abundantly clear. To make that point, let me quote at length from the final report of the banking royal commission:
Subject to these matters—
that is, consideration of whether to change the test from 'not unsuitable' to 'suitable'—
there was little or no debate about the terms of the NCCP Act. And, as will be apparent from what I have said, I am not persuaded that the terms of the NCCP Act should be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability. My conclusions about issues relating to the NCCP Act can be summed up as 'apply the law as it stands'.
But, of course, that's not what the government intends to do. After having accepted that recommendation in Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's name, under his signature, the government accepted the recommendation of the banking royal commission that the law should not be amended to alter the obligation on lenders to assess unsuitability. The government has now walked away from that recommendation and from its previous acceptance of that recommendation.
Commissioner Hayne was basically saying: 'Don't strengthen responsible lending laws. Don't weaken responsible lending laws. Just apply them as they stand.' He was abundantly clear on that, and he made that recommendation in order to protect ordinary Australians from the rapacious, unethical and greedy banks and from the toxic culture of those banks that was exposed during the banking royal commission. Now the government is walking away from that primary recommendation of the banking royal commission.
What the royal commission showed was the banks' willingness to engage in predatory lending and the banks' willingness to engage in unlawful lending. But, instead of making the banks abide by the law, the government is now proposing to change the law to abide by the banks. Again the corporatocracy rules in this country, and the banks are some of the most powerful corporations in Australia.
We have already in this country some of the highest levels of household debt in the world. Make no mistake, looser lending standards—which is the road the government has decided to walk down—will make it easier for banks to lure people into even more debt. And because, if the government gets its way, lenders won't have to assess unsuitability there will be a greater chance that ordinary Australians will not be able to service their debts. That is, they will fall into a debt trap, and it is very difficult to haul yourself out of a debt trap once you have fallen in.
Proposing these changes, as the government is doing in the middle of a recession, when people are suffering even more financial stress than the already significant level of financial stress they were suffering pre-COVID, is a recipe for disaster. It is shameful in the extreme that the government, having been dragged kicking and screaming into setting up a banking royal commission in this country and having initially supported that primary recommendation from Commissioner Hayne, is now walking away because the banks have given it its marching orders. Again, big corporates are running the show. Whether it's big banks, big coal, big gas or big gaming, the corporate vested interests are exercising their power and their influence over the government. When the banks say, 'Jump,' this government reflexively asks, 'How high?' When the banks said to the government, 'You have to walk away from the primary and most important recommendation of the banking royal commission'—the banking royal commission that exposed predatory and unlawful lending practices by Australian banks and a culture of extreme toxicity within Australian banks—it didn't take this government long to crumble, and crumble they did. The people who will pay the price for it will be ordinary Australians, and these banks, with their culture of greed and toxicity and who were exposed as acting in a predatory and unlawful way by the banking royal commission, will be the winners from what the government is doing.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (10:49): [by video link] Labor has introduced the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2) to the Senate because of the government's failure to act on payday loans and consumer leases. Between April 2016 and July 2019, 1.77 million Australians took out 4.7 million payday loans. Payday lending is a rapidly growing, multibillion dollar industry which traps hundreds of thousands of Australians in a debt spiral from which they cannot escape.
The Morrison government has ample evidence of the problem of lenders preying on vulnerable consumers. They know the devastating impact that this is having on people's lives. In fact, not only do they have the evidence; they have accepted the evidence. More than that, they promised—they promised—to act when they released their response to the Independent Review of Small Amount Credit Contracts. That response was released on 28 November 2016—yes, 2016. So, in a few weeks time, it will be four years to the day since those opposite promised to regulate to protect vulnerable Australians from the harm some of these products cause. And it has been three years since the government released the exposure draft of their small amount credit contract legislation. So what's the hold up, we ask. Do the government lack the competence to progress this legislation or do they simply not care? It's probably a bit of both. Whatever the case, it demonstrates an incredible lack of sensitivity to the plight of the thousands of Australians who are suffering because the current regulation simply isn't working.
There is a mountain of evidence of the incredible harm being caused by these financial products. We have the government's own small amount credit contract, or SACC, review, conducted, as I said, in 2016. We have the report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into credit and financial services, which was targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship; that was released in February 2019. Later in 2019, a report entitled The debt trap was released by the Stop the Debt Trap Alliance. They are a group of 26 welfare and community service organisations which have come together to fight for regulation to protect consumers from these products. Finally, we have the report by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on this bill. In addition to examining the bill, the committee received a raft of further evidence of the harm caused by payday loans and consumer leases.
I have spoken before in this place about some of the consumers who have been exploited by payday lending, but let me outline again what some of these reports found. The Stop the Debt Trap Alliance report revealed that it is estimated that there are almost one million financially stressed and financially distressed households with payday loans and consumer leases. The alliance provided several cases to demonstrate the financial pressure that some of these households are being placed under. Among the case studies in the report was the story of Susan, an age pensioner, who took out around 20 payday loans and found that the only way she could pay them off was to go without food. There was Sarah, a woman fleeing family violence, who ended up taking out a series of loans to pay the bond and the rent for rental properties. Those loans were taken out when she was already behind on payments for others.
But the most tragic case, from my point of view, is that of Charlie, whose initial $650 loan, taken out to fund cremation services for her stillborn baby, spiralled into a mountain of debt which she was unable to pay. I remind people that there hasn't always been a payment for the parents of stillborn babies. The death of Charlie's baby and then the death of her father and mother around the same time took such a huge emotional toll on her that she was unable to work. Charlie ended up on a Centrelink income, fell behind on her payments and ended up owing significantly more than her original loan. Sadly, Charlie went to prison last year, so it is likely she will never pay off these debts.
Now, the names in these case studies are not the real people's names, but their stories are real, and that's what we need to remember. What these stories illustrate is why the report's title, The debt trap, was chosen. Often, when people are already vulnerable and they experience a setback in their financial circumstances, they struggle to pay even small loans. Then they take out further loans to help them meet basic living expenses, and this gets them into a cycle of debt from which they cannot escape.
The SACC review also included case studies, one of which was supplied by the Financial Rights Legal Centre. Ms A, as the report referred to her, was a single mother with eight children. She agreed to rent several household goods from the same rental company. Her sole income was from Centrelink and the payments were organised through Centrepay. While she believed that she was renting to own the goods, Ms A was told by the store that she would have to pay $100 cash per item when the rental contract expired and if she stopped any of the Centrepay deductions, the store would seize the goods. Ms A was never able to come up with the $100 needed to purchase any of the goods, so she continued with the Centrepay deductions.
At the time the case study was recorded she was struggling to meet other financial obligations like food, electricity and rent and she had a pending eviction hearing because of her rental arrears. It was reported to the SACC review during consultation that 25 to 35 per cent of lease consumers were behind on their leases, suggesting a large portion regularly encountered difficulties in meeting their payments. Part of the reason consumers struggle with these loans and leases is their extraordinary cost.
I had a meeting with the CEO of the NILS Network of Tasmania, John Hooper. He told me of a client who had approached them for help with a loan. This client had a consumer lease in place for a fridge valued at $1,800. While the payments of $70 a fortnight may sound affordable and reasonable, over the course of the three-year loan she would have paid three times the price of her original purchase. While the interest rate wasn't specific on the contract, NILS staff estimated it to be about 155 per cent per annum. In The debt trap report it was reported that some payday loans had effective interest rates as high as 400 per cent. If that's not bad enough, the government's SACC review had an example of a one-year consumer lease for a $345 dryer with a total cost of over $3,000. The equivalent interest rate for a loan of the same value is 884 per cent.
The Senate inquiry into this bill observed that low-income Australians have difficulty getting access to mainstream credit products, which gives them little choice when they get into financial difficulty but to access higher-cost products. I will read to you a list of examples detailed in the inquiry report of the kind of financial harm that consumers of these products are experiencing. They were provided by consumer groups that submitted to the inquiry and they included things such as a significant variation between a leased good's retail price and the total lease cost paid, which often resulted in lessees paying costs equivalent to multiples of a good's retail price; consumers struggling to pay their consumer leases or not having enough money left after repaying the leases to afford basic living costs; consumers reliant on income support payments for income and a high proportion of their income being used to repay consumer leases; complex health or social challenges contributed to consumers' experience with financial vulnerability and hardship; lease providers acting inappropriately when responding to repayment difficulty concerns; consumers having an incomplete understanding of the lease provisions, including the total costs payable under the lease or believing that they will own the goods at the end of the lease period; consumer leases being provided using unsatisfactory suitability assessments; and consumers repaying multiple leases or other debt types and experiencing repayment difficulties.
The debt trap report indicated that things are getting worse for consumers. The number of payday loans issued per month has increased by about 35 per cent from 2016 to 2019, when the report was released, and the value of those loans increased from around $60 million per month to around $85 million per month. The percentage of loans originating online has exploded from about six per cent in 2009 to about 86 per cent in 2019, while the proliferation of online loans comes with aggressive marketing tactics that traps more and more vulnerable consumers.
An example of that sort of aggressive marketing by lenders was explained to us by the Consumer Action Law Centre, who told the Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill that when consumers find themselves in a pattern of repeat use it's often promoted by the lender. Mr Gerard Brody, from the CALC, told the committee:
… once they have had one loan, they will continue to receive unsolicited communications to take out further loans, often seemingly timed at moments when they've just repaid a loan, so they can get another one.
Financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and recession means that many more Australians will be vulnerable to harm from lenders. We know that industries with high rates of youth employment were hit particularly hard by the shutdown during the pandemic, and we now have concerning evidence that young workers impacted are turning to short-term finance. Data compiled by the Consumer Policy Research Centre suggests more than 300,000 young people took out a consumer lease or payday loan in July 2020 alone. The situation has the potential to get much worse as economic support through the JobKeeper payment and coronavirus supplement is withdrawn. Also vulnerable to potential harm from payday loans and consumer leases are the thousands of Australians whose homes and livelihoods were lost in last summer's horror bushfire season. Sadly, payday lenders are targeting the vulnerability of some people during the COVID-19 pandemic by sending text messages offering 'COVID relief loans'. The need to act is more urgent than it ever was.
While I'm talking about aggressive marketers preying on vulnerable consumers, I think it's important for consumers to understand the alternatives that are out there. There are various public services to help people get out of financial difficulty. You do not necessarily have to turn to a for-profit lender, who may not act in your interests. One option is the No Interest Loan Scheme, or NILS, which provides loans to low-income consumers with no interest whatsoever. Given the scheme is government subsidised, there are some eligibility rules around the loans, such as income limits and what you can take out a loan for. While you cannot use a NILS loan to pay off existing debts, it can be used for essential household goods, to finance a small business or to establish a household after fleeing domestic or family violence, amongst other things. My office recently became a NILS delivery partner, meaning we offer assistance with applications for NILS loans, so I encourage anyone from the Kingborough area who's listening and who is on a low income and needs finance to contact my office to see if they are eligible. Other Tasmanians, of course, can contact their local delivery partner or call NILS directly on 1300301650. There are also a number of free financial counselling services offered by welfare agencies, as well as the Commonwealth funded National Debt Helpline, which you can call on 1800007007.
I hope all of us in this place will do everything we can to promote these alternatives to our constituents and our communities, but, let me be clear, the fact that alternatives are available does not negate the problem; nor does it negate the urgency of acting on it by passing this bill. This bill includes a number of measures to protect consumers, including caps on the total payments that can be made under a consumer lease, better regulation of repayment payment intervals, removal of fees for loans that have been fully paid, prohibition of door-to-door selling, anti-avoidance protections, and stronger penalties for wrongdoing.
The foot-dragging from those opposite on this important regulatory change has already exposed hundreds of thousands of Australians to potential and actual harm from payday loans and consumer leases. The absolute sham of a report produced by the Liberal and National senators on the committee which inquired into this bill goes to show that those opposite have no political will to follow through on the promise they made four years ago. It's just another broken promise. The government senators ignored the overwhelming evidence provided to the committee about the harm inflicted by these payday loans and consumer leases. They even failed to back their own government's legislation. This bill replicates the exposure draft of the bill the government released in 2017. In other words, it is essentially the government's bill. By recommending that this bill not be passed, government senators on the committee have basically given the government a green light to continue the delays, inaction and obfuscation that have dominated their response to this legislation. (Time expired)
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (11:04): I rise to address this National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2). There has been a lot happen with small accounts and the provision of credit over the past few months. That is not surprising, because we are in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic, perhaps the worst economic shock in more than 100 years. So you would imagine, given the nature of our market economy, that there would be changes and these issues would be considered by this parliament as appropriate.
Our policy on small account credit contracts is to put in place a lot of the measures contained in this bill. We are looking to keep the responsible lending obligations in place, in relation to these small credit accounts, even though we note our very significant reservations about the rest of the regime. More importantly, our reservation with responsible-lending obligations for the broader economy goes to duplication and the maladministration of it by the corporate regulator, ASIC, which has a number of other issues I'll come back to. Our policy is to put in place caps so that lower-income Australians are not caught in difficult situations by small account credit products. We are also linking Centrelink payments to these caps so that people can't get into these difficult arrangements. There'll be a lot more transparency so that people can see what they're up for when they undertake some of these small account credit contracts.
As my colleague Senator Scarr noted, there are many cases where lower-income Australians do need access to these sorts of facilities, to this sort of money. Where it does not take an unreasonable portion of their income, particularly when it's been provided by Centrelink, they can be appropriate products. But I note the significant concerns, and I note in this debate that there have been sincerely held views, expressed by people like Senator McAllister and Senator Griff, that there is still a place for these products within an environment where there are more belts and braces. This bill is quite similar to the policy the Treasurer restated when he announced the abolition of the very poor responsible-lending obligation regime. It does put in place those caps. It does link Centrelink payments to this regime.
This bill is not going to be supported by this parliament, because it would be a small part of a bigger issue. There are two reasons for the Treasurer announcing that we would undertake wholesale reform into the provision of credit. Firstly, the responsible lending obligations imposed 10 years ago by this parliament, following the global financial crisis, have not worked particularly well. They are duplicative. They are, in many ways, quite confusing in that they impose over and beyond what the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, has in place for banks, in terms of its lending standards. So the responsible lending obligations have not been effective. The way they've been put in place by ASIC, I think, has been well documented as very poor. ASIC has taken these matters through the courts, most famously, in the Wagyu and shiraz case.
The point here is that there is not a great deal of confidence in ASIC. They are dealing with enormous internal problems. Frankly, who would trust a corporate regulator that can't even get its own remuneration in order? We've seen very troubling allegations come out of the commission of ASIC, where it's been noted that the chair and the former deputy chair were paid money, in different forms, which was way out of the expectations that society would have for these sorts of roles. In particular—I come to this as a former internal auditor—you've got to have confidence in the controls that are put in place by regulators. In the case of ASIC, it had a risk and control framework that dealt with remuneration, but it wasn't followed. The confidence we have in ASIC is fairly low at the moment, you'd have to say. These issues of the provision of credit, the flow of credit and the provision of credit to people who can generally afford to pay it back should, in any event, go more into the prudential regime, which is run by APRA. In summary, on these questions of where the responsibilities for regulation fall, this really isn't a matter that ASIC should have been involved in, given that APRA has very detailed and quite onerous and rigorous lending standards, as you would expect.
The issue of the flow of credit is very important in the midst of a very significant recession. The RBA governor, Mr Lowe, has blamed responsible lending laws for hindering credit growth. Mr Lowe said, 'We can't have a world where a person can't pay off the loan, then it's the bank's fault.' Mr Lowe went on to say that the RBA actually wants some of the loans to 'go bad, because if a bank never makes a loan that goes bad, it means it’s not extending enough credit'. The broader issue here is responsible lending obligations and the laws. This is a very important thing for us to get right as a government and as an economy, because if you don't have the flow of credit, then you won't have businesses being able to invest and create jobs. That is something that I think the responsible lending obligations have also caused. So you've got a regulator that really isn't running a particularly good show, you've got horribly complex obligations which are duplicative and go above and beyond what the prudential regulator, APRA, already has in place for loans, and then you have, of course, a significant pandemic where you really have to make sure that every law and every regulation that we have in place is really needed. Because if you have laws and regulations that are impeding the economy and its recovery from a significant pandemic and recession—as responsible lending obligations have been doing—then we have to act.
I am certain that in time we will be able to reform ASIC. I'm certain that ASIC will be a better regulator in time. But it's not a good strategy for us to leave laws in the statute books that do not work or are undermining the economy. Sure, we should definitely make sure that lower income people are protected in the way that this bill envisages. That is why the guts of this bill is our policy, but we're going to enact this policy as part of a broader change to the regime of credit flow. For example, the responsible lending obligations for higher income earners have been shown not to work. The Wagyu and shiraz case was shown to be a disaster. I'm very pleased that others in this place have great confidence in ASIC. I just don't. I think the proper place for credit quality to be assessed, from a governance perspective and from an institutions perspective, is APRA. That is APRA's job. We want these regulators' feet to the flame. One of the problems we have too often in Australia is that you have too many people doing too many things, and accountability just slips away. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:14): I rise today to encourage the Senate to support the bill that I've introduced, the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020. This bill introduces some very important changes that would give people on income support payments certainty and hope over the period to Christmas, as well as during the Christmas period and into the new year.
The bill retains the coronavirus supplement at the rate of $550 a fortnight for recipients of the JobSeeker payment, partner payment, widow allowance, youth allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, living allowance, parenting payment, farm household allowance, and special benefit. Importantly, it also extends eligibility for the supplement to people on the disability support pension, carer payment and for age pensioners who are receiving rent assistance. This is to deal with the fact that these groups of people and these payments were omitted from the coronavirus supplement from the beginning. As I have articulated in this place on numerous occasions, people living on the disability support pension or carer payment and age pensioners who receive rent assistance have been struggling to meet the costs of surviving under coronavirus and have had extra costs for food, medication and care. The $550 would be backdated to 25 September and be paid until 28 March 2021 to align the end date with the JobKeeper payments. This should have happened from the get-go. There is no reason to expect that people on the JobSeeker payment were doing it easier than those on the JobKeeper payment. It is appropriate that they be given certainty through to 28 March 2021, the same as those on the JobKeeper payment.
I've introduced this private senator's bill because the government is unwilling to provide people with the certainty they deserve about the future rate of income support payments. At Senate estimates the Minister for Families and Social Services indicated that some form of elevated support is very likely to be in place post 1 January, but we are still in the dark about very important details. How much will payments be increased by? When will people on income support payments find out? Will they find out before Christmas, for example? When will there be a permanent increase? There is less than seven weeks until Christmas, yet people on the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance are being left in the dark about whether their incomes will include the current supplement payment of $250 a fortnight or will drop back to $40 a day or $41 or $42 a day. They have no idea. People should have certainty in these very uncertain times. There are a whole lot of things that we can't be certain about, but you can give people certainty about the payments that they're going to try and live on in the run up to Christmas and New Year and then on to March.
If the government does increase the payment—it was indicated during estimates that it wouldn't be a permanent increase to the JobSeeker but a continuation of the supplement—the legislation for it will have to go through this place. At the time of estimates it wasn't even being drafted, so, yet again, we in this place will be provided with legislation to vote on with very little notice. And we will have to vote on it during the last sitting of the year because we need to ensure that people have payments of more than $40 a day beyond the end of December.
This bill is absolutely necessary. This year has been an incredibly difficult year for the millions of Australians who have found themselves unemployed for the first time and for those who were unemployed before the virus and the recession hit and were trying to struggle on $40 a day. This is reflected in Foodbank's latest Hunger Report, which is a survey of their clients. The survey found from what a percentage of respondents said, and the data shows, that the percentage of Australians experiencing food insecurity doubled from 15 per cent in 2019 to 31 per cent in 2020. Those figures are for Foodbank's clients. That is a significant increase.
The pandemic has made life even more difficult for already vulnerable Australians who were struggling with unemployment before that, and, in fact, for those who are struggling with unemployment for the first time. There are many people now who are interacting with Centrelink for the first time in their lives. The government is predicting that the number of people receiving unemployment payments will go up to 1.8 million in 2021. Clearly, this is not the time to be reducing or withdrawing support for these millions of Australians. As the number of people on JobSeeker and youth allowance increases and the government's support decreases, more people risk being thrown into poverty.
When the coronavirus supplement was originally paid at the rate of $550 a fortnight, people described it as 'life changing' and 'transformational'. People were able to afford essentials for the first time, things that many of us take for granted and things that, in fact, people who weren't on JobSeeker previously did take for granted—for example, prescription glasses, a fridge or other white goods, warm jumpers, and school supplies for their children. One of the biggest outcomes of the coronavirus supplement was that it reduced people's financial stress and anxiety in the middle of the recession, when work was scarce. And it is still scarce. People were able to escape homelessness and family violence situations. Many people had better opportunities to look for work because they could afford public transport or afford to get their car fixed, or go to the dentist—all things that are barriers to work. It is well proven that poverty, in and of itself, is a barrier to work. There is no doubt that JobSeeker increased people's health and wellbeing by enabling people on the payment to afford healthy food and medication, both for themselves and for their children. I've articulated before the evidence we received at the inquiry into Newstart, where people were going without their own medication to ensure that their children had theirs.
Australians need the coronavirus supplement to continue at the full rate so they can keep paying their rent or mortgage, put food on the table and look after their health and their family's health. Apart from these excellent reasons, retaining the rate of $550 a fortnight would also generate the economic stimulus we so desperately need, by increasing the incomes of over 2.3 million Australians. When you're on a low income, you spend all your money. That is, in fact, what people on the coronavirus supplement were doing.
I think I should bust some of the myths that are constantly being repeated about unemployment benefits. Recently the government started dusting off their old narrative around a higher income-support payment acting as a disincentive to work. The same old tropes are coming out yet again. I'm yet to see any hard data or evidence supporting this argument. At Senate estimates, I asked the Minister for Families and Social Services if she had any hard data or actual proof of these claims. The minister said:
There is not a specific statistical body of evidence in relation to this specific issue.
She did, I will acknowledge, take it on notice to provide the committee with further information. Of course, that was just a week or two ago, and I haven't seen that evidence as yet. Instead of using data and evidence to inform decisions that will impact millions of Australians, the government is relying on anecdotal evidence in the form of, for example, emails from businesses. The government doesn't have evidence to back up these claims. In contrast, there is evidence to show that inadequate income support payments don't increase labour force participation and can act, and do act, as a barrier to finding work.
By reducing the JobSeeker payment back to below the poverty line, people are being pushed into poverty instead of being supported into work. We know that the main driver of unemployment doesn't have anything to do with people's unwillingness to work; it has everything to do with a lack of available jobs.
This crisis isn't over. Our economy is certainly not out of the woods yet. People are still unemployed or in precarious work. The number of hours worked is not significantly increasing, so we are still seeing a lot of unemployment. People are still likely to lose their homes because they can't afford the rent. If you're living in Perth in my home state of Western Australia at the moment, there is no affordable accommodation. So people in the coming months unable to afford the rent can't simply move to a cheaper, more affordable rental, because they are not there. They will be moving out to homelessness.
The government aren't interested in looking at new ways of doing things. This pandemic had two ways of going. The government could have chosen to take a new path. They acknowledged that unemployment benefits, JobSeeker, was too low. They could have chosen to not demonise people who are unemployed, but they're returning to their old ways. We can see that by the quick return of mutual obligations and debt recovery, with debt recovery processes restarting on 7 December, with debts to be recovered by February. Mutual obligations have started, and around 75,000 people have already been suspended from payments. I will acknowledge that the government know that's wrong because, come December, people are going to get 48 hours warning. So the government know it's wrong, yet they have gone ahead and reintroduced the old punitive system that has so far imposed penalties such that 75,000 people have had their payments suspended.
The government are missing an opportunity coming out of the recession and the pandemic and that is to embrace a longer term vision and to put in place systemic changes to our social security system so people are supported—not demonised and not punished—to find work and improve their wellbeing and lives. The pandemic has demonstrated that Australians want government to play a key role in providing a strong and fair social security system—yet people receiving the coronavirus supplement have been left in the dark about the future rate of income support payments. The government are keeping people in the dark in the run-up to Christmas, when so many Australians are looking forward to Christmas this year. They don't know whether they're going to be able to put food on the table for Christmas. It is unfair. The ongoing uncertainty around the payment rates is cruel and it's damaging people's mental health and wellbeing. Australians have a right to certainty and clarity about the future of income support payments in this country, especially into the lead-up to Christmas and the new year. You can guarantee that, unless people know what those payments are going to be and that those payments are adequate, they will not be spending in the run-up to Christmas.
I urge the opposition and the government to get behind this bill so that we can provide Australians with a liveable income above the poverty line through the early months of 2021. Increase the supplement and keep it going until March 2021 and, in that time, make sure that you are putting in place a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment. People cannot live on $40 a day. It is not possible. That was amply demonstrated prior to the pandemic, and the government knows that itself because it put in place the coronavirus supplement. Dropping people back onto payments below the poverty line is not fair and it's counterproductive. It's not fair on people and it's counterproductive for our economy. Please support this bill.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (11:29): Today I speak to the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020. The fact is that the Morrison government have managed this economic crisis better than most countries in the Western world, and we've done it in a way that brings all Australians along with us. We've demonstrated care and compassion for workers and for the disadvantaged, like the disabled and those on pensions. We've provided unprecedented support to businesses and we've prepared Australia for the steady recovery that we're already beginning to see. We've already extended the coronavirus supplement for an additional period of three months until the end of December, and we will continue to closely monitor the situation and respond to the economic circumstances and, in particular, the labour market.
If the coronavirus supplement is required after December, it will be continued. The government is focused on responding to the situation as it unfolds and will make further decisions around the extension of the coronavirus supplement as the year draws to an end. These are unprecedented times, and we will not pre-empt the circumstances we may find ourselves in later. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide appropriate support.
From the outset, this supplement was a temporary measure to provide additional support for allowance recipients in recognition of the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which has directly impeded people's ability to find and retain paid work. The economy was disrupted due to health restrictions earlier this year. In response to this sudden and unexpected situation we provided the supplement as well as expanded access to the payment through the waiver of waiting periods and changes to eligibility criteria. We've put in place a comprehensive economic response—JobKeeper, enhancements right across the income support system, early access to super, HomeBuilder, and cash flow support to business—which is providing unprecedented support to Australians. Our response to date is close to 16 per cent of GDP. That measure is estimated to increase real GDP by around 4.25 per cent in 2021. Since the budget, we've benefited from updated labour force figures, weekly payroll jobs figures and a clearer sense of how health restrictions are relaxing, especially in Victoria. We'll make a decision before the end of the year and communicate that to the Australian people.
While there've been encouraging jobs figures in recent months, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. As the government has continually demonstrated, we will be flexible, monitor the economic situation and respond as the situation evolves. We will ensure that Australians who are accessing JobSeeker and any related payments receive notice about any changes to their rates. But right now, the path is clear: we are providing an additional level of support while encouraging and helping people to get back into the workforce. We understand that the jobs market is shallow at the moment, but there are still jobs out there. We have to strike the right balance between temporary enhanced support and incentives to work. They may not be full-time, and they may be in different industries, but we have heard from business groups and businesses through the jobs in demand survey that an increasing number of employers are naming a lack of applicants as the reason they're struggling to employ. That's why, from 25 September, we increased the income-free area for the JobSeeker payment, which means that people can earn $300 without affecting any of their Centrelink payments. We want people to get out there and take up job opportunities, because we know people who report earnings to Centrelink are twice as likely to get off their payment within a year.
We're focused on the issue at hand, which is providing Australians additional support to get us through to the other side of the pandemic. It would not be reasonable for the government to make long-term structural changes to our payment system in the middle of a very fluid health and economic situation, especially when it's unclear what the new normal on the other side might even look like. We're committed to our values: a targeted, sustainable welfare system that encourages participation in the workforce and provides a safety net, rather than a wage replacement, to people as they transition into employment. These values served us well before the crisis and will continue to underpin our social safety net in the new normal on the other side.
Before this crisis, we had created 1.5 million jobs, and the proportion of working aged people relying on welfare was the lowest it had been in more than 30 years. In addition to payments, there are many other welfare benefits available to help reduce the cost of living. For example, everyone who receives the JobSeeker payment is eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system, such as rent assistance of up to $185.36 a fortnight for families with three or more children, and family tax benefit part A, of up to $246.54 a fortnight per child for children aged between 13 and 19 years, and part B, of up to $161.14 a fortnight per child for children under five years. There are also the pharmaceutical allowance and telephone and energy supplements.
Few countries have provided the strong safety net that we enjoy. Few countries provide a non-contributory taxpayer funded payment that provides help for people while they search for work. We recognise there are times when people need a safety net to help them, when they're down on their luck and looking for work, but JobSeeker is funded by the Australian taxpayer and it needs to be managed responsibly. This responsibility extends to future generations, who will have to meet the cost of the system in decades to come. Our focus going forward will be on people getting back to jobs, businesses reopening and seeing Australians move into a new COVID-safe world, where protections are in place that maximise the amount of activity that they can undertake.
The Morrison government has a history of delivering job opportunities, providing pathways and breaking down barriers for people on welfare. There were 330,000 fewer working age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2019. The JobSeeker base rate payment is $565. In March, the government made the decision to introduce a temporary supplement to deal with the unprecedented health and economic crisis we were facing. What we did through the supplement and through JobKeeper was to throw a blanket over all Australians, at a time when health restrictions required an effective lockdown not just of the economy but, in fact, of everything. We said at the time, and we've continued to say since then, that those measures were temporary. We've not increased the base rate of JobSeeker, because we never intended for the coronavirus supplement to be permanent.
Our core principles of the role of JobSeeker payment have not changed. It's a safety net payment that provides Australians with support as they look for work, because we expect all Australians of working age who can work to do so. It is not a wage replacement. The payment, though, is not time limited. It doesn't require a contribution and the rate of payment is not based on prior work history, as is the case in many other countries. It's a safety net that's available to all Australians, should they need it. For these reasons, it must be sustainable and it must not distort work-seeking behaviour.
The Morrison government has provided special additional payments for those receiving disability support pensions and for those receiving carer payments. Pension payments, including the disability support pension and carer payments, are long-term payments that are paid at the highest rate in the income support system, because recipients are not generally expected to work to support themselves. The coronavirus supplement is temporary, while pension payments, including DSP and carer payments, will be paid at a higher rate. The additional support that's been provided to disability support pensions and carer payment recipients are further evidence of how the Morrison government is helping to support the disadvantaged during this health crisis.
Eligible pensioners, including DSP and carer allowance recipients, have received two economic payments of $750. The first payment was automatically paid by Services Australia between March and April this year, with the second payment paid to eligible pensioners from 13 July 2020. These payments will help support confidence and domestic demand in the economy, and pension recipients do not need to contact Centrelink to receive these payments. Two additional economic support payments of $250 will be provided to income support recipients, including carer payment and DSP recipients, this month and in March 2021. People receiving a pension payment who were also working may be eligible for the $1,500 per fortnight JobKeeper payment.
Earlier this year, the government announced the commitment of a $90.7 million boost to support Australians with disability who are at risk, amid the coronavirus outbreak, to help them with employment and other support services. Spending includes the Carer Gateway, which is an information service for carers providing practical information and advice to help carers navigate the system of support and services. Services include support planning, targeted financial support packages, counselling, peer support, information and advice and, where necessary, access to emergency and short-term respite. The range of payments provided to workers, jobseekers, business owners, pensioners and the disabled have provided support to millions of Australians during this crisis. Those payments will mean that Australia will be well positioned to make a strong economic recovery.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (11:39): I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020. It is important that the Senate debates this bill, because it addresses important issues about the government's response to the recession and it calls on the government to do more for those who have been forgotten or left behind, including those who rely solely on social security payments—the unemployed, Australians with disabilities and carers.
Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that age pensioners, disability pensioners and carers have endured increasing costs in relation to protecting their health during this pandemic. Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that Australians on unemployment support require certainty about the level of support they are receiving during this uncertain and difficult time. Labor moved amendments in the House to the government's coronavirus measures bill to expand support to age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and Australians on unemployment support. Labor's amendments called for the government to continue the coronavirus supplement beyond December, instead of delivering a cruel Christmas cut to $2.2 million Australians; to provide increased support for pensioners, including age pensioners, disability support pensioners and those receiving carer payments to reflect the increased cost that people have faced in protecting their health; and to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment.
Ultimately, only the government has the power to improve these supports. Everyone in this parliament knows this. This is why during the last sitting period Labor sought to be constructive and pragmatic by proposing these amendments, amendments that were reasonable and responsible. Labor was willing to work with the government to make these measures a reality, but the government used their numbers to vote the amendments down in the House. Unless the government supports these measures in the House of Representatives, they simply cannot be a reality—it's great to control the treasury bench. The Prime Minister said, 'We're all in this together,' and yet our pensioners and carers have been left behind. He said, 'We're all in this together,' but the 1.8 million Australians who are expected to be on unemployment support by the end of this year have no certainty as to what level of support will be available to them.
When the government introduced the coronavirus supplement in April, it was an admission that, for Australians out of work, payments were simply far too low to live on. The old Newstart rate was trapping people in poverty and acting as a barrier to getting work. People couldn't afford the basics or the clothes, transport, training and tools they needed. For many, including single parents, the increase in the payment meant they could finally pay overdue bills, buy fresh food, get new shoes and fix the car. In remote stores, there were increases in the fresh food, whitegoods, clothes and shoes that people were able to purchase. This is why it is unacceptable that the government plans to reduce the rate of unemployment payments all the way back down to the old rate of Newstart, around $40 or so a day for many people.
In a country like Australia, people should not be forced to live in poverty. Poverty and disadvantage are not inevitable. What the corona supplement has shown is that it is a policy choice; we choose for people live in poverty rather than create constructive measures for them to prosper.
It was revealed in the latest round of Senate estimates that 1.8 million Australians are expected to be on unemployment support by the end of the year. That is one million more people than were relying on unemployment payments at the end of 2019. The simple fact is that this recession has more than doubled the number of people who are unemployed and need to access social security.
This is the first time many families have needed to rely on unemployment support. It is going to be a very, very anxious Christmas for these Australians. They have no certainty about what level of support will be available to them beyond December. As far as we know, the government is scheduled to cut unemployment support to the old base rate of $40 a day. These Australians who have lost their jobs cannot plan their finances or household budgets because they simply don't know what level of support they will be provided. Many are worried about how they will afford essentials, cover rent and pay bills.
With more jobseekers than job vacancies, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. It is even more difficult to find jobs out in the regions—the result of the government's failure to deliver a job program for our regions. In fact, Anglicare's recent job snapshot found that there are almost 100 people who are unemployed for every entry-level job. Yet, for some reason, our Prime Minister and the government seem intent on blaming Australians for losing their jobs or demonising those Australians who are doing it tough.
It seems everyone except the Prime Minister and the Treasurer acknowledges that the old base rate of JobSeeker is not appropriate. Labor has called on the Morrison government to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker. The government could give certainty to millions of Australians on unemployment simply by providing a permanent increase to JobSeeker. Not only is this a compassionate response; it's also good for our economy and jobs.
We know that Australians receiving social security spend on local and small businesses. It means local and small businesses have more to spend on jobs and wages. Unemployment support is economic support. When you cut unemployment support, you jeopardise jobs. The question for the government is: how many jobs will be lost when you cut the unemployment support in December? We've heard Senator Siewert raise many questions in relation to that. What's the figure going to be? The government simply do not know. Labor has asked them, but the government don't know the economic impact of their decision. Deloitte Access Economics has some idea, though. They estimated that 145,000 Australian jobs will be lost as a result of the government's scheduled unemployment cuts in December.
I will turn now to the impact of the pandemic and the recession on people with disability and carers. We know these people have been among the worst hit. People with disability are disproportionately vulnerable to serious infection from coronavirus, due to their pre-existing health conditions and their reliance on support workers. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, people with disability have experienced increased costs directly as a result of the onset of the pandemic in Australia, including higher grocery costs—the cheapest brands sold out with panic buying—increased costs in private transport, higher utility bills and shipping and delivery charges.
It is important to note that people with disability were already experiencing high rates of unemployment and poverty during pre-pandemic times. People with Disability Australia says that Australians with disability have the second-highest relative risk amongst the OECD nations of living in poverty. Prior to the pandemic, people with disability were already struggling with the cost of accessing the health services they needed. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in the People with disability in Australia 2020 report, three in 10 people with disability can't afford to see a dentist; one in 13 delay seeing a GP, because they can't afford to; one in 22 don't see a specialist; and one in 28 can't go to hospital. The onset of the pandemic only exacerbated these issues.
In a survey by Children and Young People with Disability Australia, 64 per cent of respondents were unable to buy essential supplies, including specialty dietary products and hygiene products; one in five were unable to purchase essential medications; one-third had NDIS services cancelled; and one in five experienced the loss of income. According to the survey, financial insecurity was a constant theme, with some households having to make some tricky decisions on how they would prioritise spending.
In June we saw the release of a survey from People with Disability Australia, which found that nine in 10 people with disability experienced increased expenses due to the ongoing pandemic, 31 per cent reported increased spending on health care and one in five reported increased spending on sanitiser and hygiene products. The government's freeze of the pension in September impacted three-quarters of a million Australians on the disability support pension and almost 300,000 Australians on carer payments. The freeze came at the worst possible time, in the middle of Australia's most severe economic contraction in a century.
We know that older Australians, like people with disability, have a particularly high risk of serious infection from coronavirus. We have seen the devastating impacts this virus has had as a result of the government's failure to protect our aged-care system. This has meant that pensioners have had to take extra precautions to remain safe and protect their health during this time. It has meant buying more hand sanitiser and protective wear such as masks. It has meant added transport costs and paying premiums to have groceries delivered. Our pensioners have done the right thing. They have worked hard all their lives. They have contributed. They deserve our respect.
Pensioners were doing it tough under this government prior to the pandemic. They have been facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years. These rising costs have only been exacerbated by the pandemic, and they continue to be exacerbated by the government through a combination of three factors: the pension freeze, the unrealistic inflated pension deeming rates and the inflated interest rates charging pensioners just to access equity in the ownership of their homes. (Time expired)
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (11:54): I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020, proposed by the Australian Greens. This year, 2020, has been a year like no other. Who would have predicted that when we were experiencing bushfires, floods and droughts at the start of the year things could get any worse? But they did. As with each of these other challenges, Australians and, particularly, the Australian government have responded.
As part of that response, the Morrison government introduced the coronavirus supplement, which has provided additional support for Australians affected by this year's coronavirus pandemic. It was paid to those who receive an eligible income payment, such as JobSeeker, partner allowance, widow allowance, Austudy, parenting payment and farm household allowance, and it will continue to be paid until 31 December this year. The coronavirus supplement is a fortnightly payment that has been added on top of eligible income support payments. This supplement was initially paid at $550 per fortnight and was scheduled to cease on 24 September. Although there were some positive signs of recovery within the economy at that time, and with Victoria still in lockdown, the Australian government extended payment of the supplement, at the reduced rate of $250, until the end of the year with a further review to be undertaken as relevant data became available.
Senator Siewert's private senator's bill to increase the supplement back to the $550 rate fails to consider that this supplement was always intended as a temporary measure. It was introduced at a time when many people had lost their jobs, businesses were closed, and states and territories were locked down to suppress the spread of coronavirus. The coronavirus supplement has already been extended until the end of this year, which is an additional three months. It would not be reasonable for the Australian government to make long-term structural changes to our payment systems while we are still dealing with the impact of a health pandemic and the economic response to that situation. This situation is very fluid, and we are still not clear on what the new normal is going to look like on the other side.
We are still committed to our values of providing a targeted, sustainable welfare system that encourages participation in the workforce. Our welfare system provides a safety net rather than a wage replacement to people as they transition into employment. These values served us well before the coronavirus crisis and will continue to underpin our social safety net as we emerge on the other side of the pandemic. Before this pandemic, we had created 1½ million jobs and the proportion of working-age people who were reliant on welfare was the lowest it had been in more than 30 years. There were 330,000 fewer working-age income support recipients between June 2014 and June 2019. This government has a strong history of delivering job opportunities, providing pathways and breaking down barriers for people on welfare. The aim of the coronavirus supplement was to provide additional support for income support recipients, in recognition of the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, in the knowledge that the situation affected people's ability to find and retain paid employment. At that time, the Australian economy was substantially disrupted due to the important health restrictions introduced earlier this year to keep us all safe.
The government also expanded access to payments by waiving waiting periods and changing eligibility criteria. As the Australian government has already indicated, many times, we will continue to closely monitor the economic impact of this pandemic and, in particular, the response of the labour market. We've already made the commitment that if the coronavirus supplement is still required after December it will be continued. It is not realistic to pre-empt the circumstances we may find ourselves in tomorrow, next week or even next month. Since the budget announcement last month, we have had the benefit of updated labour force figures, weekly payroll jobs figures and a clearer sense of how health restrictions are relaxing, especially in Victoria. Right now, the government is focused on continuing to respond to the situation as it unfolds, which means any further decisions around the extension of the supplement will not be made until later in the year.
As mentioned earlier by Senator Hughes, the Australian government's economic response was comprehensive. It included JobKeeper payments, enhancements across the entire income support system, early access to super, HomeBuilder, and cash flow support to businesses. These economic solutions provided unprecedented support to the Australian community. This economic response accounts for close to 16 per cent of Australia's GDP, but this investment is estimated to increase real GDP by around 4.25 per cent in 2020-21.
Positives from our economic response to this health pandemic can already be seen. Economies around the country have already started to bounce back. Indeed, business indicator data released from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in October shows few businesses reported a revenue decrease in October compared to July and almost three-quarters of businesses had not sought additional funds over the past six months. The same dataset showed approximately one in five medium and large businesses and six per cent of small businesses reported an increase in the number of employees. However, while there have been encouraging job figures over recent months, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. We know there are many people who are still hurting as a result of the measures put in place during the pandemic. As the government have continually demonstrated, we will be flexible and are committed to monitoring the economic situation and responding as the situation evolves.
Right now the plan is clear till the end of the year. That plan is to provide an additional level of support while encouraging and helping people to get back into the workforce. We understand that the jobs market remains weak, but we also know that there are still jobs out there. In my home state of Tasmania I know that farmers are crying out for fruit pickers, as the spring-summer picking season starts. Last week the Tasmanian government's Harvest Trail website had more than 2,000 agricultural jobs available. They may not be full-time jobs and they may be in different industries to what people are used to or prefer, but business groups and businesses have told us through the jobs-in-demand survey that an increasing number of employers are citing a lack of applicants as the reason they are struggling to employ.
It is our responsibility to ensure that the rate of JobSeeker does not become a deterrent or a disincentive for those receiving it to seek out and accept work when it is available. Again, as Senator Hughes mentioned earlier, from 25 September we increased the income-free area for the JobSeeker payment, which means people can earn up to $300 per fortnight without it affecting their income support payments. We have to strike the right balance between temporary enhanced support and incentives to work. We want people to get out there and take up the job opportunities that are available because we know that people who report earnings to Centrelink are twice as likely to no longer need an income support payment within a year.
As this additional coronavirus support is available for those who would generally be expected to participate in the labour market, such as those receiving JobSeeker, the Greens' call for the government to extend the supplement to those receiving disability support pension and carer payments is not appropriate. Pension payments are long-term payments that are paid at the highest rate in the income support system. They are paid at this higher rate because recipients are generally not expected to work to support themselves.
Senator Hughes mentioned in her contribution that, in recognition of the economic impact of the coronavirus, eligible pensioners, including those receiving disability support pension and carer payments, received two economic support payments of $750. That first payment was automatically paid by Centrelink between 31 March and 17 April. The second payment was made from 13 July. In addition they will receive two further economic support payments of $250 in November 2020 and March 2021.
While very few countries provide the strong safety net that Australia enjoys, we need to remember that these welfare payments are funded by taxpayers and we need to ensure this is managed responsibly. This responsibility extends to our future generations, our children, who will have to meet the costs of the system in the decades to come. Our focus is now on getting people back into jobs, businesses reopening and Australians moving to a COVID-safe world where protections are in place.
When Australia and the rest of the world were in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic in March the Australian government made the decision to introduce a temporary supplement to help those who needed extra support deal with the health and economic impacts we were facing. This support protected Australians at a time when health restrictions affected their ability to look for work, but it was never a permanent solution. The Australian government have already committed to continue monitoring the economic situation in relation to this pandemic and have said that we will extend the supplement again if needed, but we do not need to commit to a permanent supplement.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:04): I acknowledge the work of the Greens in bringing forward the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020, which is before the chamber, in their private members time. We know that when the Morrison government introduced the coronavirus supplement back in April it was an admission from the government—an admission that took far, far too long; an admission to Australians out of work who were reliant on income support—that JobSeeker payments are simply too low to live on. It's a real shame that it took until then for the government to recognise this. We've had many debates in this chamber about the low rate of Newstart, now JobSeeker, payment. In the debates, we've seen the government simply paper over the issue in its rhetoric because it hasn't wanted to recognise the impossibility of living on Newstart, or JobSeeker. We've known for too long that JobSeeker payments are too low to live on and certainly too low to give someone enough resources to find a job.
In past Senate hearings into the rate of Newstart, we heard stories of people who are homeless, of people needing to choose between purchasing their antidepressant medication or food, of people choosing between their medication or their rent and of people whose experiences of mental illness were caused by their experience of unemployment and living on a low income. We heard stories of families living in unsafe share housing simply because it was all that they could afford. So it's somewhat ironic that during an economic and health catastrophe like coronavirus the supplement granted by the government has lifted people out of poverty. They can afford food, they can afford rent and they can afford medication.
I'm cynical about the fact that the government chose this time to increase the rate of JobSeeker. You'd think the government, while concerned about stimulus in the broader economy to keep consumption up, would have also been deeply electorally concerned about the idea of a million more people—a million more voters—being subjected to an impossibly low income. Many people who are now reliant on JobSeeker are unemployed for the first time in their lives, and they still have life's obligations of rents, mortgages, car loans and school fees. The fall in the rate with the reduction in the supplement, as we know, has already hit households hard. The supplement lifted the payment to about the same rate as a full-time cleaner working in this building for a 38-hour week—the current rate plus the coronavirus supplement with rent assistance. It's worth noting, as Senator Askew highlighted, that you can work part time without losing your eligibility for the supplement until you reach the minimum wage.
It's telling that the government say that they want to keep a focus on motivating people to take the work that is out there equally while they have really failed to address how terribly low the minimum wage is in Australia. I'm not here to say that, at this point in time in the economic cycle, the supplement is too high, but it is a very telling sign of the stagnation of wages in Australia. As we talk about the supplement now, and later this morning when we talk about JobMaker and JobKeeper, we really need to keep in mind the interrelationship of all these payments and the fact that people need a viable income to live on. We know, based on the very real evidence from people's lived experience, that the old rate of Newstart or JobSeeker was trapping people in poverty and acting as a very real barrier to getting work. So while the government asks us to take comfort in the fact that it has not yet ripped away the coronavirus supplement there's nothing that this government has done that gives any comfort to people as they look forward to trying to come out of unemployment and trying to maintain their household income. There's nothing that says that they can rely on a decision from government that won't abandon them on the low rate of $40 a day, a rate under which people couldn't afford the basics. They couldn't afford clothes, transport, training or the basic kinds of tools they needed.
I know from many people I have spoken to—including single parents and students—that the increase in payment meant they were able to pay overdue bills and pay debt. They were able to get fresh food more regularly. They were able to get their children a pair of shoes that fit and that weren't overly worn. They were able to get the car fixed. They were able to replace old and inefficient whitegoods like fridges with more efficient ones and to replace worn furniture and mattresses. I note that they haven't been able to do all of these things in the time that they've experienced this income boost, just some of them. It was a little bit of capacity to catch up. For many people, it gave them a new capacity to actually look for work, because they were able to afford the train fare, to have the car fixed, to eat breakfast or to wear something decent and respectable. It was also a boost to people's mental health and sense of wellbeing instead of a loss of a sense of control over their lives. They realise it's not because there's something innately wrong with or chaotic about them. It's the simple fact of having to make do with nothing that makes life impossible to stay on top of.
It's quite telling to me that we've seen a boost in the consumption of basic goods, such as fruit and vegetables and whitegoods, in Australia's remote community stores. No-one should really be surprised that that has been the case. In many of these communities you have some people with part-time work, some people with CDP payments that supplement their income and some people on ranger income, but you also have people who, in the main, are reliant on their social security payments. That means at this time we have seen a massive boost to and lift in the income within those communities.
So it is simply unacceptable at this point in time that the only indication we get from government is that they will continue the coronavirus supplement for as long as it is needed but that they have a view to returning to the old rate of Newstart or JobSeeker, as it is now known, of $40 a day. We return to the debate that we've had in this chamber where Senator Ruston had been up on her feet saying, 'The best form of income support is a job.' And, indeed, it is. However, in Australia we have the highest rate of unemployment that we have known in a long time. We are in recession. There will be parts of Australia and parts of the economy that are much more adversely affected by the ongoing effects of COVID; for example, our international tourism destinations. Even when domestic parts of the economy are really moving again, in these communities there'll be huge levels of dislocation that can't simply be papered over with: 'The best form of welfare is a job.'
We know that having only $40 a day prevented people from being able to access the work that was there, but there's a deeper question than this. In a country like Australia people should not be forced to live in poverty in this way. Any child should not be living in poverty in our nation. I recall back in the 1980s our much loved Prime Minister Bob Hawke saying no child in Australia 'will need to live in poverty'. He named a year. I can't remember whether it was by 1990. He was, frankly, lampooned for having made that commitment, but the simple fact is that Bob Hawke, in saying no child should live in poverty, put in place key policies that boosted the household incomes of Australia's most impoverished families. As a result of that, we saw a 30 per cent decline in child poverty in this nation. Statistics today will tell you that much of that gain, in reducing child poverty, has now been whittled away by the fact that unemployment payments to disadvantaged families have fallen dramatically and are no longer relative to other household incomes.
Poverty and disadvantage are not inevitable. The coronavirus supplement has shown that there is a policy choice in our nation. Labor have called on the government to raise the rate. We recognise that the rate is manifestly inadequate. We recognise disability pensioners have been left out. We also recognise that the government is failing pensioners at this point in time by not adjusting the deeming rate and not properly indexing the pension. Labor recognises that the JobSeeker rate is simply too low. This government can and should act, irrespective of what this chamber does. This chamber is very limited in its capacity because, frankly, there's a lot of money in this bill. We'd like to be able to pass these bills in the Senate and assert our right to do so; however, the practical reality is that we rely on the government, with the numbers in the lower house, to make this policy change so that it can be implemented by our parliament.
Now that the government have lifted people out of poverty, they should reflect on what it would mean to simply push people back down, back into poverty, because they have given no indication that they are seeking to avoid the very low rate of JobSeeker payment that is simply unviable to live on. It's all very well for the government to say that the best form of welfare is a job, but the simple fact is that the rate of JobSeeker was too low to support people in finding work, in having stable housing and in being able to buy fresh food and medication, all of which are absolute prerequisites for work in our community.
Debate interrupted.
Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (12:20): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (12:20): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
2020 makes a narrow extension of the current time limit on payment rules authorised by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act2020 which allow the Treasurer to establish the JobMaker Hiring Credit scheme.
As announced last night, this scheme will operate from 7 October 2020 until 6 October 2022.
Youth unemployment has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The JobMaker Hiring Credit will help to accelerate growth in employment during the recovery by giving organisations incentives to take on additional employees that are young job seekers aged 16 to 35 years old.
The JobMaker Hiring Credit will be available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months from 7 October 2020 for which they hire an eligible young job seeker.
This will help young people access job opportunities and rebuild their connection to the labour force as the economy recovers from the effects of the Coronavirus.
This payment is a key part of the Government's plan to assist the economic recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:20): This afternoon we rise to debate the government's Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. From the outset of this pandemic, Labor called for wage subsidies to support vulnerable workers, businesses and communities. We've called for broader labour market programs to promote job creation and to kickstart economic recovery in our nation. Labor welcomed the introduction of JobKeeper, albeit JobKeeper was introduced much later than we would have liked. Labor still very much hold the view that it excluded far too many workers, such as casuals and temporary migrant workers. So it's very disappointing now to see that the government is cutting JobKeeper. You're cutting JobKeeper in the midst of the deepest recession in our nation in nearly a century. You've done all this at a time while unemployment is rising.
In these debates Labor have very much sought to be constructive, to serve the national interest and to not stand in the way of measures. Albeit these measures are not perfect and not as we would have delivered them, they nevertheless deliver things to the Australian people and the Australian economy at this time. We very much reserve, retain and maintain the right to be critical where we see flaws in the approach that the government has taken to economic recovery. In that spirit, today I highlight that Labor support this bill, but we are both very concerned and very disappointed that the government has not learned its lesson from the shortcomings of the JobKeeper program.
Today I put on the record that Labor believe, based on the evidence, that the JobMaker hiring credit will leave many businesses and workers behind. Equally, the government's decision to prematurely cut JobKeeper led to a fall in jobs and a fall in wages in every state and territory. This happened in the first fortnight after the cut. Some 30,000 jobs were lost in the fortnight to 17 October, and 470,000 have been lost as a whole since the outbreak of the virus. What is even further distressing is that we know that 160,000 more Australians are expected to join Australia's unemployment queue by Christmas. That's the prediction. The decision of the Liberals and Nationals to cut JobKeeper, cut JobSeeker and exclude Australians from the new hiring credit scheme means that we have a recession now and a recession that will continue into the future that will be deeper than it otherwise would have been. It will be deeper than necessary and the unemployment queues will be longer than they need to be. The government's slow action on economic recovery and the decisions that this government has taken to exclude Australians from economic support could mean that their legacy from this pandemic will be not only an unheard of level of debt—a trillion dollars of debt—but also a tanking economy and a missed opportunity. This bill is a missed opportunity in that it lacks the ambition to significantly lower the unemployment rate and get more people back into work. What's the point of all that debt if it's not enough to stop the economy from spiralling down and to prevent those job losses?
The enabling legislation before the chamber has little to do, frankly, with the JobMaker hiring credit as this government announced it in the budget. The bill amends the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020, and it allows the Treasurer to make payments and create schemes with the primary purpose either of improving the prospects of individuals getting employment in Australia or of increasing workforce participation in Australia. I find it concerning that all the design parameters of the JobMaker hiring credit and any additional schemes the Treasurer should wish to introduce are left to delegated legislation that the Treasurer can, effectively, create with the stroke of a pen.
During the estimates hearings I was not impressed by the level of coordination between Treasury, which is responsible for this new program, and the Department of Education, Skills and Employment or the Department of Human Services, who deal with the existing employment promotion schemes, including wage subsidies, that exist within the jobactive network. There was no real sense of the relativity, the integration or the importance of what's already been delivered through disability employment programs, through jobactive or through any of the other schemes. So it does concern me, and it is alarming, that the Treasurer can now effectively create new programs with the stroke of a pen. We do understand the need for flexibility, but the use of delegated legislation means the only option for parliament to deal with objectionable new rules or unintended consequences is by a disallowance motion—disallowing the scheme itself—rather than targeted amendments as per what would be the normal legislative process. It's a like it or lump it approach.
This is wrong, because the government's record shows that real improvements can be made by this chamber to the schemes that they put forward. We're moving amendments in the committee stage to reflect that the government should not be written a blank cheque by this chamber. The rules made under this delegated legislation should be supported by a resolution of both houses of parliament, and we will move an amendment to that end. We will move that better reporting and evaluation processes should be taking place.
I return now to discussing the lack of ambition in this bill and the gaps the government has created due to the eligibility criteria, and I put on record what we discovered in estimates: of the 450,000 jobs expected to be supported by the hiring credit, only 45,000 are expected to be new jobs; and 928,000 Australians have been deliberately excluded from the JobMaker hiring credit as announced in the budget. Just 10 per cent are expected to be new jobs, so how this program can be labelled 'JobMaker' is, tellingly, very debatable. Businesses, in particular small businesses, that have struggled during the pandemic and relied on JobKeeper are very unlikely, in many senses, to be in a position to recover from the coronavirus impacts, where accessing JobKeeper has been necessary, and then take on new staff and expand as the JobKeeper subsidy is withdrawn. I draw on research from the Grattan Institute in putting forward this argument. The institute estimated one million employers that received JobKeeper will effectively be excluded from the hiring credit scheme.
Again, during the Senate estimates committee hearings, Treasury officials were unable to provide estimates of or assumptions for the numbers or types of firms that have lost or will lose JobKeeper, either in its revised form or upon completion of the program when it expires in March, and will therefore either make JobKeeper subsidised workers redundant or will be able to take advantage of the hiring credit. A business has to be in a position to earn enough income to support its existing workforce in order to be eligible for the hiring credit, so it's quite clear that the scheme is not going to be sufficient to make a meaningful dent in unemployment to help our Australian economy to recover. It will be interesting to see the uptake of the scheme and whether businesses that really deserve the support and would otherwise be economically viable suffer because they have been unable to access this hiring credit.
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, in evidence to the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into these issues, which I was delighted to participate in, said that the subsidy was not high enough to incentivise employers to take on new staff and that members had indicated that the hiring credit wage subsidies were too low. COSBOA said in its submission:
Given the apparent complexity of the hiring credit administration processes, for small businesses, in particular, the subsidy amounts are insufficient to motivate the additional hiring.
We note that the hiring credit may well be used by more businesses that did comparatively well during the coronavirus epidemic and recession, so the businesses that did well might now be in a stage of business growth. But the issue here is that 90 per cent of these jobs would have been created even if the hiring credit were simply not there for businesses to take up. This is confirmed by Treasury's own evidence.
Most concerning is that some workers will miss out because of the narrow eligibility criteria of the government's design. The scheme has been limited to workers aged 35 years and under and in receipt of the JobSeeker payment or youth allowance in the preceding three months. We know that youth unemployment is far too high in this country, far higher than it should be—this was the case prepandemic—but the solution in current labour market conditions shouldn't be such narrow targeting, particularly when we know there are many other workers who are also missing out. Employment scarring is, as we know, a real problem for younger workers. We see it in the data, we see it in the literature, we see that these workers are worse off in the long term. They are usually on lower wages and will be more welfare dependent as a result of long-term unemployment from a recession. We very much support the idea that labour market programs should be created and activated throughout economic recovery. That is what the Keating government did with the Working Nation plan in the 1990s.
There are not complementary labour market programs to help workers over the age of 35 except for, in mere passing comment, the Restart Program aimed at workers over 50, where not even half of the participants remained in employment after six months. The hiring credit has incentivised employers to hire those who fit the criteria as part-time or casual workers. The ACTU's submission to the inquiry detailed:
… under the programme as currently written, an employer with a number of vacancies which together represent 3 FTE (Full-time Equivalent) roles could hire 3 full-time workers and receive a subsidy of $600 a week. Alternately, they could hire 6 part-time or casual employees to fill the same vacancy and receive a subsidy payment of $1200 a week … virtually the same outlay for the employer. This programme appears to be designed to produce insecure jobs …
This government should be resourcing agencies to ensure employees are able to raise matters with enforcement agencies and have confidence those concerns will be investigated but also protect workers who are at risk of employment discrimination or having their hours reduced. Labor will not oppose this bill, but we do not— (Time expired)
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:35): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. Everyone has a right to a liveable income and a right to a safe, secure and meaningful job that pays them decent wages to live a good life. Even before the pandemic, we should have been really concerned about unemployment in Australia. In March 2020, the national unemployment rate was 5.2 per cent and was even higher for young people, at 11.6 per cent. The underemployment crisis has been one which has been hidden for far too long. The underemployment rate was even worse at 8.8 per cent nationally. It was above 10 per cent for women of working age and 19.1 per cent for young people.
Insecure jobs have plagued workers in Australia for far too long. The role that casualised and precarious work played in the devastating second wave of COVID-19 in Victoria should have been a wake-up call for the Morrison government. COVID-19 also brought to the fore the struggles of casual workers. Instead of a real plan to create a fair, sustainable economy, we have been presented with a plan for an unambitious unemployment rate of six per cent and the JobMaker hiring credit. That's a plan for nearly two million Australians to be unemployed and underemployed, with no assurance of adequate social security payments to enable them to live with dignity. It's a corporate welfare scheme with no promise of creating good, secure, well-paying jobs, just as the government is ripping the social safety net out from under people by cutting JobSeeker and withdrawing JobKeeper. And let's not forget that there was absolutely no support provided to international students and others on temporary visas who continue to suffer and continue to struggle.
If the government's plan is for the economy to have two million unemployed and underemployed people, it is the government's responsibility to take care of them. If the government wants everyone to have a job, they should create enough good jobs for everyone to have one if they want one. The JobMaker hiring credit policy is a recipe for churning vulnerable young people through low-paid, dead-end jobs and funnelling massive amounts of money to business, including huge multinationals like McDonald's and Coles, who have been embroiled in wage theft.
The government says that they want to help young people, but churning young people through short-term, low-paid, exploitative jobs over and over again doesn't help them. This is nothing short of demoralising and confidence-shattering for them just to be seen as an economic unit. Those without a job or enough of a job will just have to struggle.
As I have said before in this place, out of the devastation of the pandemic, we have an opportunity to build a better world. We have the power to end the inequality, poverty and precarity that we have seen flourish over the last few decades. If we only choose to do so, we can create a society and an economy that works to care for our people and our planet. If we want to help people get back to work—into really meaningful, good, safe work—we need to put the needs of the unemployed, the underemployed and the precariously employed people at the centre of our response to this crisis. During the recent Senate committee inquiry into this bill, I had the opportunity to hear from the Australian Unemployed Workers Union. I think they summed up the situation perfectly. This is what they had to say:
The hiring credit will make bad worse: what we desperately need is a program that responds to actual problems with structural solutions.
… … …
This crisis can't be fixed by punishing us with cuts to income support or a hiring subsidy bandaid.
… … …
The dramatic reshaping of the economy gives the government an opportunity to invest in communities and people so that we're all supported and fairly rewarded for our contributions. We're the people hurt by the lack of jobs and that's why we're grateful to the committee for including us today. We're here to make sure the policies that are supposed to help us actually do.
The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 will establish a scheme the government claims will create and improve employment opportunities in Australia. However, it lacks important details and protections for workers, gives enormous power to the minister, locks in insecure and low-paid jobs for young people and would allow big business to use public money to bolster their profits under the guise of a wage subsidy. The Greens have serious concerns about this bill, and I will move amendments in the Senate to try and address some of them.
This bill grants very broad powers to the minister to hand out public money to employers, and not much else. The bill doesn't actually establish the JobMaker hiring credit scheme itself. It doesn't provide a single detail about the scheme nor does it detail the eligibility criteria. Instead, it delegates power to the minister to establish an unlimited number of publicly funded wage subsidy schemes until 6 October 2022, with the only criteria being that they improve the prospects of individuals getting employment in Australia or increase workforce participation in Australia.
We do not support the JobMaker hiring credit scheme's being established by the minister effectively solely through regulations, nor do we support the broad and unrestricted powers proposed to be granted to the minister in this bill. The JobMaker hiring credit should be created through legislation and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment. That's why we will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment, to bring the rules as they are currently drafted in the exposure draft into the legislation. And, even though these might be changes that could further be changed, we support the intention of this amendment to return parliamentary oversight to the scheme.
Throughout the pandemic we have seen workers suffer, losing their jobs and their income. Perversely and obscenely while workers are doing it tough we have seen some of Australia's biggest companies increase their profits and pay out even bigger executive bonuses and higher dividends to shareholders. In August it was revealed that the publicly funded JobKeeper wage subsidy was being used to prop up company profits. Seventeen of Australia's top companies paid $250 million in dividends while also receiving JobKeeper. Under the proposed JobMaker rules, there is nothing stopping big businesses abusing the hiring credit in the same way. Wage subsidies should subsidise wages, not corporate profits and higher dividends for shareholders.
Analysis shows that the JobMaker scheme will significantly benefit high-performing businesses, such as supermarkets and large fast-food companies—that is, giant corporate outfits notorious for exploiting and underpaying their younger casualised workers. Perhaps recognising how toxic using the hiring credit could be for their brand, supermarket giant Woolworths used their submission to the recent committee inquiry to deal themselves out of the scheme.
During the committee hearings the executive director of Per Capita, Emma Dawson, in response to a question from me, shared concerns about companies paying dividends receiving the credit. She stated:
… certainly before taxpayers are asked to pick up the bill for labour for companies, that should be taken from profits in the first instance.
… … …
I disagree most strongly—any company that is able to pay either dividends to shareholders or executive bonuses should be excluded from taxpayer support.
Companies that have paid increased dividends during the pandemic should not be eligible for the JobMaker hiring credit, and I will move amendments to ensure this.
Many big businesses eligible for the JobMaker hiring credit scheme have a history of facing claims of underpaying and exploiting their workers. Coles saw a 7.1 per cent increase in net profit to nearly $1 billion in 2020, and in November announced that it was in a stronger position than pre pandemic, despite having previously announced underpaying workers by $20 million. McDonald's is currently facing a potential class action after denying hundreds of thousands of workers paid rest breaks. Super Retail Group admitted to underpaying their workers up to $61 million. Qantas was recently found to have underpaid its workers with respect to the JobKeeper payment. I am deeply concerned that this bill does not contain any provisions that revoke eligibility for businesses who are found to be underpaying their workers. Our concern is shared by a number of stakeholders. During the committee hearing, ACTU president Michele O'Neil told us:
If there is an abuse of the scheme where there have been underpayments, breaches in health and safety provisions et cetera, that should render the employer ineligible for the scheme.
The Australian Unemployed Workers Union recommended that public funds should not subsidise companies that have breached workers' rights, including businesses who have underpaid their workers. The AUWU recommend that businesses found to have engaged in such activity during the JobMaker hiring credit scheme or in the two years prior to receiving funds under the scheme be required to pay back all money received. I will be moving amendments to ensure that businesses will not be eligible to receive the JobMaker hiring credit if they are found to be underpaying their workers and will be required to repay the total amount received under the scheme.
The bill also fails to provide a dispute resolution process for any issues relating to the JobMaker hiring credit, including for workers who have been fired or have had their hours reduced. Treasury has suggested that existing protections for workers, such as unfair-dismissal provisions in the Fair Work Act, should ameliorate concerns about this. However, a minimum employment period of six months or 12 months in small businesses is required for workers to be able to claim unfair dismissal, and this requirement leaves many workers behind and without access to necessary protections. During the committee hearing, Treasury referred to the hotline set up by the ATO to deal with concerns relating to the JobKeeper scheme, and suggested that such a system might be established again for the JobMaker scheme. This is insufficient and will not adequately deal with disputes or protect workers. I will be moving amendments to deal with those issues.
I hold deep concerns about workers losing their jobs or losing hours as a result of this scheme. A business that fires workers or reduces workers' hours in order to exploit the hiring credit should be ineligible for the scheme. Again, the Greens will be moving amendments to that effect. We know that the primary motivation of a corporation is to maximise profits for its shareholders. This is one of the most fundamental goals of private enterprise. If a business is able to fiddle with its staffing structure to increase its head count and its payroll, and thereby make more money through the hiring credit, it will do so. At a time when it's hard enough for so many underemployed workers to sustain themselves, the prospect of lost hours just so big business can pay out bigger dividends and bonuses is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the government to open up workers and households to this risk. There must be safeguards for workers' jobs and hours in primary legislation.
Instead of creating flawed schemes like the JobMaker hiring credit, the government should be directly investing in well-paid, secure public sector jobs to build a better, safer, fairer and sustainable post-pandemic society and economy. A responsible Commonwealth government would work with people and communities to lead the transition to 100 per cent renewable energy as soon as possible to mitigate the climate catastrophe that we are staring down. It would boost our investment in the caring economy to create enough jobs to meet demand for services and ensure that people doing essential labour in education, in child care, in health and in community services are not overstretched and underpaid. It would invest massively in public housing so that everyone has a safe, secure and affordable place to call home. It would revitalise Australian research and development and green manufacturing to help sculpt the economy and the future. It would create jobs to revive and rehabilitate our precious environment. The government do have a choice here: they can invest in public service and secure long-term jobs or keep perpetuating precarious work, which hurts people. They are choosing to do the latter with this bill.
This bill should not be passed without amendments. It will make things worse. There is so much work to be done to create a decent world for everyone. The government should help do that work, not waste public money on corporate welfare and on jobs that won't be secure and might not even come to be.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I'm assuming you are doing those amendments you spoke about through Committee of the Whole? Thank you.
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (12:50): It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. In doing so, I proudly say, in addressing Senator Faruqi's concerns she has raised about choice, that this is about choice. This is about a government that is making a choice to back young Australians. I have to say, I think many supporters of the Greens party, and to some extent of Labor as well, would be shocked to hear the level of opposition to the JobMaker scheme that we are now hearing in this debate in the Senate. What this says to young Australians is: the Morrison government stands with you. We recognise that you are Australia's future. We recognise that, at this time of enormous uncertainty in our nation, in the midst of a pandemic, your future is critical to our economic recovery. That is why we are backing young Australians with this really important scheme.
We have seen unprecedented economic support delivered by this government in the form of $101 billion in JobKeeper; a doubling of the safety net in JobSeeker, a massive amount of support for young Australians not just with this scheme—100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships are being supported by a 50 per cent wage subsidy; the new JobTrainer Fund, which will create up to 340,000 free or low-cost training places for school leavers and jobseekers; and more than 11 million taxpayers getting a tax cut, which has now been backdated to 1 July this year. Right across this economy, our government stands with all Australians as we battle this terrible pandemic and as we work hard together in our economic recovery.
The JobMaker hiring credit is a partnership forged between the Australian government, Australian employers and younger Australians. The hiring credit is designed to provide businesses with incentives to take on additional young jobseekers. It is designed, as our economy recovers from the ravages of the COVID pandemic, to assist young people to access job opportunities. Targeted at 16- to 35-year-olds, this important financial support will provide the JobKeeper hiring credit to employers for every new job created over the course of the next 12 months. It recognises that, when employers are making choices about who to bring onto their books—who to hire—there is an incentive to bring on young people who may not have the experience of older workers and who, therefore, may otherwise end up at the back of the queue. We are determined that young jobseekers will not be at the back of the queue under a Morrison government. We want all jobseekers to get a fair choice.
It is extraordinary that Senator Faruqi, in her contribution, talked about supporting the public sector and not the private sector, which of course employs eight out of 10 Australians. Why would the Greens be focusing on the public sector and not the private sector and demonising profits as if they were somehow evil? It is profits that create jobs. If businesses do not make a profit, they cannot hire employees. I find the way in which the Greens have deserted young Australians, in opposing this bill, to be quite extraordinary.
This represents a $4 billion commitment from the Morrison government to support—I say the word 'support'—an estimated 450,000 positions for young Australians. A great deal of my focus as a senator in Victoria, particularly in the Geelong region, in Ballarat, in Bendigo and in Gorton—in my patron seats—is to stand up for all of those wonderful job opportunities in those regional parts of Victoria. There are many wonderful employers in regional Victoria who want to do everything they can to get out there and to get through this as quickly as they can. At last the ring of steel has come down or been lifted in Victoria, which means that Melburnians can now travel to regional Victoria and support thousands of wonderful businesses there, particularly in hospitality and tourism, where so many young Victorians get an opportunity to work, perhaps for the first time. This is an incredibly important scheme, on top of the other incredible support that we have announced and delivered as part of our response, including the $101 billion for JobKeeper.
Under this bill, eligible employers will be able to receive $200 per week for every additional eligible employee hired between the ages of 16 and 29 and $100 for 30- to 35-year-olds. It's to be paid for up to 12 months from the job creation date, for new jobs created, right through until 6 October 2021. This is a program aimed fairly and squarely at giving hope for the future to young Australian jobseekers. I think all Australians will look back with an incredible amount of pride at how our government has responded to this pandemic. It disappoints me that there is not bipartisanship across the political divide when you look at how hard our government has worked to ensure that all Australians are supported.
This program features a credit and reporting system through the Australian Taxation Office to facilitate the initiative. There will be robust integrity measures drawing on the existing regulatory and enforcement infrastructure of taxation law and other laws relating to unfair dismissal. Again, I really do take issue with the Greens characterising this as a way of leading to the exploitation of young workers, because we have very strong laws in this country to prevent and prohibit underpayment and exploitation. To any employer who exploits or underpays an employee, I say, 'Shame!' The law must and should come down very heavily on every single employer who thinks that they can get away with this.
I am very pleased to see, including in evidence before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, that there was much broad support for this initiative, including from the Property Council of Australia, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, the Australian Retailers Association, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Melbourne university's Professor Jeff Borland said that, in his judgement, the size of the impact on young people and the potential scarring effects are large enough that if you were to target any job creation measure to a group it would be to young people. It is shocking to me that there is so much opposition to these incredibly important initiatives.
Youth unemployment is one of the biggest issues that we as a country face, and this is such an incredibly important measure in making sure we do not leave young Australians behind. We recognise that in the committee report, and, throughout those hearings, there were some concerns identified. Treasury has provided very firm advice in relevance to the remedies which are available in the Fair Work Act, through the Fair Work Ombudsman and through administrative processes of the ATO. I do also say there are very strong prohibitions in relation to discrimination against older Australians who are seeking work. We do have a number of programs specifically targeted to older Australians. These measures provide historic support for young Australians. They are a very important part of our massive economic response to the coronavirus pandemic. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:01): I will be speaking in support of the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, and Labor certainly support this bill. But, as you will see from my contribution, there are a number of concerns that Labor have in relation to this bill and we certainly would encourage the government to fix up those concerns. One of the reasons why we support this bill is that Labor have repeatedly called on this government to expand the support it is providing to Australians who have been hit by the COVID recession. Sadly, this bill is a continuation of the government's approach, which is to actually withdraw support, contain support or narrow support, even though the economic situation for so many Australians is still so precarious.
If we go back to the very beginning, when COVID first hit this country and businesses started to be closed down, it was Labor who were calling for wage subsidies to be paid. Of course the Prime Minister and his allies have tried to reinvent history to argue that the JobKeeper wage subsidy was all their own doing and invention. But any fair-minded observer of the history of these measures will see that, for quite some time, Labor were calling for a wage subsidy to be introduced and that it really wasn't until the British conservative government decided to introduce a wage subsidy themselves that we finally saw some change from this government. So we were calling for those wage subsidies to be paid, as a constructive suggestion to this government, to try to avoid the sorts of unemployment queues that we saw outside Centrelink offices so soon after lockdowns were announced.
Our suggestions in relation to this bill are made in that same constructive spirit. Unfortunately, the government have previously ignored a range of suggestions that we've made to improve JobKeeper. They have continued to exclude well over a million casual workers, temporary migrant workers, arts workers, entertainment workers and council workers from receiving JobKeeper. That has unnecessarily cost many, many jobs around our country. Many employers—whether they be councils or in the arts, entertainment, hospitality or others—really were left with no option other than to lay off staff when they actually would have preferred to keep their staff on through payments of JobKeeper. But the government removed that choice and consigned well over a million people to unnecessary unemployment.
The really fundamental point that Labor have been trying to make over and over again, both in this chamber and outside, is that we know there is a recession underway and we know that it is the deepest, worst recession that our country has seen since the Great Depression nearly 100 years ago, yet this government has actively made choices to impose more pain on Australians through its decisions around the JobKeeper payments and now the hiring credit scheme as well. The government has continually made decisions to exclude certain categories of worker and certain types of business from some of the income support that is being paid. It means that, at a time when we should be seeing government step up to the plate, stimulate the economy and keep money flowing through people's pockets so that they can spend it in businesses and create further employment, the government are doing exactly the opposite. They're removing those payments. They're reigning in people's ability to spend, extending the recession and making things worse. It's exactly the wrong way to be going. As I say, they're doing it again here with the JobMaker hiring credit.
We know that there are many Australians quite rightly very worried about their jobs right now. There are, of course, the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs following the lockdowns and the COVID recession, and there are at least as many people who have maintained their employment for now but are very worried about how long that employment will remain in place. It's no wonder that people are so worried, when you look at some of the data that is coming through the Bureau of Statistics about what's actually happening right now in the Australian economy. The most recent ABS figures showed a fall in jobs and wages in every state and territory in the first full fortnight after the Morrison government cut JobKeeper prematurely. As I've said, the decisions this government has made and is making right now are actually making things worse. They're actually leading to people losing jobs. They're actually leading to the recession becoming deeper and longer than it needs to be. What we should be seeing from this government is every possible effort being put into bringing the country out of recession as quickly as possible and getting unemployment down as quickly as possible.
The ABS figures show that in the very first full fortnight after the government cut its JobKeeper payments we saw a fall in jobs and wages in every state and territory. It doesn't actually give me much pleasure to say that we told the government so, but we did. We tried to get the government to change course. We were out there repeatedly saying that it was too early to be cutting back on JobKeeper and it would cost jobs. The government said, 'No, no, it'll be fine; we've got to get people off these payments at some point.' And what do you know? Exactly what we predicted would happen has happened—jobs and wages are falling in every state and territory around Australia. Thirty thousand jobs were lost in Australia in the fortnight to 17 October, which means that, overall, 470,000 jobs in Australia have been lost since the COVID outbreak began, and 160,000 more Australians are expected to join the unemployment queues by Christmas.
The government is desperate to convince Australians that we've seen the worst of this—we've turned the corner, green shoots, things are getting better, it's all going to be okay, the government's got it in hand—but these facts don't lie. Things are getting worse. Despite the number of jobs that have already been lost, the government's own figures tell us that they're expecting 160,000 more Australians to join the unemployment queues by Christmas. We have not turned the corner. Things are getting worse for so many Australians. Yet the government continue down the path of cutting JobKeeper and JobSeeker. They excluded a huge range of workers from receiving JobKeeper in the first place, and now they want to constrain their hiring credit in a way that excludes so many workers and businesses. If the government were actually serious about trying to get our economy out of recession as quickly as possible and getting Australians back into work as quickly as possible then they would be listening to some of the suggestions that we have been making, which are intended to do exactly that.
The government has admitted through its figures in the budget that we won't get back to the pre-COVID unemployment level in Australia for years. This is not something that's about to end. And that's before we even get to the point about the more than one million Australians who are underemployed, who have work but want more. They might be getting five hours work a week, nowhere near enough to feed themselves and their families, and desperately want more. But the government just shrugs its shoulders and says, 'We'll do a bit here and there, but we're not going to try really hard to get that unemployment rate down to pre-COVID levels any time soon.' They're content to let things be and spend a bit of money—sure, I'll give them credit for that—but nowhere near the amount that is required to get unemployment down as quickly as it should be. This will have consequences for many humans. This means that families won't be able to feed themselves, kids will miss out on school excursions and a lot of Australians will go into poverty. That is a really great shame when the government has alternatives. It can do more to get people into work and to keep them in work. The options are available; recommendations are being made not just by Labor but by every think tank you care to speak to, but the government doesn't want to do that.
I note that this bill continues down a concerning path for the government, where it sets up enabling legislation for payments to be made but leaves the detail as to who receives what for the Treasurer to determine with a stroke of his pen. Unfortunately, that approach hasn't seen the Treasurer take up the opportunity to widen JobKeeper in the way that we asked him to. The approach hasn't seen the social security minister take the opportunity to increase the JobKeeper supplement in the way we have asked them to. We certainly acknowledge that there needs to be some flexibility for the government at this time, when things are changing rapidly, but the continued use of delegated legislation, like we see in this bill, means that the only option for the parliament to deal with any new rules that aren't fit for purpose or exclude people unfairly is by a disallowance motion, rather than actually proposing amendments, as you would normally do in the usual legislative process.
So far, one of the biggest concerns about this hiring credit measure that the government is putting forward is that it is yet another example of this government, and in particular this Prime Minister, being utterly obsessed with making announcements that do not stand up to scrutiny for more than the first headline. We know that this Prime Minister, with his marketing background and his obsession with marketing, really only cares about getting the headline that he's after, and then he runs away, never to be seen again, when issues arise about that announcement or about the promise not being delivered. We've seen it with the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, a $5 billion fund that, five years after it was announced, has spent less than five per cent of its funds. We've seen it with the Emergency Response Fund, a $4 billion fund that was set up, with the opposition's support, to provide additional disaster recovery and mitigation assistance. Eighteen months after it was announced, not a cent has been spent from that fund. We've seen it with the drought fund, we've seen it with urban congestion funds, we've seen it with the arts funds that the government announced but hasn't actually spent and now we're seeing it here as well.
When this initiative was first announced, the government was out there saying, 'This is going to create 450,000 new jobs.' Well, that should have rung warning bells, because we know that every jobs figure this government gives is grossly inflated. It didn't take many questions, I have to say, from my colleagues in Senate estimates to uncover that, in fact, only 45,000 new jobs are going to be created as a result of this initiative. I don't know why this government can't be honest with people about what its funding will actually deliver. If the funding is going to deliver 45,000 new jobs, then just say that; just be honest with people. Why does the government have to add a zero on the end to turn it into 450,000 new jobs when it's patently untrue and Treasury bureaucrats have confirmed that it's untrue? The only possible reason for doing that is that this Prime Minister and this government as a whole only care about getting a big headline. A judgement was obviously made that 45,000 new jobs wasn't going to cut it, wasn't going to get an announcement because it wasn't good enough—and it's not good enough!—so instead the government decided to add another zero to the end of that figure, turn it into 450,000 jobs, mislead Australians and get the headlines it was after.
The number of new jobs that will actually be created by this hiring credit is dwarfed by the number of Australians who have been deliberately excluded from receiving this hiring credit. We know that nearly one million Australians over 35 will not be eligible for this hiring credit. There will be many, many businesses that will not be eligible for this hiring credit, because they were receiving the JobKeeper payment. They were receiving JobKeeper payments because they were almost driven out of business. They're exactly the kinds of businesses that we should be getting behind to take on more people, to keep them afloat. Instead of that, again we see another example of the government tightening the screws, tightening eligibility, reducing the number of people and the number of businesses who can obtain support, just like they did by excluding people from getting JobKeeper in the first place and by cutting JobKeeper before the economy was ready for that to happen. Over and over again we see this government making decisions which will actually make this recession worse, which will leave more people unemployed for longer, which will delay the recovery and which will impose even more pain on Australians. The government's got to stop doing this.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:16): I rise to speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. This is the scheme the government initially said would create 450,000 jobs, primarily for young people, but it was soon revealed that it will in fact deliver one-tenth of that. And then when we saw the actual legislation—blink and you'll miss it! There's virtually no detail in there at all, and almost everything is left up to the minister to deal with by regulation, without the benefit of the scrutiny of this chamber.
The government claims that this will create employment and opportunities for Australia, but there's no detail in the bill. There would be no protection for workers. It would give huge power to the minister. It would, in fact, promote insecure and low-paid jobs for young people. And it would once again allow big business to use public money to bolster their profits under the guise of a wage subsidy. The audacity of this government knows no limit. This is a corporate welfare scheme with no promise of creating good, secure, well-paying jobs and with no protections for existing workers, who could well be fired and replaced with workers eligible under this scheme so that their employer can get a bit of extra public dough from this government, who it probably donates to in a cosy little relationship there.
This bill grants incredibly broad powers to the minister to hand out public money to employers. It basically doesn't do much else at all. It doesn't establish the JobMaker hiring credit scheme itself; it doesn't provide a single detail about the scheme and it doesn't detail the eligibility criteria. It simply delegates all of that down to the minister, who's got, I think, two years to set up an unlimited number of publicly funded wage subsidy schemes with very little guidance and very little constraint and with much benefit for employers and potentially very little benefit to actual workers.
We have seen throughout the pandemic the absolute hell of a time that people have had. People have lost their jobs. People have been scraping by. But that hasn't been the universal experience, has it? The 25 richest people in Australia got richer, and some of the largest companies operating in our domestic economy made massive profits and paid massive dividends. So this pandemic hasn't had a fairly-experienced economic impact. When you have some of our biggest companies increasing their profits and paying out even bigger executive bonuses and higher dividends to shareholders, wage subsidy schemes should subsidise wages, not the profits of big business. Yet there's no protection for this bill to make sure that workers receive the benefit of public funding, a concept that we support, particularly in times like this. This bill doesn't guarantee the delivery of that support to workers, because that's all left up to the minister.
The minister can simply create a program, a plan or a regulation over the next two years that gives money to big employers with very little protections. That's exactly why the Greens will be moving amendments to put in place those protections to make sure that workers get the benefit of this scheme. We want to make sure that wage thieves—companies that are notorious for underpaying their workers—can't simply take yet more public funds and pocket more private profits whilst their workers are still being done out of the wages they are legally entitled to. These are sensible amendments that we hope this chamber will support, but that remains to be seen.
We had to fight to get a committee inquiry into this bill. This government didn't want to have an inquiry into this bill and was dragged to doing so. During a committee hearing the President of the ACTU, Michele O'Neil, said:
If there is an abuse of the scheme where there have been underpayments, breaches in health and safety provisions et cetera, that should render the employer ineligible for the scheme.
That's a very sensible approach. Public money should not be rewarding bad behaviour by big corporations. If it has been shown that they underpay their workers, if it has been shown that they pay out massive dividends to either shareholders or their highly paid directors and managers and if it has been shown that they don't need public support, they shouldn't be getting the additional public support. Workers should be getting that support. So we'll be moving the amendments my colleague Senator Faruqi has outlined in lovely detail to address those issues and to put in place those protections.
The other thing this bill fails to do is set up a dispute resolution process for workers who are fired in order that an employer can avail themselves of this JobMaker scheme and hire two new people. That fired worker needs somewhere to go. Actually we'd prefer that businesses were precluded from wantonly and baselessly firing existing workers in the first place. This scheme should not be a trigger for employers to simply fire existing workers and rehire people in order to get some public support to do so. Yet another of our amendments will address that issue and will protect workers from being tossed aside by their employer unlawfully in order for that employer to avail themselves of this public subsidy.
I've talked a little bit about the amendments that we will move to this bill. This government should not be promoting insecure low-paid work that threatens the employment of existing older workers. The Fair Work Commission needs to have jurisdiction to address any such claims. Our amendment would do that.
There should be a provision in this bill that stops wage thieves from getting public money. Sadly, history is littered with examples. I think one of the previous speakers was somewhat aghast that that happens. Yes, it is disgusting, it shouldn't happen and it is against the law, but it still happens. Often it's up to workers themselves to take on these corporations and fight for their rights.
Coles is perhaps the most recent example. They saw a 7.1 per cent increase in their net profit in the pandemic, yet in recent years they have been successfully taken to court for underpaying their workers to the tune of $20 million. That's a very large company that has not demonstrated good employer behaviour, has made an awful lot of profit this year and does not need additional taxpayers' support. But, under this bill, they can still put their hand out and get taxpayer money, despite being wage thieves and despite making squillions in this pandemic.
McDonald's is another example. They're facing a class action this minute for denying hundreds of thousands of workers rest breaks. There are a few other examples here: Qantas and Super Retail Group. There are many large corporates that haven't paid their workers properly in the past that would be eligible to get taxpayer support under this bill as it is currently drafted. There is a very easy and sensible fix. We are happy to support employers who are doing the right thing and who are passing this money on to their workers and creating jobs. Employers who are pocketing the money, making additional private profits, and underpaying their workers should not get this support. It's a very simple amendment and a very reasonable one at that.
I've talked about employers who haven't paid their workers properly. I've talked about the need for the Fair Work Commission to actually have jurisdiction over workers who might be sacked so that employers can avail themselves of this scheme. The other important issue is dividends. Our amendment says that if businesses have actually paid increased dividends between March of this year and the end of the scheme they should be ineligible—another very simple concept. If you are doing very well economically, despite the fact that this nation is in a technical recession thanks to the pandemic—and years of mismanagement, I might add—then you do not need additional taxpayer support. Our amendment would say that you've simply got to stand on your own two feet. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the private profits of big corporations. I don't think you'd find an Australian out there who disagrees with that, but you may find several people in here who do.
I hark back to the fact that those same large corporations make very generous donations, in fact, to both sides of politics. One wonders whether this is just a continuation of that very cosy relationship between large corporations and this government—in fact, both of the big parties. Australians are fed up with that. What we've got here is a $4 billion corporate welfare scheme with no protection for workers, which comes off the back of a $99 billion corporate subsidy in the budget. This government can't turn around without handing out more public money to big corporations when, in fact—as the Greens have been saying for many a year now, and in particular in this pandemic—if you actually want to generate employment, if you want to create jobs, then directly invest in the services that people deserve and need and rely upon, like hospitals and schools, and rebuild our manufacturing base. Let's have some public investment in public manufacturing. Let's build stuff again. What's more, let's build clean energy components so that we can address the climate crisis at the same time as tackling the economic crisis.
This is not rocket science. It's about using taxpayer dollars wisely to create good outcomes—to create jobs, to stimulate the economy and to address the climate crisis. That's a far better use of the $99 billion that we saw in the budget going to big corporations—and this bill in particular, with $4 billion in corporate welfare, with no protection for workers and no guarantee that that money will actually flow to create jobs that are anything other than low-paid insecure work.
We are very worried that existing workers, particularly older workers, will be sacked by their employers and then two new younger folk will be rehired on insecure conditions with no protections themselves, just so the employer can get the benefit of this small amount of public subsidy. That is not a situation this government should be using taxpayer dollars to deliver on. It is not a good situation for workers. We can fix this bill. That's what we're proposing to do with our amendments that strengthen the Fair Work Commission's jurisdiction, that stop that wanton sacking of existing employees and that mean that companies who have made massive profits or that have been shown to underpay their workers are not eligible. This is a fixable scheme, but what remains to be seen is whether there's any will to actually back any of those sensible amendments, many of which witnesses to the inquiry themselves proposed and supported.
We are proud supporters of wage subsidy schemes but not ones that don't have any protection for workers; that give complete discretion to the minister to make it up as they go along for a period of two entire years; that could in fact see mass unemployment; and, of course, that are going to actually produce one-tenth of the jobs that the government initially claimed. So this is our position on this bill. We look forward to seeing whether or not there's support for our amendments once we get to the committee stage. This is a bad bill that could be improved, and it remains to be seen whether this government will finally start using public money judiciously to create jobs, to provide services and to address the climate crisis. That would be a far better spend of the $4 billion for this bill or the $99 billion that we saw go to corporate welfare in this budget.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (13:29): I am very pleased to be rising to speak in support of the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, as it goes to the core of one of the issues that I came here to fight for and that I spoke about in my first speech—that is, the dignity of work. The economic benefits of work are obvious. A steady pay cheque provides financial security for individuals and their families, and it allows them to plan for the future with confidence. Material living standards like these should never be lightly dismissed. Of course, it also provides tax receipts for government, which allow us to fund the important things that we all value, like a strong national defence and a social safety net. But, in some ways, even more important than these financial benefits are the other benefits that come with work, often described as the dignity of work. I want to briefly dwell on these important philosophical points before I turn to how this bill supports this objective and provide some reflections on why it is particularly needed in my home state of Victoria.
The concept of the dignity of work is most closely associated with Catholic theology. As senators may know, I'm not personally religious, but I have a strong appreciation for their social teachings. The concept has been very well summarised by John Coleman, who wrote in the Jesuit review America:
… work not only implies remuneration sufficient for adequate housing, food, medical help etc. but also involves a kind of justice as participation. Through work we participate in society and have an active voice. Thus, even if welfare for those who can not find work or can not do it for physical reasons is a good thing, it is no substitute for the dignity which accrues to those who actively participate in work and in society.
This is strongly supported by the evidence available to us from social science research. We know that people engaged in paid employment report much higher levels of seemingly unrelated measures of wellbeing. They are happier, they are healthier and they are better connected to their communities than people without work. This shouldn't surprise us if we reflect on what it means to have a job. A job provides not just an income and opportunities for socialisation and engagement but a sense of self-belief and confidence. As humans, we have a deep need to be needed by others, to be of value to them. Of course, it is possible to fulfil this need outside of work—for example, in our families and through civil society—but, for most people, there is no substitute for paid employment in delivering this sense of value. For many people, the routine and the obligations that are imposed on us by work provide the healthy structure that we need to thrive. Conversely, we also know that unemployment can have a profoundly negative affect on your health and happiness. In particular, we know that long-term unemployment is terrible for our sense of pride, our connection to community and our health and happiness. It truly is a social evil which must be fought.
Sadly, we also know that, coming out of an economic crises like this one which has been caused by COVID-19 and the tough restrictions that have been imposed by government in order to fight the health crisis, many more Australians will be without work and all that that comes with it—all that dignity that comes with it. This is no more so, sadly, than in my home state of Victoria, which has been hit particularly hard, thanks to the second long and very painful lockdown that we have endured. As a result, there will be many more job losses and business failures in Victoria than in the rest of the country. Right now, there are more than half a million Victorians who have lost their jobs since the beginning of this crisis. While the rest of the country has been recovering because they were able to get on top of the health challenges posed by COVID-19 and because they didn't encounter the issues that we unfortunately had in Victoria with hotel quarantine, which re-released the virus into the community after Victoria had effectively achieved elimination of the virus like all other states and territories, ABS figures show that Victoria has continued to decline in the second half of this year. There were 73,000 Victorians laid off in August and September alone, while another 81,000 left the labour force completely—those potential discouraged workers who have left and are no longer seeking any further employment. Another 58,000 of them had their hours reduced, and 112,000 Victorians who were employed in September did not work any hours at all, often either having been stood down from their employment or being in so-called zombie firms which for now are supported by JobKeeper but which we know will not be viable forever and in perpetuity. At 14.9 per cent, Victoria's underemployment rate is the highest in the nation. That's a combination of those who are, sadly, without work at all and many others who are seeking more work than they can currently obtain, more hours than they are currently being given.
The bitter experience from previous recessions is that even when economies do bounce back quickly in terms of GDP growth figures and other metrics, bumping out of a technical recession of two negative quarters—and we certainly hope that's the case in Australia this time around—it still takes many years to regain precrisis levels of employment. That's the experience not just in Australia but internationally. Employment, sadly, is a lagging indicator of an economic recovery. Given the importance of employment to people's dignity and self-worth, it is so important that we speed up that process as quickly as possible. Sadly, we know that some people will leave the workforce during this time never to re-enter it. They will go on to other forms of support, like the disability support pension, the age pension or Newstart, and won't return to the employment market at all.
Young people are particularly hard hit by recessions. Young people who graduate from school or other forms of tertiary education in a recession take longer to find a job, are paid less and have fewer opportunities for advancement than their peers who graduate in better times. It truly is a lottery of timing. Through no fault of their own, just the time that they were born and time they are graduating from education, if they happen to graduate in a recession, we know that they'll suffer significantly reduced economic opportunities as a result. It can take decades to overcome this so-called scarring of the labour market.
Programs like the JobMaker hiring credit are not solutions on their own, but they do form an important part of a package of wider forms which are designed to get people back into work as soon as possible. Along with personal income tax cuts, incentives for businesses to invest and record infrastructure spending, the JobMaker hiring credit will spur the creation of new jobs to combat this evil of unemployment. Wider economic reforms will also be necessary, including to industrial relations to ensure there are as few barriers to job creation as possible. Like many, I am eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Minister for Industrial Relations' consultation with business and unions. I'm hopeful that some of the old rivalries, which we know have dominated these debates and prevented reform in the past, can be put aside to ensure our economy is freed up as much as possible to create new jobs. It is remarkable to reflect for a moment that the Fair Work Act, which we operate under now and which was enacted by the Rudd government shortly after it came to office in 2007, has largely remained untouched and unchanged for 13 years. There's been no progress at all on industrial relations in that time. I think it is clearly going to be a barrier to that bounce-back if it is not addressed. So I'll be eagerly awaiting the reforms, which I hope come with consensus between business, unions and government, out of the discussion led by Christian Porter.
The JobMaker hiring credit will support around 450,000 positions for young Australians and will cost about $4 billion. Each additional employee aged 16 to 29 years of age will attract a credit of $200 a week for their employer. It will be $100 a week for workers who are aged 30 to 35. Contrary to contributions by other senators in this chamber, including Senator Waters, who spoke prior to me, there will be a range of safeguard mechanisms in place, both in this legislation, in the subsequent regulations to be issued by the Treasurer and in the protections that exist under the Fair Work Act through the Fair Work Commission, that will ensure that this money goes only to the creation of new jobs, and that existing workers will not be disadvantaged or displaced in any way by this scheme. There is no reason to think that they will be, because many employers are in fact reporting difficulty in finding appropriate workers and a desire to add to their employment numbers, as indeed they will be required to do under this legislation. In order to receive a benefit, they will have to demonstrate a net increase in employment. So there's no reason to think that those fears will be realised but, just in case, the government will of course be putting in place very strong safeguards to ensure that doesn't happen.
To briefly recap: the JobMaker hiring credit is one really important part of the Treasurer's plan, set out in the budget a month ago, to get Australia to build back better after this crisis, to bounce back as quickly as possible and to return to the strong and prosperous economy we had enjoyed before this unanticipated crisis hit from overseas. It was unfortunately unavoidable that Australia, along with every other country in the world, would suffer some form of recession as a result of this crisis and the measures we had to put in place to safeguard Australians' health. However, we can make sure that on the other side we get back to that level of prosperity and security for Australians by giving them not only the economic benefits of work but also the associated social benefits of work and the dignity of work.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:39): I have spent some time listening to speeches in this place and the other place on this bill, the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised and the many difficulties that people are experiencing in this COVID recession. I also recognise the struggle that older workers face in trying to secure employment in your 50s and 60s, and the sense that employers just aren't willing to give you a chance. I recognise the stress for unemployed workers with young families, who aren't sure if they will be able to make ends meet or if they'll be able to meet the next mortgage payment. I appreciate the worry and despair that people are feeling, and how dispirited they must feel, particularly when they send off dozens of job applications and do not receive a single response. So I get why people want to remove the age rules for this JobMaker program and why they want to provide more support for unemployed workers. I know they have the best of intentions, and I would enthusiastically support a bill that permanently raised the JobKeeper rate and that expanded coverage to all unemployed workers or that provided genuine employment support services.
But I also know we have a particular problem with youth unemployment in this country. It's not a new problem. For decades now, unemployment rates for young people, if you look at the stats, are double—in fact, often triple—those for other workers. The underemployment figures are even worse. And that was before COVID struck. Which workers have been hardest hit by the COVID recession? Typically, it's those who work in shops, restaurants, cafes and hotels. It is people who are already in precarious jobs, working in the gig economy, and casuals who depend on shiftwork to get by. In other words, the workers who have been hardest hit by COVID are young people who are already struggling. For middle-aged workers, the unemployment rate is about five per cent. For young workers, the rate is a staggering 17 per cent—17 per cent. We must do something about this.
Research shows that young people who become unemployed in a recession struggle for years or decades afterwards. They struggle to find jobs. Those who do find jobs earn less, and then they are more likely to lose their jobs than other workers. The effect on a young person is profound. It damages their career prospects, their earnings, their ability to buy a home and their ability to raise a family. For them, it's a long-term obstacle to living the lives they want to lead. So I support investing in those young people and trying to do something that could help deal with youth unemployment in the recession.
JobMaker might not do much to create economic recovery; that's not its purpose. But I believe it can help once the recovery begins. Employers, especially small businesses, are always reluctant to take on staff. You're not just paying someone to do a job for you; you're also taking on responsibility for their livelihoods—responsibility for them being able to make mortgage payments, put food on the table and pay school fees. Sometimes the weight of that burden is so great that you put off hiring someone new until you're absolutely sure the demand is there. The JobMaker credit will help those employers who see their businesses growing and know they need someone. It will help to overcome their reluctance and create jobs today that would not otherwise be there. That will give young workers a chance—a chance at a job, a chance to prove themselves, a chance to escape the long-term damage the recession has done to their lives.
Centre Alliance will be supporting this bill, and I hope that many small businesses in my home state of South Australia will take advantage of it and give a young worker a chance.
Senator CHANDLER (Tasmania) (13:44): It is a pleasure to rise today and speak in support of the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. This bill before the Senate today is an important part of the government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. It is part of a record-breaking contribution in this year's federal budget to getting Australia back to work and getting Australians back into work. It builds on the massive support which the Morrison government has been providing to help Australians and Australian businesses through the COVID-19 crisis since earlier this year—critical measures such as JobKeeper, which has been credited with keeping so many businesses alive and so many people in work over the last six months.
Australia is now well underway in its recovery plan. With Victoria joining the rest of the country in getting on top of outbreaks, we are all moving firmly forward and looking to rebuild our economy and restore the jobs that were lost during the worst of the pandemic lockdowns. In my own state of Tasmania we have recently gone to another stage in our recovery phase. Last Friday the state reopened its borders, allowing quarantine-free access to residents from New South Wales, who join all other Australian jurisdictions, apart from Victoria, in now being able to come to Tasmania for a holiday or to visit friends and family. In the very near future Victorians will also be able to return to Tasmania, and I know I speak on behalf of many Tasmanians when I say just how much we are looking forward to welcoming our Victorian friends back home.
It was a fantastic show of support for Tasmania that among the first New South Wales visitors when borders reopened was our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who visited the south of the state over the weekend. While he was in Hobart the Prime Minister caught up with Rob Pennicott, from Pennicott Wilderness Journeys—one of Tasmania's many wonderful tourism and hospitality businesses. Rob's feedback on JobKeeper to the PM was similar to that which I've heard from so many businesses across Tasmania: JobKeeper literally saved his business. And it saved many businesses like it—businesses which, through no fault of their own, found themselves with almost no income, because nobody was able to get out and about and spend money. Stories like this demonstrate the importance of the actions that the Morrison government has taken to protect businesses and jobs.
Over the last eight months, my focus in Tasmania has been on my Tasmania Back In Business campaign. Through this I have talked to many, many businesses around the state, and there has always been a level of cautious optimism that they can and will get back on track. They knew that they would need a bit of a hand to do so, and that is exactly what we have provided with this budget and exactly what we are providing with this bill today.
As part of my Tasmania Back in Business campaign I spoke to business and industry all across the state and sat down with chambers of commerce, farmers, growers, local government and everyday Tasmanians from all walks of life to understand their ideas to get businesses back up and running and local people back into work. There were a number of consistent themes which kept coming up in these discussions, and many of the businesses I spoke to highlighted the need to create more jobs for Tasmanians. They want young people to get an apprenticeship or traineeship and to get quality skills and training which set them up for a life of employment. They want local businesses to be supported by reducing tax and making it easier to employ locals. I am incredibly pleased that the Treasurer, when he delivered the 2020 budget early last month, delivered on all of these themes. As a government we have implemented a new extended asset write-off. We have extended JobKeeper for those businesses still doing it really tough. We are helping businesses to hire apprentices and trainees, and we have created the JobMaker hiring credit that this bill relates to.
The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 facilitates the JobMaker hiring credit scheme announced by the government as part of the 2020-21 budget. This bill will provide a significant boost to employment opportunities for young Australians who have been adversely affected by the crushing economic impact of coronavirus. The JobMaker hiring credit will support around 450,000 positions for young Australians around the nation, including those in my home state of Tasmania. We know that when economic times are tough young workers are often the first impacted and the hardest hit.
It's so important that we take swift and decisive action to get young people straight back into the workforce so they can continue to build a career and the work skills which will hold them in good stead for the next 30 or 40 years of their life. At a cost of $4 billion from 2020-21 to 2022-23, the JobMaker hiring credit is a significant investment in our young people by supporting new employment. Under the scheme, eligible employers will be able to claim $200 a week for each additional eligible employee they hire aged 16 to 29 years old and $100 a week for each additional eligible employee aged 30 to 35 years old.
Importantly, this initiative is not limited to a single sector and is open to businesses in the tourism, hospitality, building and construction, and other sectors to employ the people they need to grow their businesses. Eligible employees must have worked an average of at least 20 hours per week over the quarter for the employer to qualify for the payment. I want to encourage those businesses who are able and willing to take on new employees to check out the information regarding eligibility on the ATO website and help get a young person into work.
I am pleased to say that the Tasmanian businesses I have spoken to since the budget was delivered have all welcomed this initiative and are now looking at employing locals to fill additional positions. The 2020 budget is focused on job creation, rebuilding the economy and securing Australia's future, and the JobMaker hiring credit is just one of the initiatives developed to assist with our nation's economic recovery.
The Morrison government has also provided an additional $1.2 billion commitment to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships to further boost training and employment opportunities for young Australians. Our $1.3 billion modern manufacturing plan will target key national manufacturing priorities, like food and beverages, resources, technology, critical minerals processing, medical product recycling and clean energy. There's investment in major infrastructure projects, like the new Sorell and Midway Point causeways in southern Tasmania. By partnering with local governments to work on local roads and community infrastructure, we will stimulate the economy and create jobs.
This budget makes the tax system fairer for businesses that have done it particularly tough because of COVID and rewards them for any investments in new assets that they are able to make. That means more money back into those businesses, which enables them to employ more staff. Of course all of these measures are in addition to the huge commitments we have made through JobKeeper and by increasing the rate of JobSeeker during the COVID-19 crisis.
When the COVID-19 crisis first hit and businesses were shutting down and people were out of work, one of my first concerns was for young Australians and particularly young Tasmanians. As I said in my maiden speech in this place, the reason I wanted to become a senator for Tasmania was so I could fight for local job opportunities for young Tasmanians. I have spoken many times in this place about how fortunate I consider myself that I was able to grow up, get my education, start my career and continue my career in Tasmania before I was elected to this place. But most people my age have not been so fortunate. Many have felt they have had to go to the mainland for opportunities. When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, my initial thought was that we can't go backwards. We in Tasmania cannot go back to those dark old days of the eighties and early nineties when most Tasmanians felt they had to leave our beautiful island state for job opportunities. They should be able to have those opportunities at home. They should be able to build their lives in Tasmania.
I am very pleased today to see the Morrison coalition government making such a firm commitment to the future of not just young Tasmanians but young Australians with the bill that we are discussing here in the Senate. The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 is a continuation of the Morrison government's significant support to help Australia continue on our path to recovery following the COVID-19 economic crisis, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (13:54): I rise to speak on what should have been the most consequential measure for working people in this country since the pandemic hit and since the JobKeeper wage subsidy was passed in this parliament. I say that this should have been consequential because, in actual fact, it has been anything but. The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 is, instead, a massive wasted opportunity. It is a wasted opportunity for the unemployed, the underemployed and the small and medium-sized businesses that drive our economy. What Australians need right now is a well-designed job subsidy, a subsidy that will support the transition to the post-COVID economy, a subsidy that recognises that the recession we are in will not be over soon and so many of the jobs that were there before COVID are not coming back. The problem is that the JobMaker hiring credit is not that subsidy. What the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the Treasurer have brought to this parliament is not JobMaker—it's job replacer, job churner and job destroyer. One of the most concerning aspects of this bill, as we have seen before by this government, is that we know from experience with JobKeeper that public money will be misspent if there are not safeguards put in place.
The Australian public support protecting jobs and businesses through the pandemic. But they have a right to know how their money is being spent, and the record with JobKeeper is not encouraging. Let me give you one important example of the misuse of public funds that brought ordinary workers to this parliament today. Aviation workers today rallied outside Parliament House to call for an inquiry into the future of aviation in this country post-COVID. They were also protesting against the fact that over half a billion dollars in JobKeeper wage subsidies were paid to Qantas, only for this company to turn around and outsource 2,500 ground crew so they could fill these jobs for less money using labour hire companies and contractors. Think about it. Taxpayers gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Alan Joyce to keep Qantas workers connected to their jobs—and he banked the money, only to tell the families of 2,500 of his loyal employees that they were no longer connected to their jobs and if they wanted these jobs back they would have to bid for them at the lower rate. We've seen companies that take JobKeeper funds and pay huge dividends to their shareholders, and there was a parade of companies that took JobKeeper money, only to then pay their executives massive bonuses. If the government has learnt lessons from JobKeeper, it will make sure that this kind of abuse of public money and public trust cannot happen again.
Before we go into the flaws of the JobMaker scheme, let's back up to earlier in this tumultuous year. Let's go back to March 2020. This is when the coalition announced that they would be introducing a coronavirus supplement that would double the rate of the below-poverty JobSeeker allowance. They did this because they didn't initially want to introduce a wage subsidy. The United Kingdom, New Zealand and countries in Europe were rolling out wage subsidies as COVID hit. In Australia, Labor was calling on the government to introduce a wage subsidy. The union movement was pushing for a wage subsidy. Economists were pushing for a wage subsidy. We all agreed that the most important thing the government could do was to keep the connection between workers and their employers. But this government thought, 'Let's throw them all out on the Centrelink queues.'
It wasn't until they saw how long those Centrelink queues were, in the first few days—and then the Centrelink IT system crashed—when employers across Australia took their cues from the government that their businesses would get no support, that they started sacking their staff in the thousands. It wasn't until they were watching the queues grow before their eyes on TV that this transactional government decided it was in their own interest to legislate a wage subsidy. So JobKeeper was announced.
Labor did the right thing and supported JobKeeper, even though its flaws were enormous. We're appalled, and we still are, that a whole swathe of the economy was excluded from JobKeeper: casual workers, gig and contract workers, university workers, arts and the entertainment industry, airport workers, particularly those workers at dnata, and workers here on temporary visas. All of them are Australian taxpayers. All of them are critical to our economy. Many of them have partners and children to support, an economy to support.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Sheldon. You will be in continuation when the debate resumes.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Trade with China
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, and Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. I refer to alarming reports that Chinese authorities have taken the unilateral decision to ban some Australian exports. Can the minister advise the Senate of the total value of exports to China and how many Australian jobs rely on that market?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): I thank Senator Wong for her question, a question that is on a topic of significant importance to Australia, to many Australian industries and to the jobs of many Australians.
China is Australia's No. 1 trading partner. It's an important trading partner, and we value what has been a longstanding relationship of mutual benefit to both of our economies. In terms of current estimates around trade volumes, the value of those volumes and the associated jobs, I'll happily come back to the chamber with details on those—with up-to-date estimates. But it is of great consequence, as I've noted, that our No. 1 trading partner has, in the course of this year, taken a number of decisions that have adverse potential consequences for Australian industry.
As a government we have been very clear about our disappointment over a decision in relation to Australia's barley growers that has seen China put in place tariffs which we don't believe are justified. Australia's farming sector in no way is subsidised by government or dumps its product on foreign markets such as China. Nor do we believe that China's specific actions when it comes to the suspension of certain meat-processing facilities are justified for the length of time that it has decided on. And now we are concerned that we are seeing decisions in relation to the processing of live seafood that mean it is taking longer than should be the case. However, equally, we see many rumours, stories and areas of speculation that proved to be unfounded. Suggestions of complete, outright bans on Australian trade entering China do not appear to have materialised over recent days, but we continue to work through diplomatic and administrative channels to make sure that Australian exporters get answers where they can and access where they ought.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): Has the minister made direct representations to his counterpart; and, if not, why not?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:02): I have written to my counterpart on a number of occasions about a number of the issues that I just outlined. We have also made representations in addition to those written ones that I have made, as is publicly known, seeking ministerial dialogue, and it is a disappointment to Australia that, despite our willingness to sit down and engage as a mature partner in ministerial dialogue, China has been unwilling to reciprocate. Nonetheless, we retain a position and a posture of keeping the door open in that regard, and we will continue to ensure that that invitation is extended and our willingness to do so is there. In addition to those representations that I have made directly, as a government we have continued at ambassadorial level and at other diplomatic levels to engage solidly, steadfastly, to try to resolve the various technical issues and other issues, as well as to support Australian industry wherever we possibly can.
The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:03): Can the minister provide any assurance whatsoever to Australian exporters to China, and all those Australians whose jobs rely on these exports, that these exports will not be blocked upon arrival?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): That really is a question for China. I note that Chinese authorities have denied the suggestion of there being an outright ban in relation to certain export products from Australia entering China. They have made those denials both in private and, through their media spokespeople, in public.
I note, as I said in answer to the primary question, that we have seen over the last few days shipments in a number of areas still proceed through customs, and we hope to see that continue—that China is true to its word, which it has given publicly and privately that there is not such an intervention, and does continue to allow trade to flow in accordance with commitments that China has made under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and in accordance with the commitments that China has made as a member of the World Trade Organization. Trade between our two nations is beneficial to people across both our nations and across our region. It's beneficial to people and businesses within China as well, and any disruption will harm them as much as it will us.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Birmingham. Before I call Senator Fawcett, I know I speak on behalf of all senators to say we're pleased to have been able to reopen the building and welcome back Australians, in person, to their parliament.
Australia-United States of America Relationship
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister outline to the Senate the importance of Australia's enduring alliance with the United States of America, particularly in the Indo-Pacific?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:05): I thank Senator Fawcett very much for asking this question. Australia has congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory in the United States election, joining friends and partners of the United States from around the world. This was always going to be a strongly contested election, and we congratulate the American people on what was ultimately a smooth, calm and extremely well attended process. It speaks to the vigour of American democracy that both tickets attracted more votes than any previous candidates in US history—not only the ticket of then Vice President Biden but also the ticket of President Trump and Vice President Pence. While President-elect Biden is, of course, yet to announce his administration, we know President-elect Biden and his team well, including from the government of four years ago.
The United States has been the linchpin of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific since 1945. It has helped to provide the basis for the rules based international order that has ensured, for so many decades, that the vast majority of disputes are resolved peacefully, through rules rather than through conflict. As one of the United States' closest allies, Australia is a proud contributor to the stability that this system has sustained. We are confident that, through continued US engagement in the Indo-Pacific, along with increasing engagement with and cooperation from other countries that share the same vision for our region, we can all continue to enjoy the benefits of an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, in which might does not equal right and in which all countries, large and small, can pursue their interests, free from coercion.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:07): Can the minister outline how the Australian government will work with the US administration from 20 January next year to continue promoting an Indo-Pacific region that is free, open and prosperous?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:07): The Australia-US relationship is built on shared democratic values. We have worked well with the Trump administration, further illustrated by our successful AUSMIN talks in July, and we will do so until inauguration day, on 20 January. We look forward to continuing that work with the administration of President-elect Biden.
This pandemic has wrought economic pain across our region. It has exacerbated strategic challenges that Australia and the US can help to address, together. Australia and the United States are cooperating in many areas, including on health security, on countering disinformation, on resilient supply chains, on open trade as we emerge from the pandemic and on supporting partners' economic recovery through targeted infrastructure development. We believe in a region in which human rights are respected, the seas and skies are open, and trade and commerce can flourish unimpeded.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (14:08): Could the minister update the Senate on the government's further objectives for this bilateral relationship?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:09): We look forward to working with the administration of President-elect Biden on a range of our shared priorities for the Indo-Pacific. Together with Japan, we've recently announced the first project under our trilateral infrastructure partnership, in the form of an undersea internet cable to Palau, supporting economic recovery through quality infrastructure. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia looks forward to deepening cooperation with the US on technology that creates jobs and reduces emissions, consistent with our low-emissions Technology Investment Roadmap. We will continue to progress the work we've done with partnerships such as the Quad—made up of Australia, the United States, India and Japan—to maintain a region that is governed by rules, not power. No country is more important to Australia than the United States, and it's never been more vital that we stand together.
Chinese Australians
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:10): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. During a Senate inquiry into issues affecting diaspora communities in Australia, Senator Abetz demanded that Australians of Chinese heritage 'unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship'. Does the minister support Senator Abetz's treatment of Australians of Chinese heritage?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:10): I thank Senator Ayres for his question. This matter was discussed in the estimates hearing, as Senator Ayres said. I made clear my views at the time. The pledge that this government believes people should make in Australia is to Australia. That is a clear and consistent position taken by both the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and members of the government. In terms of the comments that Senator Ayres has referred to, I have also indicated that Australia is the bastion of robust democracy, on any interpretation. There will be views expressed with which people agree and disagree, but, most importantly, I will defend the right of people to talk about issues that are matters of concern and interest to them—across the parliament. And anyone who tries to pretend that this is only an issue apparently for one side of the parliament is either delusional or deceptive.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:11): The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has outlined the ways in which Australia's national interest is undermined by statements that can be used to portray Australia as intolerant, divided and discriminatory to various groups within our society. Does the minister think Senator Abetz's comments could be used to portray Australia as intolerant, divided and discriminatory and therefore undermine our national interest?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:12): I encourage all Australians to make contributions to public discourse that contribute to cohesion, that contribute to the broad participation of all elements of the Australian community, including the diasporas that are so richly represented in this country and on both sides of politics.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a final supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (14:12): Why on earth has the government refused to condemn Senator Abetz's conduct, which is divisive at home and damaging internationally?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (14:12): My views were carefully put on the record and clearly put on the record in Senate estimates. I have reiterated them here now. I wish that those opposite would in fact endeavour at some stage, somewhere, sometime to make a constructive contribution to this discussion.
COVID-19: Small Business
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:13): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Small business is the engine room of our economy, with over 600,000 small businesses in my home state of Queensland, and nationally employing approximately six million Australians. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Morrison government's 2020-21 budget is delivering an Australian response to the COVID-19 pandemic and recession by making crucial investments to support small businesses to invest, grow and employ more Australians?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): I thank Senator McGrath for his question. Senator McGrath, as you'd be aware, small and family businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, and that is why the Morrison government backs them every step of the way. Certainly, they have been greatly impacted by COVID-19. But that is also why the budget in 2020-21 is a budget that firmly invests in our small businesses in Australia.
Our $74 billion JobMaker plan puts small and family businesses at the heart of our economic recovery because they are the job makers in this country. As a government, we are continuing to put in place incentives for small businesses to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians; programs to help them to innovate, because COVID-19 has shown small businesses that they must have the ability to innovate to survive; and, of course, reforms to make it easier for small businesses to do business.
We're also incentivising small businesses to invest and employ through investments that minimise risk. We've implemented temporary full expensing and temporary loss carry-back. We've also put in place wage subsidies, because we want small businesses out there to be able to bring on new Australians into the workforce. We've put in place around $5.2 billion in wage subsidies, including helping small businesses to take on their first apprentice, which is so important, or, alternatively, to give a young person the chance to return to the workforce. Our extension of the small-business tax concessions to around 20,000 small businesses will also remove disincentives for them to invest in training in their current workforce.
As I've said, small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. The Morrison government will always back them, every step of the way.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator McGrath, a supplementary question?
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:15): How does this build on the coalition government's strong record of assisting Australia's small businesses to invest, employ more Australians and pay less tax since 2013?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): That's right. This is a government that, since the day we were elected back in 2013, has continued to put in place the policy framework to allow small and family businesses across Australia to prosper, to grow and to create more jobs for Australians. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. The coalition has a strong record on delivering policies that assist small businesses to grow and to employ more Australians. One of those policies, of course, is to fast-track tax relief for small and medium businesses so that they can invest and create more jobs. We know that if they can take back a bit of the money that they've paid to the government they will invest it back into their business. We're improving small-business access to finance so that they can access the money they need to invest back into their business to grow it and create more jobs for Australians, and importantly, we're ensuring that they are paid on time. Cash flow is king for small businesses, and that's why we're ensuring they're paid on time.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question?
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:16): Minister, why is putting in place the reforms, incentives and programs to support small business essential to economic recovery and job creation?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): It is because the government understands that it is small and family businesses who are out there creating jobs. The government puts in place the policy framework that businesses can lever off to prosper, to grow and to create more jobs for Australians, and that's why we back small and family businesses every step of the way. They are the key to Australia's recovery from COVID-19 and to our future economic prosperity. If you look at Australia's 3.5 million small businesses, they make up almost 97.4 per cent of all businesses and they contribute 32 per cent of all private sector economic output. On top of that, they are the great employers of our nation, employing now around six million Australians. They are, in fact, one of the biggest employers in Australia. We also back them because we know they work tirelessly, and they deserve a government that backs them.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Waters.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment and leader of the government, Minister Birmingham. With Trump going and US President-elect Biden saying, 'Climate change poses an existential threat to our future, and we are running out of time to address it', Australia has more in common with petro-states like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Your targets have Australia on track for a catastrophic four degrees of warming. Will the government acknowledge that 2030 commitments are crucial and lift our targets at the upcoming Glasgow climate summit?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): I thank Senator Waters for her question. Indeed, I do acknowledge the 2030 targets are crucial. This side of the chamber has a 2030 target. That side of the chamber does not have a 2030 target, I would note. I certainly agree that 2030 targets are crucial and that our government has outlined very clearly a 2030 target of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction against 2005 levels.
I think it's instructive for us to look at how Australia's achievement in emissions reduction compares with 2005 levels. Our emissions are down 14 per cent compared with 2005 levels. What's the OECD average by comparison? It's nine per cent. So: Australia, 14 per cent; the OECD average, nine per cent. Indeed, across a number of other countries: the United States are down 10 per cent, a smidgeon above the OECD average, even including during President Trump's time in office, says Senator Waters; Canada are down 0.1 per cent; New Zealand are down one per cent; Japan are down eight per cent. Different countries are tracking at different levels in terms of emissions reductions, but Australia can be proud of the fact that we have made commitments in Kyoto 1 and in Kyoto 2 and we've exceeded those commitments. In exceeding those commitments, we have well and truly exceeded the OECD average for emissions reduction over that period of time. So, when our government makes a 2030 commitment, as we have done in the Paris Agreement, what we've done is commit once again to actually achieve and ideally exceed, as we have done time and time before. That's the approach we've taken in our time in office, to make commitments and to honour them through domestic emissions reductions, which we've done above the global average. And in getting those reductions we intend to continue to honour our commitments.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:20): Biden pledged 100 per cent clean energy by 2035. Will this government follow suit?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): President-elect Biden has made certain policy commitments, and we welcome the fact that President-elect Biden has committed to invest heavily in technology. It's very consistent with the technology road map that our government has outlined in terms of meeting our emissions reductions. The United States is Australia's No. 1 investment partner, so the complementarity that comes with them having technological ambitions alongside our technology ambitions absolutely sit well together.
In terms of energy generation, which Senator Waters asked about, let me again look at the share of solar and wind as part of electricity generation. In Australia, solar and wind now stands at 18 per cent of electricity generation compared to the OECD average of 11 per cent. In the US it's nine per cent. In Canada it's six per cent. In New Zealand it's five per cent, and in Japan it's eight per cent. So, again, Australia leads in terms of renewables, solar and wind—
The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Waters? Time for the answer has expired.
Senator Waters: I think there were still three seconds on the clock, which is why I stood up, but I'm sorry if I got that wrong. It was a point of order on relevance. My question went to 100 per cent clean electricity by 2035. The minister's given a nice little lecture, but I'm interested in an actual answer.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I think you did stand when there were two seconds left, but, with respect, there's no opportunity for me to provide advice to the minister. I will say, however, that I believe he was being directly relevant because the question referenced renewable energy and he was directly talking about that topic, even if not in the terms you wished. I can't instruct him on how to answer a question. A final supplementary.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:22): I note that former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described your gas-led recovery as 'b-s and political piffle'. Will you now follow Malcolm Turnbull's advice and execute a pivot on climate and lead this nation towards zero emissions?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Gas has been a crucial transition fuel that has enabled Australia to drive down our emissions. Indeed, it's been a key factor in what's enabled the United States to drive down their emissions as well. So gas continues to play a critical role in that energy generation sector in driving down emissions as a share of the energy generated but it is also critically an important component for manufacturing sectors as well. Manufacturing industries also need gas as an input. So, when we talk about gas as an input into the Australian economy, it's not just for energy generation purposes; it's recognising that if you want a manufacturing industry in this country, if you want high employment levels in this country, then, indeed, you need to make sure that all of the energy resources they need that are not just electricity generation are supplied for them in that regard. So generating gas is an important part of that. Of course it is sitting alongside our technology road map and all of the other instruments that are designed to ensure Australia is meeting and exceeding our emissions reductions targets. (Time expired)
Foreign Interference
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:24): My question is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Last week it was revealed after a year-long investigation that former Liberal candidate Mr Di Sanh Duong was charged with preparing a foreign interference offence, the first charge laid under the foreign interference laws. Minister Tudge appeared with Mr Duong at a media event at the Melbourne hospital in June. How is it that Minister Tudge, part of the Home Affairs portfolio, was not advised against the appearance despite it being approximately eight months into the investigation by the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce led by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the AFP?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:25): I thank Senator Keneally for the question. I do note that the first opposition question of the day came to me and was about sensitivities in a trade relationship and that the second opposition question today went to Senator Payne and was about conduct and comments and how they are handled in this place. This is quite a sensitive matter that Senator Keneally has asked a question about. I am surprised that she would raise it in the chamber in this way. Nonetheless, I can confirm that the AFP has charged a 65-year-old Melbourne man with offences.
In relation to what briefings occurred with government ministers in the conduct of any such investigations, I'll take that question on notice, Senator Keneally. Mr President, I think people would expect that AFP investigations are handled sensitively, confidentially and carefully. Indeed, actions of government ministers during those investigations also need to be appropriate and carefully conducted. Mr President, I'll come back with any information that can be appropriately provided to Senator Keneally without jeopardising in any way the types of actions that do now find themselves before the court.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:26): Yesterday Mr Duong resigned from the Liberal Party before the party acted to suspend him. What action has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that no member of his government has been compromised as a result of foreign interference charges against a member of the party he leads?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:27): The government and the Prime Minister receive briefings from national security agencies, as is appropriate. Of course, those national security briefings provided to the government should be handled carefully and, by and large, in confidence. The opposition, through certain processes of the parliament, also receives national security briefings from time to time, including briefings that agencies have provided to various political parties in regard to their operations. I assure the Senate that we take all of those matters seriously and handle them with the seriousness and regard that we should have for them.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:27): The minister has publicly dismissed allegations by Senator Antic and others about South Australian Liberal member of the Legislative Council Jing Lee's relationship with China. What is the status of the allegations made by Senator Antic and other South Australian Liberals? Has the matter been referred to relevant authorities?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:28): My understanding is that relevant party officials had discussions and assured themselves in relation to Ms Lee that there was no basis in fact for the concerns raised.
Employment
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. I'm constantly told by businesses—farmers and those in the hospitality industry, to name a few—that they cannot get Australians to work. When asked why they're not taking up employment, people say it's because they're not prepared to lose their JobSeeker payments or have no fear that they will actually lose their payments. You and I both know that they are not under any pressure from your department to take up employment. In other words, you are rewarding people who don't want to work. What do you intend to do to address the problem?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:29): I thank Senator Hanson for her question. Senator Hanson, you'd know that at the beginning of COVID-19 hundreds of thousands of Australians did lose their jobs. Many of those Australians—in fact, almost 450,000—have actually returned to the workforce as COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted. You'd also be aware though that at the outset of COVID-19, because the Australian government had to take the decision to close down parts of our economy, we determined that we would also suspend what is called, as you know, mutual obligation. However, as we have seen the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions across Australia, including now in Victoria, mutual obligation is now back in place. You would be aware, Senator Hanson, that on the coalition side of politics we fundamentally believe in the principle of mutual obligation, and that is that those receiving benefits or payments should be looking to take up work or, alternatively, the opportunity to upskill. We expect those on JobSeeker who are offered suitable employment to accept it. In fact, we make no apology for encouraging Australians back to work.
With the return of mutual obligation, we are now seeing penalties being put in place for those people who are refusing work. In fact, 242 work refusal failures for jobactive jobseekers have been applied by Services Australia since 4 August. We've also seen a total of 250,112 payment suspensions. So certainly mutual obligation is the mechanism by which you have Australians out there looking for work. In the event that they say no— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:31): Prior to COVID, 727,000 people were on Newstart allowance. Of these unemployed people, 56 per cent were over the age of 45. Of those over the age of 55, 30 per cent have been unemployed for five years or more and half of them do not need to meet their mutual obligation to find work. Why? And what are you doing about that?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:31): Again, Senator Hanson, as you may know, mutual obligation applies to certain categories of persons. There will be exemptions for some people in relation to discharging their mutual obligation requirements. But, insofar as COVID-19 has occurred, what we now have back in place is the concept of mutual obligation. We expect jobseekers who are out there and in receipt of the JobSeeker payment to be looking for work. In the event that they say no to suitable employment, they can have their payment suspended.
On top of that, we have put in place additional mechanisms for jobseekers to upskill or reskill so that they are able to put themselves forward for a job. In particular, you would be aware that we have put in place our $1 billion JobTrainer agreement. This is specifically about ensuring that as a government, working with the state and territory governments, we are funding areas of vocational education and training. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question?
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (14:32): Minister, you are going to pay businesses a JobMaker hiring credit of $200 a week for new employees under 30 and $100 a week for new employees aged 30 to 35 for 20 hours of work. This means an employer is better off hiring two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. This program increases our budget deficit and, at the same time, decreases job security and encourages more job casualisation. Is this your intention?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): Senator Hanson, I will have to reject the premise of the question that you've just put forward. The answer to it is absolutely no. There are numerous integrity measures in relation to the JobMaker hiring credit and, in particular, the 20 hours or more per week that the individual is required to work.
But on this side of the chamber we're not going to make any excuses for doing what we can to incentivise employers to take on young people in particular who have been displaced because of COVID-19. It happens to be a fact that we're in the middle of a global pandemic. It happens to be a fact that the first people to go during a recession are actually young people. That is why we're putting in place the JobMaker hiring credit—to incentivise employers out there to give a young person a go and to get them off welfare and into work. We on this side of the chamber make no excuses: the best form of welfare is a job.
COVID-19: Pensions and Benefits
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. It follows very much on the same theme. Can the minister outline how the Liberals and Nationals in government are continuing to support pensioners, families and jobseekers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:34): I thank Senator Davey for her question. This government is absolutely committed to continuing to provide unprecedented levels of economic support to Australians who are finding it tough, as we work our way through this coronavirus pandemic. As part of the government's response, in the budget a couple of weeks ago we made an announcement around the provision of two additional payments of $250 as economic support payments to eligible Australians. That will mean 5.1 million Australians will receive these two payments—that's people on the age pension and the disability pension, carers, people in veterans' affairs and some concession card holders. The payments will be made starting on 30 November for the first payment and 1 March 2021 for the second payment. When you combine this with the two $750 payments that have already been made to this group of people, you will see that, by 1 October, more than $12 billion has been paid out to Australians to assist them through this pandemic. That's $2,000 per recipient.
We have extended the coronavirus supplement at enhanced support levels through to 31 December, as Australians' confidence and economic confidence continue to build momentum. From the start of the pandemic to 1 October the government spent approximately $14 billion on the coronavirus supplement. But we also want to make sure we help Australians gain meaningful employment; that remains an absolute priority of this government. To do so we have introduced a $300 income-free area, which means if a person earns up to $300 they will continue to receive the maximum amount of their payment. We want to give people the confidence to get back into the workforce, even if it is only for a day or so a week, without affecting their payment. Early data so far has shown that the changes made in September are already starting to work, with almost one in five jobseekers reporting earning income.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:36): Can the minister also provide an update to the Senate as to how the government is providing additional incentives to young people to encourage them to take up work in our agricultural and horticultural industries, who so desperately need workers?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:37): Thank you, Senator Davey, for that really important question. This government absolutely recognises that there is a need for Australia's agricultural sector to find workers, particularly for the upcoming harvest in the horticultural area. In the recent budget, we announced a range of temporary measures to incentivise and boost participation in these vital industries, but we particularly focused on young people. We want young Australians to take up the opportunity to get out into our regions and take on seasonal work. In doing so, we have provided added incentive for them to gain independence from the payment of youth allowance, which will subsequently allow them to receive payment when, hopefully, they start further study or go to university next year. From 30 November this year to 31 December next year, young people who earn $15,000 working in the agricultural sector will be considered to be independent for the purposes of youth allowance. We believe this is a significant pathway that shortens the time for people to get independence and helps our horticultural sector.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston! Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:38): Thank you, Minister. How is the government supporting Australian families through changes to the paid parental leave scheme?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:38): I'm pleased to inform the Senate that, as part of the budget, we have provided support to new parents whose employment was interrupted as a result of the coronavirus pandemic by introducing some additional concessional paid parental leave work tests. Under the normal rules, parents are required to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of their child to qualify for paid parental leave. What we have done is extend that period so that it's 10 of the last 20 months for births and adoptions, and this will be in effect from 22 March 2020 until 31 March 2021. This temporary change increases access to paid parental leave for approximately 12,800 families who were previously connected to the workforce but have lost their jobs as a result of the COVID pandemic and would otherwise have been able to qualify. We understand many people made the decision about family planning prior to COVID, and we want to make sure those families don't miss out.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston!
Trade with China
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Senator Birmingham. Senator Canavan has dismissed the impact of the worsening trade relationship with China on the Australian economy and jobs, saying:
All we're being asked to do is give up our access to cheap TVs.
Is Senator Canavan correct to dismiss the potential impact of this trade dispute on Australian jobs?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:39): I haven't seen the quote attributed to Senator Canavan, and so I won't take at face value the extract without seeing the full context of the remarks that Senator Canavan is likely to have made. As I said before, we do recognise the importance of the trade relationship with China. Indeed, I'm happy to give the Senate some of the detail that I took on notice before in relation to Australia's total two-way trade for goods and services export, valued in 2019 at $251.4 billion. Our goods exports in 2019 were $149.2 billion and, over the latest ABS figures, which are for the 2018-19 period, there were some 8,184 Australian merchandise exporters engaged in trade with China. So indeed these are important jobs.
It's also important that Australia act at all times to behave consistently with our values and our national interest across all spheres. So we do that, seeking to absolutely protect our values as a trading nation: our willingness and desire to engage openly and in a rules based manner, to trade with as many nations as possible and for them to reciprocate in doing so. But we also take very seriously the need to protect our critical infrastructure and our communications system, and to have foreign investment laws that are appropriate and that withstand different strategic challenges that we will face as a nation from time to time. It's crucial that as a country we stand strong, clear and consistent in the approaches we take to those types of issues. That's the approach that our government brings—a steady hand in relation to all aspects of Australia's values and our position—and that is exactly what we'll continue to do, whether it be across strategic spheres or economic spheres.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:42): Speaking of steady hands, earlier this year coalition MP George Christensen set up a website to stoke anti-China sentiment and threatened to summons the Chinese ambassador to answer questions in a parliamentary committee. Has the minister spoken to Mr Christensen about his reckless actions, given the number of jobs dependent on Australia's trade relationship with China?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:42): Mr Christensen is one of many coalition MPs who I have spoken to during the course of this year about Australia's trade and the opportunities in terms of ensuring that we continue to get the perspective right of holding a calm and steady hand in all aspects of our relationship and how we deal with China. This is not a relationship in which we want to see politics played in any sphere, and nor do we want to see that occur in relation to any of our international relationships. That is crucial right across the board. It's a message that applies to anybody, on all sides of the chamber or the crossbench, in that regard—that in relation to our international relationships it is important that we hold to a firm and steady approach in all of the different aspects of the policies that we have to deal with on the international stage.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:43): Former Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Ambassador to the United States and secretary of the departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence Dennis Richardson has warned of the impact of gratuitous and inflammatory actions by government members on Australia's relationship with China. Does the minister share his concerns?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): As I said just before, it's my expectation that the best approach across this parliament and, indeed, across our community is for nobody to engage in politically charged or inflammatory approaches in relation to any of our foreign relations. However, it is also important, as Senator Payne articulated clearly in her response earlier today, that we are a free-speaking democracy with a free media. In a free-speaking democracy with a free media, there will be opinions shared from time to time and points of view made from time to time with which we'll not all agree and with which we may have fundamental disagreements. But the value we place on being able to have those commitments or those statements made is crucial and paramount for, indeed, our approach as a free-speaking democracy with a free media. We will defend those rights all of the time whilst ensuring the government's position in our engagement is always true to those and other values.
COVID-19: Infrastructure
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:45): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator Cash. How does the Morrison government's JobMaker budget build on our record to support infrastructure delivery, create jobs and rebuild the economy following the economic impacts of COVID-19, particularly in regional Australia ?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:45): I thank Senator Askew for the question. The Morrison government understands that if you invest in infrastructure you are investing in the creation of jobs. That's why, through our budget 2020-21, we continue our record investment in job-creating, economy-boosting infrastructure. The recent budget also sees additional critical funding for transport infrastructure across all states and territories in Australia. The government's transport infrastructure program has now increased to a new record $110 billion over 10 years, from 2020-21. The new projects that we have announced in the budget are expected to support 30,000 direct and indirect jobs over the construction lives of the projects, at a time when we know Australia needs job-creating policies. This further investment builds on the significant investment that the Morrison government has already made in infrastructure, with projects already under construction supporting around 100,000 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the projects.
Our infrastructure program is making a difference right across Australia. We now have had more than 60 projects starting construction in the last financial year, and more than 50 projects have been completed. Not only that, but our investment in our regions extends to every one of the 537 local government areas across the nation. In fact, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program delivers a benefit to every council, no matter where it is. If you invest in infrastructure, as this government continues to do, you invest in jobs for Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:47): How has the government's accelerated infrastructure spend in response to COVID-19 supported job creation and economic recovery, particularly in my home state of Tasmania?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): Since the commencement of COVID-19, the government has committed to investing an extra $14 billion in new and accelerated infrastructure projects over the next four years, supporting the creation of around 40,000 jobs. This includes $1.5 billion being provided for shovel-ready projects and targeted road safety works right across Australia. We're working closely with state and territory governments to rebuild our economy and, of course, to support more jobs being created.
The budget has also provided $2 billion for easy-to-deliver road safety treatments to be provided to state governments on a 'use it or lose it' basis. This will ensure that this funding is rolled out quickly and the benefits can flow to communities as soon as possible. Senator Askew, there is $150 million for the Midway Point Causeway and the Sorell Causeway in Tasmania.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (14:48): How is the government's infrastructure investment in airports, City Deals and aviation supporting a safe reopening to Australia?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): The government is investing in the reopening of Australia. In fact, just this weekend, the government announced a $50 million partnership with the Tasmanian government to upgrade Hobart Airport—which I know is such welcome news to our Tasmanian senators—so that it can take around 30,000 international travellers each week, beginning with three flights a week from New Zealand. It's these types of investments and deals that offer hope to businesses and workers in the airline and tourism industries that have, of course, been devastated by COVID-19. More planes in the sky, of course, means more jobs on the ground, in this case, for Tasmania and, of course, for our entire nation. The new arrangement that we've announced realises the vision set out in the Hobart City Deal. More jobs for Tasmanians is what we are now going to see.
Australian National Audit Office
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:50): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why is the Australian National Audit Office having to reduce the number of performance audits down from 42 to 40 in the next financial year and then down to 38 in the 2023-24 financial year?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): I thank the senator for the question. I have a suspicion that, without having gone and checked the Hansard, the senator probably explored these questions at some length in Senate estimates recently and that it probably was through that Senate estimates process that the senator secured those figures of the estimated number of audits. I would imagine that the ANAO addressed and answered those questions during estimates. If there is anything that was not addressed during the estimates hearings then I'll bring it back to the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:51): Before the budget, the Auditor-General wrote to the Prime Minister requesting an additional $6.3 million in 2020-21, in order to deliver 48 performance audits a year. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that request from the ANAO, and did the Prime Minister formally advise the Auditor-General why his request had been refused?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): It seems my suspicions in the first answer were, indeed, correct—that Senator Gallagher did explore these issues at Senate estimates and that, when asking the Auditor-General whether his funding had been cut, he told Senate estimates, 'There was no change in our budget and forward estimates in the budget process.' Asked again, he said, 'There was no change from what we were expecting in our budget to what—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance. I'm pleased the senator now has his brief, but the question that was asked was about the Prime Minister's response to a letter to the Prime Minister, and the senator is being asked this question as the Minister representing the Prime Minister.
The PRESIDENT: You reminded the minister of the question, Senator Wong. I call the minister to continue, noting he has 35 seconds remaining to answer.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: It's not unusual, I have to say, for agencies to ask for extra money during the budget process. I'm sure Senator Wong, during her time as a minister, would have found that agencies frequently ask for additional money during budget processes. It is, of course, then a matter during the budget processes to assess that. The ANAO annual appropriations for its operating and capital costs continue to go up each and every year over the forward estimates.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:52): As Minister for Finance, I would imagine you'd have an interest in the effectiveness and quality of government spending. But, with record government spending over the forward estimates, why is the Morrison government refusing to resource the ANAO so that it can do its job properly? Is it because the Morrison government doesn't like ANAO reports?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:53): What we see in Senator Gallagher's question is that, of course, the Labor Party doesn't seem to learn anything over time. We're accused of starving funding—that refusing to provide funding is a starving of funding—even though funding is going up each and every year into the future in the budget. We have the Labor Party here who comes into this chamber and seems to think that, if an agency just asks for money, they should automatically get the money. It seems to say that it's a starving of funding, even when that funding goes up. The reality is that we have the Labor Party, who hasn't learnt any of the lessons of the past when it comes to how to say no occasionally—to how to manage the budget, in ways. We face the most challenging budget environment in the nation's postwar history. We are providing record levels of temporary and targeted assistance to Australians. That doesn't mean that every agency gets a yes to its additional spending request. (Time expired)
Defence
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister update the Senate on the outcomes achieved during her recent visits to key partners in the Indo-Pacific?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:54): I thank Senator Molan for his question and for his very strong and enduring support and commitment to our regional engagements. I also thank the opposition for their support for this very important visit.
Last month, I travelled to Japan, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines to meet in person with my counterparts to discuss shared regional challenges, including our respective COVID-19 responses and some exciting new opportunities for our bilateral relationships. All engagements were warm and productive, and the visits in person were well received. Quite simply, there is no substitute for face-to-face meetings, albeit COVID safe.
It was a privilege to be the first defence minister to meet with the new Japanese defence minister, Minister Kishi. Together we set the direction for the next phase of our defence cooperation and new joint activities to address regional challenges. In Singapore, I met with Prime Minister Lee, Deputy Prime Minister Heng and my counterpart for defence, Dr Ng. Together we marked the 30th anniversary—a significant anniversary—of Singapore's military training in Australia, and we acknowledged our shared commitment to a secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. We also identified new and quite exciting opportunities for us to train and operate together. In Brunei, I met with his Majesty the Sultan, and the Second Minister of Defence, Pehin Halbi. We discussed very positive developments this year in our bilateral defence relationship and we also discussed important regional issues ahead of Brunei's year as the ASEAN chair in 2021. I concluded my travels with a visit to the Philippines, where I met again with Secretary of National Defense Lorenzana. We discussed our respective responses to COVID-19 and the role our militaries were playing, and we were also looking for new opportunities, which we identified, for us to do further work under—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Molan, a supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:57): Can the minister please update the Senate on our input into Exercise Malabar?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:57): Again, I thank Senator Molan for the question. Happily, yes, I can. Whilst in Japan, I was delighted to receive the invitation for Australia to participate in Exercise Malabar. This is a significant opportunity for Australia to enhance its maritime capabilities and further enhance interoperability with other major democracies.
On 3 November, HMAS Ballarat joined the United States Navy, the Indian Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels. Australia's participation in Exercise Malabar is a clear demonstration of the Morrison government's commitment to the 2020 Defence Strategic Update. Exercise Malabar itself builds on the strong momentum of our new comprehensive strategic partnership with India, and advances our collective interests in a free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Molan, a final supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (14:58): Can the minister explain why engagements with regional partners is critical at this time of our complex geostrategic challenges?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for Defence) (14:58): Again I thank Senator Molan for his question. Our region, without question, is in the midst of the most consequential strategic realignment since the end of World War II. Increasingly, there is an imperative for Australia to actively and more assertively advocate regional security and stability, because, without security in our region, there is no prosperity. Since becoming the Minister for Defence, I've held over 70 bilateral and multilateral engagements with international counterparts, and 27 of those have been in person. These regional visits provide an important opportunity to deepen engagement with important partners, and it was very, very clear to me that, like Australia, my regional counterparts want to see a region that is secure, one that is prosperous and one where the sovereign interests and the sovereign rights of all states, be they large or small, are respected. And, Mr President, they all expressed a genuine desire to further deepen their partnerships with Australia. (Time expired)
Aged Care
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. Gary Barnier is the ex-CEO of Opal Aged Care, who allegedly bullied relatives of residents, oversaw a facility where a resident was found with maggots in their mouth and admitted paying off a man whose blind and diabetic mother died because staff failed to act on the advice of doctors and send her to hospital. Since then, Mr Barnier has been granted $920,000 worth of contracts by the department, one in January and one in October, without tender. When did the minister first become aware of the allegations against Mr Barnier?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (15:00): It really is quite distasteful—the hatchet job that the Labor Parry are trying to undertake on Mr Barnier. Mr Barnier was first employed—
Senator Polley interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Senator Polley, you should be careful about your comments across the chamber, because Mr Barnier was first engaged by the Labor Party in 2013 to work on forums for the Australian government. It is really quite disappointing that the Labor Party come into the chamber to undertake these sorts of smear campaigns.
Mr Barnier, as Senator Walsh said in her question, was the CEO of Opal Aged Care. Opal Aged Care, subsequent to the allegations that were being raised, employed the Nous Group to undertake an independent review of the circumstances that were raised. That independent review made no findings against Mr Barnier.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, it may be the minister is getting to it, but I have a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Walsh asked this minister about when he first became aware of the allegations against Mr Barnier. That was the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, there was a preface to the question.
Senator Wong: Point of order, Mr President. We recognise that there was a lead-in, and I have not taken a point of order for over a minute, recognising that he wanted to get to a whole range of other political issues. But I do remind him of the question.
The PRESIDENT: You've reminded the minister of the last part of the question. I can't instruct him what part to address, as long as he's directly relevant to all or part of it. I am listening carefully. By addressing the claims made in the question, I consider the minister to be directly relevant. I will call him to continue, having allowed you to restate part of the question.
Senator COLBECK: Mr Barnier is doing some important work, specifically related to his particular skills with respect to his understanding of the financial structure of the aged-care sector. He's supported a number of aged-care providers and the government in getting a better understanding of the financial circumstances of the sector more broadly. It is an important piece of work.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, my point of order is direct relevance. I don't know why the minister's avoiding the question. We're asking when he knew.
The PRESIDENT: The question referred to a number of contracts the person in question has with the government. The minister is talking about the content of that work. That is directly relevant to the question.
Senator COLBECK: What the Labor Party is trying to do here is run a hatchet job on somebody who has, by independent review, had no findings made against him.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, this minister appears to be defying standing orders again. I again take a point of order on direct relevance. He was asked a question about his state of mind. He should answer the question. It makes a mockery of question time.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, when a question has a substantial preface—in this case, not loaded but mainly for assertions of fact—the minister is entitled to address those facts in his answer. Shorter questions narrow the definition of direct relevance. The minister is being directly relevant. I cannot instruct him which part of the question to answer nor how to answer the question as long as he remains relevant. Senator Colbeck, you have seven seconds remaining.
Senator COLBECK: Mr President, I have no intention of participating in an attempted slur of somebody who's doing good and important work. (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, on my left. Senator Wong, your colleague Senator Walsh is on her feet.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (15:05): There is no preamble to this question. Did the minister become aware of the widely reported allegations, and Mr Barnier's admissions of alleged neglect, bullying and paying off relatives, before or after his department handed Mr Barnier a second contract in October this year?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (15:05): My understanding is that my department, which made the direct appointment of Mr Barnier, was aware of all of the circumstances when they made the appointment for the first contract.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question?
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (15:05): Why, without a tender process, has the minister handed contracts worth $920,000 to someone who admitted to paying off the relative of an aged-care resident who died from neglect? How many other contracts has he handed to mates who are completely unfit for their job?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (15:06): I note that Mr Barnier was first appointed by then Minister Collins, the then minister in charge of aged care, to support the work that the government was doing through the Aged Care Financing Authority. So the false assertions that were made in the question only go to my point about the disgraceful smear on Mr Barnier that Labor are attempting. Mr Barnier is doing some important work relating to the financial structure of the aged-care sector, which is his area of expertise, and I have confidence in the work that he's doing for the government.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question No. 48
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:07): Mr President, under standing order 74(5)(a) I seek an explanation from Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister, as to why question No. 48, which I placed on notice on 2 March 2002, remains unanswered. The question was in relation to the announcement of the Collinsville feasibility study.
The PRESIDENT: You haven't been here that long, Senator Ayres.
Senator AYRES: I approach the technical aspects of the standing orders with some trepidation! But I'm very comfortable with the subject matter.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:07): Convention certainly is that, if a question on these matters is to be raised at the conclusion of question time, notice is usually given. I am not aware that notice has been given to my office in relation to following up on this question. I am happy, outside of the chamber, to seek to follow up for the senator, but I regret that I am not in a position to give him an explanation at that time.
Senator AYRES ( New South Wales ) ( 15:08 ): Under standing order 74(5)(b), I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation provided, to the extent that it was provided.
The question on notice that I provided earlier this year was in relation to the Collinsville coal catastrophe—the announcement that the government made in early 2019. You couldn't conceive of a plan that could take more than a decade, be very, very expensive, push up the price of power, increase Australia's emissions, give an enormous subsidy of billions of borrowed taxpayer dollars and that will more effectively hold back Australian industry and energy providers. How could the party of free enterprise sink so low? Senator Canavan was the principal advocate of this hopeless boondoggle. He was very active last year around Queensland, and very active this year in this place, making the case for an enormous expenditure of taxpayers' money on an inefficient energy provider—an inefficient generator.
How have the Liberal and National parties sunk so low that they are investing taxpayer dollars in even a feasibility study? How has Senator Canavan wandered so far away from the principles of the Liberal and National parties? How has he got so lost? Senator Canavan came in here with such promise. He got good marks at university. While he might have been a teenage Trotskyite, he reformed over time. He got a job at KPMG and then at the Productivity Commission. He then worked as a political staffer year after year. It's the perfect pedigree for a Liberal Party or National Party politician: school, university, corporate sector, public service—ideally in a job promoting far Right neoliberal ideology—political staffer and then parliament. Senator Canavan had a privileged rails run into this place. How did it all go so wrong?
Senator Canavan is here in Canberra advocating for state socialism for inefficient high-emissions coal-fired power but is all Margaret Thatcher when it comes to casually employed coalminers. He's for big taxpayer funds and subsidies for our big energy companies, but he has got nothing to say to those thousands of Queensland coalminers who are on labour hire contracts or are casually employed and can't get a decent job and secure a mortgage. When it comes to labour hire, Senator Canavan is on the side of big industry and the bosses. He's nowhere to be seen when it is working people's interests, but when it comes to big government subsidies he's up at the board table sucking up to the big energy companies and providing support for some of the dopiest policy prescriptions in energy policy that you can imagine.
He has got it so wrong. It's a policy position that would ultimately hurt the people of regional Australia more than anybody else. The problem is that he has had the ear of the Prime Minister, as Senator Canavan repeatedly tells us, on this mad set of propositions. We know that Senator Canavan had the Prime Minister's ear on these subjects because he told everybody in the building that he did. He told every journalist he could that this great Collinsville coal-fired power station was going to be built. This giant boondoggle would employ almost nobody and will never in fact be built. He was storming around the corridors of Parliament House with a giant imaginary boondoggle. You might as well shovel $8 billion of borrowed money into the sea as build this imaginary power station.
If you did build this imaginary power station, this hoax on the people of regional Queensland, the product of that would be prices going up, emissions going up and debt going up. Even President Donald Trump wouldn't back a project as silly as this one. That's why it's vital that, when questions on notice are provided, they are answered. Of course we know the real reason why Senator Cormann, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and now Senator Birmingham haven't provided an answer to that question. The real reason is that it is a deeply embarrassing sequence of events for a government that's supposed to be responsible, that's supposed to be acting in the interests of all Australians and that's supposed to have a plan for our energy future.
Despite everything that we've heard and despite all of the soft words and despite all of the attempts at characterising the position, we know what's really going on: emissions are continuing to increase and prices are continuing to increase. We are nowhere near on track for an energy plan that can credibly reduce Australia's emissions, we're nowhere near on track for a plan that's going to secure jobs in our regions and we are in the position of having a government that is now an outlier in international affairs on emissions policy. The government are unable to move because of this rabble on their back bench who lack all credibility in the rest of Australia. They are in an incredibly influential position—bullying Senator Birmingham, bullying the Prime Minister, getting their way in the caucus and driving Australia to a less and less credible position around the world.
It is absolutely in Australia's interests and the interests of Australian industry and Australian jobs that we have a credible pathway on energy policy. Instead, we've had 22 energy policies from a government that can't deliver a coherent approach. One day it's pointing in the direction of Bolsonaro in Brazil. One day it's sucking up the approach to climate policy from President Trump. Every day is a new day when it comes to coalition energy policy. By contrast, we've seen quite some development in industry and quite some development around the country in the states and territories. I look forward to learning a little bit more about what the Berejiklian government announced in New South Wales—$32 billion worth of investment, they say, to replace the coal-fired power generators in New South Wales, which will drive down costs and drive down emissions. If it's done properly, it will deliver lower priced power, more manufacturing and more jobs for regional New South Wales. As I say, I look forward to seeing the detail of that set of policy propositions.
It fits very neatly with what the Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply speech just some weeks ago in this place. The $10 billion rewiring the nation program, announced by the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese, is a clear signal of where the Labor Party is pointed, where future policymaking in this area is pointed, where the technologies are that reduce price and reduce emissions and don't hold Australian industry and the Australia energy sector back.
Senator Canavan and his mates over there on the coalition back bench—remember, he used to be quite influential in the show as a minister—are for dragging the country backwards, for lifting energy prices, for lifting Australian emissions, for making it harder for clean energy investments that would lower prices and lower emissions and provide jobs for ordinary Australians, everyday Australians, in regional towns, in suburbs across Australia, in manufacturing businesses. That is the main game, but the coalition government has gone entirely missing on these questions. It is high time Senator Birmingham signalled a change in approach, in terms of accountability and ministerial accountability in this place, from what we've seen in the course of the last few years and what I've seen over the course of the last 18 months—that is, a stoic refusal to answer questions, a stoic refusal to provide timely responses to questions on notice and a stoic refusal to effectively discharge the responsibilities of ministers in this parliament.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Chinese Australians
Trade with China
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:19): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ayres and Watt today relating to Australia’s relationship with China.
I thought that today's question time was pretty instructive. The strongest indication I think was when Senator Birmingham had an opportunity to signal a change in direction and an effort under his leadership to respond effectively to these questions of national interest, and I'm disappointed to see that the new leader in this place failed that test. It should have been a pretty easy test really. On one side, there's a national interest, and on the other side there's the partisan interest. It's manifestly in the national interest to call out the conduct of Senator Abetz, and it's manifestly in the national interest to call out the conduct of Senators Canavan, Christensen and Kelly in relation to their wild, unhelpful and reckless comments in relation to the whole host of issues that go to our relationship with China. So weak is Senator Birmingham's grip on the coalition caucus, so shallow his commitment to principle and to the national interest, that he squibbed it.
Australians of Chinese descent will be watching very closely. What they will see is that, for all the fundraising dinners, all of the nice words and all the grooming of members of the Chinese-Australian community, when push comes to shove the Liberals and Nationals will never stand for the Chinese-Australian community, not even when it's easy, not even when it's straightforward. It should be straightforward. What we heard was Minister Payne in here exhorting people in the Senate, other senators, to follow her example that the most important principle here was freedom of speech. Well, there are other principles that matter too—principles of responsibility, principles of leadership, principles of not being reckless when it comes to the national interest.
I thought that what Senator Payne said came very close to what we remember Senator Brandis saying, that everyone's got a right to be a bigot. People in this place have responsibilities. I say that Senator Abetz was wrong in his approach on the Foreign Affairs Committee for three reasons: (1) it was morally reprehensible, (2) what Senator Abetz said reinforces the Chinese Communist Party line that they are delivering to people of Chinese descent all around the world and in Australia, and (3) it reinforces the Chinese Communist Party government's propaganda line within China.
There is an important distinction here. I don't say that Senator Abetz is a racist. I disagree strongly with Senator Abetz, but I don't see him that way. But his conduct here is the result of assumptions that are driven by views about race. What he asked those three witnesses to do was unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship—despite its McCarthyist overtones. But at least Joe McCarthy asked everyone the same question; Senator Abetz only asked those witnesses—nobody else. They came with a genuine submission to this diaspora inquiry, talking about the issues of interference, the issues of dislocation, asking for a safe space for debate and support for their engagement but they had the door slammed in their face. Just when they were asking for tolerance and inclusion, they got the cold shoulder.
What Senator Abetz said reinforces the propaganda line that is taken by the government in China to Australians of Chinese descent. They say, 'You will never be accepted here'. We know this isn't true. We know that since the gold rush Chinese Australians have been a core part of the Australian story. But Senator Abetz sent the opposite message. People of good faith seeking inclusion were given the cold shoulder. Finally, sadly, Senator Abetz's message was a propaganda victory for the Chinese government in the context of the difficult issues we face in our relationship today. (Time expired)
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (15:25): There's an enormous immaturity on display in the way that we have heard Labor talk about Australia's relationship both with China and Australians of Chinese descent in question time today and in the froth and bubble of Senator Ayres's contribution a moment ago. In question time they started out by demanding apologies—the politics of condemnation—by finding a one-liner from a member of the government with which they disagree and trying to make that into something that can be extrapolated into itself being the source of jeopardy for the relationship between our two countries, and demanding that there be such a grovelling approach that one cannot even exercise one's right to speak in the way that Senator Abetz has. Then, in their third question, they went on the offensive on the question of foreign interference in a way that reflects that very insensitivity of which they accuse Senator Abetz. I've got to say, that reflects an awfully shallow understanding of the significance of the relationship between our two important countries.
Let me say this at the outset: those opposite build their arguments when it comes to the relationship between Australia and China on what is fundamentally an underestimation of the impressive and strong community of Australians of Chinese descent we have in this country. Australians of Chinese descent are valued members of the Australian community. They are avid entrepreneurs. They are champions of family business. They are people who value family. They value the freedoms we have in this country for many of them, and the very reason they value them is they don't have that privilege in the country from which they came.
When I go around in my home state of Queensland and talk to Australians of Chinese descent, they are so thankful for the freedoms that we have here—freedoms from many of the most abhorrent practices that we all know happen but often don't want to talk about happening in other countries, including in China—and they say 'thank you' for a government that is prepared to ensure that they are not the subject of intimidation. They are thankful for a government that is prepared to protect those from the diaspora who have made Australia home but who want to live by Australian values.
Can I tell you: I'm so proud of those Chinese Australians. They are wonderful contributors to this country. But let's not reduce what is a really serious issue—that is, the maintenance of an effective trading relationship in the interests of the ability of Australian producers through many industries, particularly in agriculture—to something that is a glib one-liner. We always need to stand true to Australia's values. And do you know what? This government has made it very clear, in the words of the Prime Minister, that Australia will always stand by its sovereignty and that Australia will always stand by its values, will always be consistent with those and will never trade them away. We will maintain our integrity whether it's in our foreign investment rules, in our rules about interference in Australia's political situations or about the integrity of our communications networks, and all those things. Do you know what? China does exactly the same thing. They protect their integrity of their systems according to their values, and they do it unapologetically.
Australia does the same. We act in the interests of Australians—today, tomorrow and every day of the week. We won't apologise for that. We will fight for it every day in the interests of the beef producer in Longreach Queensland as much as in the interests of the Australian baby formula exporter and as much as in the interests of the Australian iron ore producer. That is the honest, subtle truth of it.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:30): I think all Australians are watching with increasing dismay the escalation of what seems to be a serious trade dispute between Australia and China. Every day, we see increasing reports of restrictions from China on imports of Australian beef, barley, wine, coal, sugar and other products. These bans and these restrictions have particular significance in my home state of Queensland, given the volume of exports from Queensland to China and the number of jobs that hang off those exports.
To give you some sense of this, I just want to quickly quote from a report issued recently by Queensland economist Gene Tunny. He observes:
Queensland is obviously heavily exposed to trade restrictions from China … Queensland's annual goods exports to China of circa $25 billion amount to around 7% of our Gross State Product. Ongoing trade restrictions from China would cause major economic damage, especially in our regional economies such as Central Queensland and Mackay which are highly dependent on resources and agriculture. And, in the lead up to the 2020-21 Queensland Budget which Treasurer Dick—
that's Queensland treasurer Cameron Dick—
will hand down on 1 December, I should note that Chinese trade restrictions would be a big blow to our budget via impacts on royalties and other revenues such as payroll tax and stamp duty which would be lower due to the economic shock. Sure, our exporters may be able to find alternative markets in which to sell, but that will take time, and they may have to heavily discount their products to find non-Chinese buyers.
So this trade dispute is not just an academic exercise in my home state of Queensland. As Dr Tunny has observed, this has very real impact on Queensland's exports, on Queensland jobs, and on royalties that pay for services right around Queensland, in particular in regional economies such as Central Queensland and Mackay. That's why I have been so concerned to see some of the inflammatory rhetoric coming from LNP members of parliament and senators from Queensland. You would think that if anyone was passionate about making sure that Queensland jobs are protected and that Queensland exports grow rather than shrink it would be representatives in this chamber and in this parliament from Queensland.
I am not for a moment saying that we should be quiet about our concerns about our national interest or our values in relation to China or any other country. We should always speak up about our national interest. We should always protect our values. But this has to be done responsibly and maturely. As those figures that I have just pointed to demonstrate, there is too much on the line for reckless and inflammatory rhetoric. The responsible and mature approach is the approach that Labor have taken. We have consistently spoken up about concerns that we have regarding the human rights approach of China, around national security issues and around defence issues as well. Even just in the last few days we have expressed our concern about the escalating trade dispute with China and we have expressed our concern about what this might mean for Australian exporters and for Australian jobs. It is one thing to speak up responsibly and maturely about our values, our national interest and our defence concerns; it is another thing entirely to engage in the reckless and inflammatory rhetoric that we are increasingly seeing from members of this government. That is not going to help. That will not do anything to advance our national interests, it is not going to do anything to advance our values and it is certainly not going to do anything to protect Queensland jobs and Queensland exports.
So that's why you have to ask the question of why members of parliament like the member for Dawson, Mr Christensen, are going out there and saying in relation to the COVID-19 virus that:
… the CCP knowingly and deliberately allowed these "ambassadors of death" to infect the rest of the world.
Is that advancing our national interest in a mature and responsible fashion, or is that just recklessly going out and inflaming tensions, which has a practical consequence on Queensland jobs and Queensland exports? Similarly,
Senator Canavan has recently said:
If China buys less of our coal that means we will have some to build our own new HELE coal plants in Australia …
He's also gone on to say, 'All we're being asked to do is give up our access to cheap TVs.' This is a serious issue that deserves to be taken on responsibly and maturely. It doesn't deserve to be used as a way of generating Facebook likes which put Queensland jobs at risk. (Time expired)
Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (15:35): We have heard conflations of words this afternoon in question time and afterwards that raise concerns from this side of the chamber. We've heard words bandied around such as 'McCarthyism' and 'recklessness'. I put to the chamber that, in fact, recklessness is conflating this issue into something that it is not. The fact of the matter is that China is our largest trading partner, and it is likely to remain so into the foreseeable future. That's because trade has brought mutual benefits and lifted hundreds of millions of people in the region out of poverty. As we emerge from this particularly difficult time in the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that trade continues to be open, transparent and useful as a tool to economic recovery.
The Australian government, through its embassy in Beijing and its agencies in Canberra, has sought to clarify media reports of restrictions and unsubstantiated reports of possible bans on Australian products. Such reports, if true, would raise serious questions about compliance with trade rules and would be inconsistent with statements from the Chinese leadership—including those made last week at the China International Import Expo—on its commitment to open trade and the multilateral trading system. We in this government expect that China will continue its trade relationship with Australia in a manner consistent with its obligations.
Chinese authorities have confirmed increased testing of Australian live lobster imports, on which the Australian government had been urgently seeking clarification. Australia has strong regulatory controls that underpin the biosecurity, integrity and safety of our exports—safeguards that support our international reputation as a reliable exporter of safe, high-quality produce. The Australian government continues to expand trade opportunities for exporters, most recently through the CPTPP and trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong. The PACER Plus will enter into force next month, and will expect to sign the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement before the end of this year, as well as negotiating trade agreements with the EU, UK and the Pacific Alliance.
The issue regarding the number of our commodities and other exports is, of course, of great concern to the government and of great concern to those exporters. The Australian government has been standing by our exporters in ways this country has not seen in a long time, particularly during this difficult time of the pandemic. The 'technical issues', as they've been described by the Chinese government, will now be worked through. But, as the Prime Minister has said, Australia will stand by our sovereignty. We will always stand by our values, we will always be consistent with those and we will never trade them away. Whether it be the integrity of foreign investment rules, the integrity of rules of interference in political situations here in Australia or the integrity of communications networks, we will maintain that integrity. We will continue to raise our voice on matters that are important to the Australian people, and we will do that consistently, so that these things can't be traded away.
And there are matters of concern, which the Australian government has raised over and over again and will continue to do so, so that we stand by our values. As the Prime Minister has said, it is critical for Australia that we work this relationship in a way that's consistent with the comprehensive strategic partnership. It's an important partnership. We believe it's an important relationship, but it's a relationship that will always based on Australia's national interest and mutual benefit between Australia and China.
These deeply troubling rumours about trade relations are, in categories, as the trade minister has said, predominantly rumours which are unconfirmed and unsubstantiated, and people need to treat them in the manner in which they have been described. It is important for our exporters that we give them all the support that they require through these difficult times in their engagement with the Chinese authorities and their business counterparts on mainland China and other parts of China, including Hong Kong. The importers and customers who have had such a demand for— (Time expired)
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:40): I think we know who won the battle in here. Senator Birmingham clearly won the battle. He gave Senator Antic a slap down in his answer to the question in parliament today and then sent him out to take note here. We know that this is a very serious issue that Australians are anxious about, and it is something that is going to be of real consequence for Australian workers and, as Senator Watt said, Queensland workers. There is increasing anxiousness amongst Australians about the mismanagement of this important relationship.
So many businesses have geared up over time to do trade with China, and that is being put at risk because of the mismanagement of this government. There has been a lack of action from this government to fix up this relationship. There's been zero leadership from responsible ministers, and they've outsourced the relationship to the backbench. That has had real consequences for Australians. There's no better example of that than in the work that the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and Senator Canavan have been doing this year, which has undermined our relationship with China. It is having a real impact on Australian workers.
I want to take point with Senator Stoker's contribution, in which the senator accused us of immaturity. We are the ones who are treating this seriously, because we know how significant this is. It's the government backbenchers—the ones that are causing the trouble—that are putting this relationship at risk and doing further damage. It was rather astounding that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, said that he was a steady hand on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think, if you look at the industries that have been impacted, they would say nothing other than that he has been a dead hand on this issue, because he is not taking this up to the government to fix these issues and is not in a leadership position to take advantage of that.
Last year, China accounted for a significant proportion of our exports, and they included barley, Queensland timber, wine, lobsters, sugar, coal, copper and meat. Behind these exports are some of the biggest employers that Queensland have, and they have been such a significant part of the export industry that we have seen develop over time. But already we are seeing that this is having consequences across Australia—in particular, in Queensland. Just on the radio last week I heard the CEO of Sirromet Wines, which is an iconic brand in Queensland and a place, particularly in Brisbane, that many people are aware of. They've been exporting 40 per cent of their wine to China, and that is being put at risk because of the mismanagement of this relationship by this government. We also know there have been reports in Mackay of the volume exported through the Hay Point terminal—the coal terminal—declining this year again. It puts jobs at risk, and it puts economic development at risk as well.
Business is rattled. They have been looking for leadership from the government, which has been so far found wanting. Workers are getting anxious. We know they are following these developments. They know that these sorts of repercussions have a direct impact on them, their livelihoods and their families, and the government is rudderless on this issue. You only have to look at the quote from Minister Birmingham in The Australian from a couple of days ago, where he said:
Continued uncertain and inconsistent messages from China are heightening risks and undermine the statements made by President Xi at this year's China International Import Expo.
He's saying that it's China's uncertain and inconsistent messages that are having an impact. What about the inconsistent messages from the government and their backbench? That is what is having an impact on this relationship, and it is something that is increasingly causing anxiousness amongst employers and businesses but also workers as well.
There's no doubt that the performance from Minister Birmingham today, for those who were able to see it, would not fill Australians with confidence. Australians understand the importance of this relationship. It is a complex one but it is an important one that we get right. So far, the government have completely mismanaged it and, under questions from the opposition today, you would have no confidence that they will be able to fix this relationship, which is such an important one for Australian businesses and Australian workers. It is important that the government show leadership on this issue and come to the Australians on this. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:45): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Birmingham to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change.
I asked about climate ambition and targets, noting President-elect Biden of the US has committed to 100 per cent clean electricity by 2035 and has also, rightly, noted that the climate emergency is an existential threat upon which we have no time to lose.
I put those statements to the new Leader of the Government in the Senate, and I pointed out that now we are essentially friendless, and the only friends we do have in the climate arena, internationally, are petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Russia, and Brazil for that matter. This is an opportunity for the government to rethink its pathetically low 2030 targets. It's an opportunity for the opposition to decide upon its 2030 targets and announce that. We have a clear signal of a change in direction from one of the most influential global actors in this space. This is a perfect opportunity for a reframe.
Unfortunately, we didn't hear any of that evidence today. In fact, we heard more of the same sort of self-congratulatory gumph that we've come to expect from this climate-denying government. They trotted out all that trope that we met and beat our Kyoto 1 targets. I hope people remember that our commitment under Kyoto 1 was an increase on our admissions of eight per cent. I'm not terribly impressed that we managed to increase our emissions by eight per cent, and that certainly should not be trumpeted as some great achievement by this nation. We then heard the same old trope that we're going to do okay in our second round of targets—not mentioning that that's because we are using carryover credits, which most other countries have said they will voluntarily not use. So the absolute spin, from this government, on climate doesn't fool anyone who's paying attention and they know how close this government is to the coal, gas and oil sector. They know how much money flows in political donations to both sides of politics, and they know just how weak this government is on climate.
I pointed out that the government's pathetic targets have us on track for four degrees of warming in Australia, which the CSIRO and BoM have confirmed will have devastating impacts on this nation. We have had a terrible year but people won't forget that it started off with the worst, historically, destructive bushfires this nation has ever seen. The climate crisis hasn't gone away just because we've been in a health crisis and a deepening economic crisis. It's still there. The good news is we can fight our way out of the health crisis and the economic crisis by taking action on the climate crisis, by investing in publicly owned clean, renewable energy. It will create jobs. It could start off our domestic manufacturing sector again. We can—I shouldn't say kill two birds with one stone; I'd get cranky emails about that—achieve multiple goals with sensible policies that aren't simply in hock to big oil, big coal and big gas.
Sadly, Senator Birmingham didn't even answer my question about whether the government would lift Australia's targets for 2030 at the next climate summit. That was the expectation in Paris, that people would make an initial commitment and revisit that target with an intention, an encouragement, to increase it. We got no such indication at all out of this government. I then mentioned that the commitment to 100 per cent clean energy by 2035, by the President-elect, was something Australia could consider following suit on. The Greens think that we in Australia could get there by 2030. We think the technology is there for that transition to be done in a way that leaves no-one behind and, in fact, reduces power prices. We didn't get an answer on that either. We got some lecture about how the road map is apparently consistent, which it is flagrantly not.
In the last part of my question I mentioned that former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described on the weekend the government's gas-led recovery as 'BS' and 'political piffle'. I thought that was somewhat awkward for that side of politics. But again we got the general waffle about how bloody great gas is. There was an assertion made by Senator Birmingham that our emissions are reducing, completely glossing over the fact that gas emissions have sky rocketed. We know from previous studies that gas is virtually as dirty as coal when it comes to the climate. We do not need a gas-led recovery. That is a nonsense. What we need is strong investment in clean energy and in things like public housing and schools and hospitals to tackle the climate crisis and create jobs. But we're not seeing that from this government, are we? (Timeexpired)
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the racehorse Anthony Van Dyck died following injuries sustained in the 2020 Melbourne Cup,
(ii) Anthony Van Dyck was the seventh racehorse to die as a result of the Cup since 2013, following Verema, Araldo, Admire Rakti, Red Cadeaux, Regal Monarch and Cliffsofmoher, and
(iii) according to stewards' reports, between 1 August 2019 and 31 July 2020, 116 racehorses died at racetracks, as a result of catastrophic front limb injury, cardiac causes, serious bleeds, head trauma, and other injuries; and
(b) believes that no horse should die at a racetrack.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That on Wednesday, 11 November 2020—
(a) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended at 10.15 am till 11.45 am to enable senators to attend Remembrance Day services; and
(b) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
Senators Keneally and Urquhart to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) Australia's financial intelligence agency, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), produced a report in 2017 that found Australia's casinos are broadly aware of and comply with their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations regarding casino junkets, despite also noting that:
(A) there was 'strong growth' in the junket market, and
(B) junkets are high risk in terms of money laundering, and were increasingly featuring in money-laundering and proceeds of crime investigations (see AUSTRAC FOI Disclosure Log),
(ii) the New South Wales Casino Inquiry has heard allegations that Crown Resorts partnered with junkets that were backed by organised crime syndicates, including an allegedly triad-controlled drug trafficking and money laundering organisation starting at least as early as 2015, two years before AUSTRAC's 2017 report (see NSW Casino Inquiry Hearing, 12 October 2020. pages pp.3945-3948),
(iii) when questioned at Senate Estimates, the CEO of AUSTRAC, refused a request to release an unredacted version of the 2017 report on the basis that she 'no longer agrees' with the report and AUSTRAC has 'moved on' (Legal and Constitutional Committee, Budget Estimates, 20 October 2020, p. 65), and
(iv) Australian Government agencies should not refuse access to the reports they have prepared or hold because they have 'moved on' or 'no longer agree' with their historical decisions;
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 11.45am on 12 November 2020, a copy of AUSTRAC's 2017 Casino Junkets Campaign Information Report; and
(c) when tabling the report, the Minister may only redact information if the Minister is aware the information would prejudice a current investigation.
Senator Roberts to move on the next day of sitting—
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that the first round of funding for the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program was announced on the 13 April 2020 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, the Honourable Michael McCormack; and
(b) further notes that 20 of the 21 projects approved to progress are in Liberal National Party electorates and the remaining project is in the electorate of Indi.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, by no later than 10 am on 1 December 2020:
(a) a summary of all applications received for the first round of funding for the Inland Rail Interface Improvement Program, including:
(i) whether the proponent is government or private,
(ii) a clear statement as to the location of the project, and
(iii) a brief summary of the project being not less than 50 words; and
(b) details of any advertising, circulars, emails or other media to advertise the opening of applications for the fund.
Senator Ruston to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) the provisions of the Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2020; and
(b) in conducting the inquiry, the committee may consider the relevant evidence and records of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Trade Legislation Committee relating to its inquiry into the bill.
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (the treaty) reached 50 ratifications on 24 October 2020, with Honduras being the 50th country to ratify,
(ii) the treaty bans the possession, production, testing, stockpiling, transfer, hosting, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and it also prohibits any nation from assisting, inducing or encouraging any of the prohibited activities,
(iii) the entry into force of the treaty is a significant milestone in global efforts for nuclear disarmament; nuclear weapons are inexcusable, dangerous, and immoral, and the entry into force of the treaty now means they will become illegal under international law as of 22 January 2021, and
(iv) Australia has a long history of supporting and acting on international efforts for disarmament; we have ratified treaties banning cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines, chemical weapons and biological weapons and we are a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, however, we have not ratified the treaty which leaves us out of step with international law on nuclear weapons.
(b) calls on the Government to immediately sign and ratify the treaty.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the 2020 Budget contains $28.3 million over three years from 2020-21 to establish five strategic basin plans to accelerate gas development in priority geological basins; and
(b) opposes the use of these public funds to expand the gas industry. (generalbusinessnoticeofmotionno.840)
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2021:
The state of media diversity, independence and reliability in Australia and the impact that this has on public interest journalism and democracy, including:
(a) the current state of public interest journalism in Australia and any barriers to Australian voters' ability to access reliable, accurate and independent news;
(b) the effect of media concentration on democracy in Australia;
(c) the impact of Australia's media ownership laws on media concentration in Australia;
(d) the impact of significant changes to media business models since the advent of online news and the barriers to viability and profitability of public interest news services;
(e) the impact of online global platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter on the media industry and sharing of news in Australia;
(f) the barriers faced by small, independent and community news outlets in Australia;
(g) the role that a newswire service plays in supporting diverse public interest journalism in Australia;
(h) the state of local, regional and rural media outlets in Australia;
(i) the role of government in supporting a viable and diverse public interest journalism sector in Australia; and
(j) any other related matters.
Senators Canavan, McKenzie, Davey, McDonald and McMahon to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the significant value of Australia's coal sector to Australia's regional communities and to our national economy, which benefit from more than 170,000 jobs and approximately $6 billion in royalties;
(b) notes that:
(i) Australia is the leading exporter of high-quality coal, representing almost 15% of all exports and generating more than $69 billion in 2018-19,
(ii) Australian metallurgical coal exports account for 19% of South Korea's imports of metallurgical coal contributing $3.1 billion to the Australian economy, while Australian thermal coal accounts for 34% of South Korea's imports of thermal coal, contributing $2.9 billion to the Australian economy, and
(iii) South Koreans rely on coal and nuclear energy for approximately 70% of their electricity capacity;
(c) condemns recent comments made by the Leader of the Australian Greens party and Member for Melbourne, Mr Adam Bandt MP, in his address to the National Assembly of South Korea in which he advocated against Australian coal exports and encouraged South Korea to impose carbon tariffs against Australia; and
(d) calls on the Leader of the Australian Greens party to apologise to the people of Australia for attempting to incite a foreign power to act against the interests of Australia.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:51): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senators Brockman and Duniam from 9 to 12 November 2020; and
(b) Senator Rennick for today.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:51): I propose that general business notice of motion No. 819 standing in the name of Senator Dodson for today be withdrawn.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:51): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:
(a) Senators Kitching, Gallacher and Bilyk from 9 to 12 November 2020
(b) Senator Ayres for 10 November 2020; and
(c) Senator Marielle Smith from 9 November to 10 December 2020, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Leave of Absence
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:52): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John from 9 November to 12 November 2020, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate no. 2 standing in the name of Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) for today, proposing the disallowance of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 8) 2020, postponed to 30 November.
General business notice of motion no. 753 standing in the names of Senators McCarthy and Dodson for today, relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags, postponed to 10 November.
General business notice of motion no. 812 standing in the name of Senator Sheldon for today, relating to food delivery workers, postponed to 11 November
General business notice of motion no. 818 standing in the name of Senator Farrell for today, relating to consideration of Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020, postponed to 7 December
General business notice of motion no. 825 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for today, relating to the Coronavirus Supplement, postponed to 11 November
General business notice of motion no. 834 standing in the names of Senators Wong and Keneally for today, relating to Australians stranded overseas, postponed to 10 November
General business notice of motion no. 835 standing in the name of Senator Green for today, relating to the conduct of Senate committee proceedings, postponed to 11 November
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) for 10 November, proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020, postponed to 1 December
General business notice of motion no. 820 standing in the name of Senator Roberts for 10 November, proposing the establishment of a select committee on corruption in Queensland local government, postponed to the second sitting day of March of 2021.
MOTIONS
Qantas
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:54): I inform the chamber that Senator Ciccone will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Sheldon, Gallacher, Sterle, Bilyk, Patrick and Ciccone, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 29 March 2020 the Prime Minister announced that JobKeeper 'is about keeping the connection between the employer and the employee and keeping people in their jobs', and
(ii) on 21 July 2020 Qantas Chief Executive Officer Alan Joyce said to the Australian Financial Review that the extension of JobKeeper was 'fantastic for our people and provides them with certainty';
(b) further notes that despite receiving over $500 million in taxpayer support, including JobKeeper payments to keep employees connected to the company, Qantas intends to outsource 2,500 ramp, ground and cleaning staff and replace them with outsourced, cheaper labour;
(c) recognises that:
(i) the work of these 2,500 employees is still being carried out and will likely now be done on lower rates and conditions,
(ii) Qantas has used the pandemic as cover to implement a long-term plan to further outsource labour, and
(iii) standards in safety and security will be lowered if Qantas outsources its entire ground operations;
(d) calls on Qantas to reverse its decision to outsource the jobs of the 2,500 hardworking Australians; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to develop a national aviation plan.
Question agreed to.
JobSeeker Payment
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:54): At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the number of people relying on unemployment benefits has doubled since the start of the recession, and now stands at 1.6 million Australians,
(ii) the Government expects 400,000 more people to be unemployed by the end of the year,
(iii) on 25 September 2020 the Government cut the Coronavirus Supplement—hurting over 2.2 million Australians and risking jobs by ripping over $270 million from local economies every fortnight,
(iv) the rate of unemployment payments is scheduled to revert to the old Newstart rate in December—a rate which traps people in poverty and is a barrier to getting work, and
(v) Deloitte has calculated that the Government's cuts to JobSeeker payments will cost 145,000 full time jobs over the next two years; and
(b) calls on the Government to permanently increase JobSeeker payments, rather than prematurely cutting support for those who have lost their jobs.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government is providing enhanced support to the Australian community through a three-month extension of the coronavirus supplement till 31 December 2020. The coronavirus supplement is one element of the government's $507 billion economic response to the pandemic and builds on the support provided through the JobKeeper program and the new budget commitments providing a further $98 billion, including $25 billion in direct COVID-19 response measures and $74 billion in new measures to create jobs.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Withdrawal
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:56): I move:
That the government business order of the day relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Research and Development Tax Incentive) Bill 2019 be discharged from the Notice Paper.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:56): At the request of Senators Polley and McAllister, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) every week a woman dies as a result of domestic violence; according to the Counting Dead Women Project 41 women have died this year—further, one in four women have experienced abuse at the hands of a current or former partner,
(ii) one of the biggest safeguards for women against domestic violence is employment and economic independence—too often women cannot leave a relationship or are forced to return because of economic insecurity and the fear of homelessness,
(iii) job losses and the withdrawal of JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments will only exacerbate this social problem which is why it is essential that these payments not be withdrawn prematurely,
(iv) the Government must invest more in family violence services, and social housing and reduce insecure work to address this issue,
(v) the Government's abject failure to respond to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report on family law and countless other inquiries, and
(vi) the proposal to abolish the Family Court by merging it with the Federal Circuit Court will only increase the risk of harm to children and victims of domestic violence; and
(b) urges the Government to recognise the gendered impact the pandemic is having on our communities.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Domestic and family violence is a scourge and its impact is horrific. The government swiftly committed $150 million for the domestic violence specific COVID-19 support package, now fully distributed to states and territories. This funding is on top of the $340 million that the Commonwealth has already invested in the fourth action plan initiatives and the 1800RESPECT ongoing funding. The government also continues to invest in the family law system and courts, with more than $140 million in additional funding in this budget, and is committed to structural reforms to the family law courts that will help families, including women and children, resolve their family law matters faster and more effectively.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WATERS: The COVID pandemic has turbocharged already prolific violence against women. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that one in 10 women in a relationship experienced intimate partner violence during the pandemic, many for the first time or with increased severity. The women's safety sector expects that demand for crisis housing, counselling, safety and support services will continue to increase even further and it has called for an investment of $12 billion over 12 years to meet this demand. Due to a lack of resources, women's legal services are currently unable to service nearly half of the people who seek their help. Yet, despite rising violence and services having to turn people away, the 2020-21 budget did not include any new funding for frontline domestic and family violence services. Violence against women is a national security crisis and the government must drastically increase funding to ensure that all those seeking safety can access the services when they need them.
Question agreed to.
China
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:59): I, and also on behalf of Senator Patrick, ask that general business notice of motion No. 828 be taken as a formal motion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? Yes. Formality has been denied.
Senator LAMBIE: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Lambie moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 828.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the standing orders be suspended, as moved by Senator Lambie, to enable debate of general business notice of motion No. 828.
The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2)
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:08): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 9 September 2020 marked one year since the Senate passed the Australian Greens' National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) to establish a strong, independent Federal corruption watchdog,
(ii) polls consistently show that the majority of Australians support the establishment of a strong national anti-corruption body,
(iii) the Government has not brought the Greens' bill on for debate in the House of Representatives, and
(iv) despite public consultation ending more than 18 months ago, the Government's exposure draft Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill fails to address many concerns raised during consultation; and
(b) further notes that an effective anti-corruption body must include the following features:
(i) broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector,
(ii) strong investigative powers,
(iii) the ability to hold public hearings where this is in the public interest,
(iv) the ability to commence investigations independently or based on tip-offs from the public,
(v) adequate and secure funding,
(vi) the ability to publicly report outcomes of investigations and refer potential criminal matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(vii) oversight by a multi-party parliamentary committee, including the appointment of commissioners, and
(viii) investigations subject to procedural fairness, and findings open to judicial review.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:08): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Morrison government is continuing to deliver on its commitment to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. On 2 November the government released exposure draft legislation for the CIC. Nationwide consultation on the legislation will occur until March 2021. The government's draft legislation is properly designed and properly funded. There has been $106.7 million in new funding allocated to the CIC, which will have powers stronger than a royal commission. The CIC will have broad jurisdiction over the public sector, including members of parliament, and will lead Australia's successful multiagency anticorruption framework. By comparison, the Greens' National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) has fundamental flaws that could result in wasteful duplication and individual injustices. The bill was not supported by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee when it considered the bill in April 2019.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:09): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ROBERTS: I support this motion concerning the need to create a credible and effective integrity commission. The integrity commission, once established, must offer the features as identified by the Centre for Public Integrity, which I firmly support. I've also had the opportunity to see the government's recently released draft Commonwealth Integrity Commission bill, and I note that in its present state it requires considerable amendment prior to receiving full support.
A sound integrity commission would maintain a broad jurisdiction to investigate corrupt conduct within the public sector with strong investigative powers. It should be empowered to hold public hearings whenever it is in the public interest to do so. This is fundamental to the operations of an effective integrity commission. The commission should be able to investigate corruption independently, on its own initiative, even if that's based on tip-offs from the public, and the referral process should be broad. There should be no limitations on the possible findings of corrupt conduct of parliamentarians or public servants. The bill must be able to operate retrospectively so as to deal with recent alleged anomalies in the conduct of persons managing the Great Barrier Reef fund and Murray-Darling water buybacks. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 802, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate—
a) notes that, in respect of responsible lending to consumers, and the provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (NCCP Act) in particular, the final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Royal Commission):
i) noted that there was little or no debate about the terms of the NCCP Act,
ii) emphasised that the submission from Treasury stated that abidance by existing laws would likely enhance rather than detract from macroeconomic performance, and
iii) concluded simply that the law should be applied as it stands;
b) further notes that the Government, in February 2019:
i) accepted recommendation 1.1 of the Royal Commission that the NCCP Act not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability, and
ii) agreed to take action in relation to all 76 recommendations of the Royal Commission; and
c) notes that the Government has reneged on its previous acceptance of Recommendation 1.1 of the Royal Commission; and
d) condemns the Government for failing to honour its acceptance of Recommendation 1.1 of the Royal Commission.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:17): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government has not reneged on its acceptance of the recommendation of the royal commission. Recommendation 1 states:
The NCCP Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability.
With respect to the recommendation, Commissioner Hayne noted:
Consumer advocacy groups urged me to recommend that the NCCP Act be amended to require lenders to determine whether a loan contract (or credit limit increase) was 'suitable' for the consumer (as distinct from 'not unsuitable'). I do not favour that proposal.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 830, standing in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Assange, Mr Julian
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:23): I, and also on behalf of Senators Rice and Hanson-Young, seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 832.
Leave granted.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Julian Assange:
(i) is an Australian citizen,
(ii) is a father, son and partner, and
(iii) won the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism;
(b) acknowledges that during the recent extradition trial, the court heard evidence about:
(i) the enormous harm revealed by Wikileaks of war crimes, crimes against humanity and corruption,
(ii) the alleged spying operation conducted against Julian Assange by UC Global on behalf of United States (US) intelligence agencies,
(iii) the alleged seizure of legally privileged material from the Ecuadorian Embassy by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
(iv) alleged plans to poison and kidnap Julian Assange, and
(v) the devastating health consequences that Julian Assange is currently facing; and
(c) further acknowledges that:
(i) hundreds of protests and vigils happened all over the world in support of Julian Assange during the extradition trial,
(ii) over 160 world leaders – current and former presidents, prime ministers and officials – have called for the release of Julian Assange,
(iii) a dozen councils have passed resolutions across Australia calling on the Australian Government to act, and
(iv) Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed to delay the decision of the extradition trial until after the US election and is due to deliver the verdict on 4 January 2021.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:23): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Mr Assange's case is an extradition application made by the United States to the UK. Australia is not a party and has no standing. Nevertheless, Mr Assange is entitled to consular assistance. In June 2019, Mr Assange withdrew consent for DFAT to consult on his health and welfare in prison. The high commission has written to Mr Assange 16 times since June 2019 offering consular assistance. Neither he nor his legal team have responded. The government raised with the UK and the US governments our expectation for his proper treatment. We unreservedly trust the integrity of the UK and US legal systems.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 832 as amended, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson and others, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Maritime Industry
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:28): I inform the chamber that Senators Sheldon and Ciccone will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Brown, Sheldon and Ciccone, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 24 September 2020 was World Maritime Day, and that the theme for 2020 was 'sustainable shipping for a sustainable planet',
(ii) in 2020, less than half of one percent of Australia's seaborne trade is carried by Australian ships, and
(iii) for our island nation Australia, and our island state of Tasmania, the work of mariners is essential; and
(b) records its appreciation of Australia's maritime workers and believes that expanding our maritime sector is vital for our economic sovereignty and national security.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:28): At the request of Senators Sterle and Sheldon, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2021:
The future of Australia's aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post-pandemic, having particular regard to:
(a) the importance of Australia's aviation sector in supporting the economic and social wellbeing of all Australians;
(b) the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all aspects of the Australian aviation sector;
(c) the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all sectors that rely on aviation (e.g. tourism);
(d) the adequacy of government industry support and procurement and programs for the social and economic well-being of workers for all sections of the aviation industry to survive the downturn caused by the pandemic;
(e) the immediate and long-term employment landscape within Australia's aviation sector;
(f) what policy and practical measures would be required to assist the industry to recover in the medium term; and
(g) any related matters.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (16:28): I seek leave to make a short statement?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, which is to report by 30 June 2022, already has extensive terms of reference to inquire into the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and any related matters. Indeed, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications has already appeared at the COVID select committee, on 9 June 2020; 6 August 2020, which specifically included aviation officials; and 24 September 2020. Qantas has also already appeared, on 21 July 2020. The government notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretaries and related concerns about additional references, particularly where an existing inquiry is already capable of examining these matters.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF URGENCY
United States Presidential Election
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:29): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 17 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Whish-Wilson:
Dear Mr President
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Senate congratulates incoming US President Biden on his victory and welcomes his commitment to tackling the climate crisis, particularly his acknowledgement that climate change is an emergency and an existential threat, and calls on the Australian Government to match his target of zero-emissions electricity by 2035, if not earlier."
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:31): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Senate congratulates incoming US President Biden on his victory and welcomes his commitment to tackling the climate crisis, particularly his acknowledgement that climate change is an emergency and an existential threat, and calls on the Australian Government to match his target of zero emissions electricity by 2035, if not earlier.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:31): [by video link] Donald Trump lost, and on 20 January, whether he leaves by his own volition or is escorted from the building by Secret Service agents as a trespasser, his shadow will darken the White House no more. This moment that the world is sharing in is profound. Many people across the United States and across the world are attempting to make sense of what has happened and what comes next. It is clear from what we have seen that this end of a despotic era, when the United States came so close to embracing fascism, was brought about by young people, by people of colour—in Nevada and Arizona, and in Atlanta and Detroit and so many cities in between—rising up, working together, calling for change. It was excellently summed up, I believe, by representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said in the lead-up to the election that the fight was one of allowing American democracy to live another day.
As it has been given the opportunity to live another day, so has hope for action on the climate crisis—global action. President Biden has committed clearly to decarbonising the electricity system of the United States by 2035. He has acknowledged that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, offering a global opportunity to reset the climate clock conversation and take action that young people are demanding. What we have seen as a reaction from Australian so-called leaders is shameful. The Morrison government has signalled that it is not going to take further action, and Labor is currently torn apart by division about whether to shift at all. In my state of WA, the McGowan Labor government just voted down a Greens climate act that would have begun the work. This is not good enough. Young people do not accept it; the Greens do not accept it. It is clear, now more than ever, that there is an opportunity for climate action globally, and we in the Greens intend to work with the community to seize that opportunity. (Time expired)
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (16:34): This is a great opportunity to talk about the US-Australia relationship. Regardless of who had won the presidential election, the relationship that our country has with the United States is so complex and deep, across military, economic and cultural factors, that it was always going to withstand any particular judgement made by the American people. Just as governments of the day in Australia are here for a temporary period but ultimately it's about the relationship over the longer term. The relationship is always going to be very strong regardless of the outcome.
This is not an opportunity for Labor, the Greens and others to try to resume the energy wars. It was always very strange that people tried to push energy into a culture war, because, at the end of the day, any sort of obsession with a form of energy generation is frankly weird. The only group that is having a culture war or an energy war internally at the moment is the Labor Party, which really can't decide what it wants to do in relation to energy generation.
People want to talk about net zero targets and the like. Australia has an unparalleled record in getting our emissions down. We've beaten our Kyoto targets. We're on track to beat Paris and in fact, on a comparative basis, we're doing better than most of the other OECD jurisdictions when it comes to actually reducing our emissions over the course of the Paris accord. Yes, there will be another climate conference in Glasgow when people are able to get on to aeroplanes and meet—I assume that will be done in person. As people who follow this closely will know, as part of our Paris obligations we've already committed to get to net zero. The question is: when does that happen? Rather than trying to put in place a commitment which we don't know can be kept at a particular point in time, we have committed to our Paris obligations. We're on track to meet and beat them. In due course there'll be further statements made in relation to the Glasgow commitments that our country will make. With our track record already so strong, it is ridiculous for people to try and drag our progress on emissions reduction into an international relations discussion. Frankly, it is desperate.
Our agenda is to develop a plan to get to the target before announcing the actual target, because that is what you do in the real world. I have to say that people tire of politicians promising things and then not delivering them. Surely the people of Australia, and I think this has been supported at the ballot box, want to see politicians and governments promising things that are deliverable and delivering a framework alongside a commitment, which is effectively what we've had in the past with the Kyoto and the Paris accords.
At the moment the national government have a plan on the table which is technology neutral, which is going to get us to the place where we need to be. Today we've seen my home state New South Wales deliver another plan, which is a significant investment into clean energy. Driven by the market and supported by the government, it is going to see significant new investment into wind, solar and of course pumped hydro. So you've got the national government with a technology-neutral plan, which is going to support clean energy and the transition, and then you've got the states coming in behind that and supporting that. I am optimistic that we are going to get to this net zero target in a reasonable timetable. Of course, you need to see the plan, you need to see the formula, you need to see the framework, because otherwise it's just an empty promise without any backing.
The reality is that the relationship that we have with the US is very strong. It would have withstood any particular judgement made by the American people. These two democracies go back in conflict to the First World War. We've always been there, with a very strong relationship, with the United States. So any suggestion that there is an opportunity for us to have a barney with the US now over climate policy is simply very misguided.
We always have been in these climate discussions. We have not left any of the multilateral institutions or any of the groupings. We're in Paris. We're in the TPP. The US left both, under the Trump administration, and I'm sure they will come back. We've been there as a responsible global citizen with targets that are appropriate for our economy. Over the next few months and years we will continue to make our contribution as a significant economy that is doing a lot on emissions reduction. At the end of the day, Australia has the 12th- or 13th-biggest economy on earth. It's a serious economy. It's an outward facing economy.
All these judgements we make about our economy are very important to people's lives. They're not just boxes or bits of paper that we don't think about and that have no real impact on the world. The methodical approach that the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, and the government will go through in determining these future targets will factor in all of the economic and climate factors. I would say that we are beyond the culture war and the energy wars. I think we're in a good place as a country. We've got a technology-driven focus that doesn't feature punitive taxation or a preference for any particular form of energy generation. Clean energy is up to 18 per cent, I think, of generation in Australia today, which is a great thing, and a lot of that was achieved with significant market intervention. That is not necessary now, because clean energy is very economical in its own right. It's now appropriate for the government to step back and allow that market to work with the price signals that are already in place.
Our bilateral relationship with the US is as close as any two countries can be. I'm sure our government will work closely with the incoming administration on this, on trade and on all the other important economic and environmental matters over the next few years. We will take our plan to Glasgow, which is appropriate for Australia and which is in keeping with the tenor of the commitments we have made over the last two climate conferences, certainly to Paris and Copenhagen. It will be a serious, credible bid and we will meet and beat that, unlike many countries we often hear lecturing us from abroad.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (16:42): I would like to add my voice to those welcoming the election of Joe Biden as President-elect of the United States. I'd also like to congratulate Vice-President Kamala Harris. I note the significance of her being the first woman and first woman of colour to be elected to such a position in the United States of America and the absolutely inspiring example she will set for all Americans. It was incredible, in recent days, to see a record turnout of voters exercising their democratic rights in the US and to witness the highest-ever vote tally for a presidential ticket in history. There was and is so much at stake for the US, for our region and for the whole global community.
President-elect Biden, as we know, campaigned heavily on the promise, the commitment, of action on climate change, reducing carbon emissions and supporting the growth in renewables. The President-elect's Build Back Better plan to recover from the COVID recession is all about creating jobs from sustainable infrastructure and clean energy. So it's really clear now, today, what direction the US is heading under the new leadership. What is less clear is the direction of the Morrison government. In fact, this result in the US is just another sign that the Morrison government is becoming increasingly isolated internationally when it comes to action on climate change. The rest of the world is moving, and it is moving forward while Prime Minister Scott Morrison is dragging his feet. There is real global consensus on climate change, and it won't just be the US under a Biden administration that will take climate action and emission reduction seriously; it will be the UK, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand—so many of our major allies and partners around the world. Here, at home, the consensus is overwhelming as well: the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Property Council, our largest airline, our biggest mining company, our biggest bank, our biggest telecommunications provider. There is a long list of leading businesses, organisations and not-for-profits who have made the commitment to taking action, a long list of organisations in this country that have committed to reach net zero emissions by 2050. It feels like the only people who are missing in action are those in the Morrison government. The Prime Minister is isolated on this issue.
Labor, on the other hand, are confident and positive about our future. We know that we can reach that better future together. Really, everyone else agrees, so we need the Morrison government to make a plan now. But, in the past eight years, this Liberal-National government has had 22 energy policies. What has that led to? Overall, it's actually led to higher emissions and to higher electricity prices. This is not even the worst of their inaction. According to an independent report from Deloitte Access Economics, the Prime Minister's refusal to take action could crush the trade, tourism, mining and service industries. Their report suggests that the government's inaction and refusal to adopt net zero emissions by 2050 will devastate the economy. That inaction could cost up to 880,000 jobs and slash $3.4 trillion from GDP by 2070. There is so much at stake here. If the government took action and delivered net zero emissions by 2050, that report predicts it would actually create 250,000 jobs.
Here in Australia we are in our deepest recession in almost a hundred years. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have lost their jobs, and they are screaming out for a jobs plan from this government. Action on climate change will actually deliver jobs if the Morrison government embraces it. It will deliver lower power bills, it will grow the economy and it will deliver higher wages. So now is the time for this government to take that action. Scott Morrison can no longer run his anti-climate-change agenda, saying he will only meet net zero emissions in the second half of the century and, as we heard from Senator Bragg, only after they come up with a plan—acknowledging that there isn't one, as we stand here today. Australians need real climate action or we will all be left paying the price.
On the Labor team we have a clear target to tackle climate change: net zero carbon pollution by 2050. The world is decarbonising and we don't just need to make sure that Australia doesn't get left behind; we need to make sure that we actually take full advantage of the opportunities that present to a country like ours, because we have so much going for us. With the right plan and the right vision, we can be a clean energy super power with a new generation of jobs and cheaper power bills. We all know we have some of the best wind and wave resources in the world. We have the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent. And we have some of the best engineers and scientists in the world to take advantage of this. So working towards a low-carbon future means opportunities for our manufacturing sectors, opportunities for energy exports and opportunities for rare earth minerals mining.
And, of course, what it means is opportunities for good and secure jobs. Take, for example, Labor's plan to rewire the nation. The current energy network takes no account of the rise of renewables. It's not fit for purpose. It was designed for another time. That's why a Labor government would take action to rebuild and modernise the national energy grid. Rebuilding the grid will create thousands of jobs, particularly in regional Australia, and deliver up to $40 billion in benefits. It will only ever be Labor that will get this done. We know it makes sense. As the Morrison government becomes increasingly isolated on climate action, even the New South Wales Liberal government has announced its own plans to support more renewables. They've just announced plans to support new renewable energy generation supported by new storage, like batteries and pumped hydro, and they've confirmed again that renewable energy means lower power bills. So, if the New South Wales Liberals get it, why doesn't the Prime Minister?
I am particularly proud of the progress that's being made in my home state of Victoria. Just this week, the state government announced that the Southern Hemisphere's biggest battery is to be built just outside of Geelong. This is a project that will create good jobs. It will drive down electricity prices. It will boost reliability, and it will help support Victoria's transition to renewable energy. It will be good for the economy. It will be good for the environment. It will be good for the planet. Indeed, independent analysis has shown that for every $1 invested in this huge 300 megawatt battery it will deliver more than $2 in benefits to Victorian households and businesses.
In addition to the big projects like the 300 megawatt battery, the Victorian government is also helping local businesses and communities access clean energy. Just recently, they delivered grants across the state to fund projects such as community solar farms, community batteries and solar electricity systems for sports clubs. Those projects don't just help Victorians move towards the state's own 2050 net zero emissions target; they also create local jobs. That's what Labor governments can do: create jobs while supporting our environment and our planet's future—jobs in local manufacturing in regional areas like Geelong, where the old Ford factory has been transformed into a renewable energy hub; jobs in steel by setting local content requirements for all of those projects; jobs in solar installation by supporting households to install panels, hot water and batteries. This is creating jobs, driving energy prices down and driving our emissions down. And, of course, it's not just Victoria. Indeed, every state and territory is taking action to invest in renewables and drive down carbon emissions, so we call on the Morrison government and the whole parliament to unite behind 2050 net zero emissions and to unite around our future as a renewable energy powerhouse.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:52): I serve the people of Queensland and Australia, yet I have lived, worked and studied for five years in the USA and travelled through all 50 states. I know that under the United States' constitution the declaration of the polls in a presidential election is not made by the media or by political parties and certainly not by the commentariat. The declaration of the poll is made by each state legislature. Pennsylvania has ordered a recount. Other states will follow, because state legislatures are committed to counting every legal vote. As of today, not one legislature has declared a result and several states have now been precluded from declaring due to legal challenges to voting irregularities. This election won't be resolved for weeks, so congratulating former Vice President Biden is premature.
I understand the Greens are getting excited that a Biden or Harris presidency will advance the socialist, green agenda. What will this socialist, green agenda do to the United States? It will raise power prices as unreliable solar and wind energy expands and destroys base-load power generation, wiping out small and medium businesses and heavy industry. Under President Trump, heavy industry returned to the United States and brought high-paying, breadwinner jobs back for American workers.
The Democrats' Green New Deal will destroy those jobs forever. Americans thrown out of work by green policies will be forced onto a subsistence allowance from the government for the rest of their lives. This, the Greens have euphemistically named a 'universal basic income', and basic it will be. According to Stanford University, these policies will destroy 4.9 million jobs and reduce America's GDP by US$2.9 trillion every year of a Biden or Harris presidency. This is news to most people that I talk to, which is a damning indictment of the news media. The presentation of news is worse than just fake news; mainstream media has devolved to being propaganda.
President Trump's greatest achievements have been ignored by fake news, so let me remind everyone of these: the lowest black unemployment rate in history; the lowest Hispanic unemployment rate in history; the lowest female unemployment rate since World War II; the highest number of black-led business startups in history; the highest number of female-led business startups in history; the first president in 30 years to not start a new war; and five Nobel Peace Prize nominations for peace deals. The socialists' takeover of America will destroy these gains and end in misery. (Time expired)
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:55): It's terrific that we have got an opportunity through this motion put up by the Greens today to congratulate US President-elect Biden as well as Vice-President-elect Harris. Indeed, it is a moment in time that heralds a new hope for addressing global climate change. It is very pleasing to see that President-elect Biden has given a strong commitment to tackling the global climate crisis. Indeed, it is leadership, and global leadership, that is most welcome. If we are going to make real progress towards saving our planet from what even President-elect Biden has acknowledged is a climate emergency and an existential threat to our existence, then we need to see the US, as a major fossil fuel user and global leader, making real progress to not only reduce its own emissions but also, and equally importantly, leverage into the global debates that help bed this down as a global ambition.
For too long the Australian government has hidden behind the fact that the US government hasn't made an adequate commitment to addressing climate change to paper over its own lack of commitment and lack of ambition. I have to say: this lack of ambition, where they stood behind President Trump's politicking and tweets and shallowness around this debate, has been very convenient for the Morrison government, but it's not really steeped in the reality of where other global leaders are going. Everyone would note, for example, the important remarks from Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, who said that he shares Biden's slogan, 'Build back better', and promotes the idea of, and, indeed, the United Kingdom's commitment to, a green industrial revolution. You can very much see the enormous strides that the UK's strong policy settings have made in driving the United Kingdom towards that green industrial revolution. It is here that you can see some of the danger for the Australian community and Australia as a nation, particularly as one that is so dependent on global energy trading as part of its economy. We can see here that the UK has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and the fact that Prime Minister Johnson has highlighted—and, indeed, highlighted directly to Australia with a view to supporting us moving on these issues—that 'driving economic growth and reducing emissions can go hand in hand'. Those are Boris Johnson's own words.
It is high time that the Australian government got onboard. It can no longer effectively just say: 'We will do our own thing when it comes to climate change. We will do what is in our national interest.' If we are going to be true strategic partners with the US, if we are going to create a future for our heavy industries that are so reliant on gas, if we are going to create a future hydrogen industry and if we are going to be a good partner in the Pacific to our Pacific neighbours and with the US, then we must address climate change. We must get on the path of creating those green industrial jobs that Boris Johnson speaks about.
Biden's election as US President, I think, heralds a new era where we can look again to effective multilateralism. This is very much at the heart of what is in Australia's national interest, particularly when looking to address a climate change emergency and, indeed, the existential crisis for our planet that climate change represents. I really look forward to the US reviving its leadership role in global institutions. No longer will Australia be able to say, 'We're on track to meet our carbon commitments,' while at the same time saying it's going to bank its Kyoto credits, which all of the global leaders in climate change, all of those other nations, say is an illegitimate thing to do when it comes to accounting for global carbon emissions.
So it's wonderful, and I'm very pleased, about President Biden's election. Of course, Australia would have worked with goodwill with whomever was elected president, but it's very clear that the American people have made a democratic decision, with a record voter turnout. Frankly, I can understand why President Trump's nose is out of joint; he did get a record number of votes. But the simple fact is he didn't get as many votes as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It's terrific to see a reinvigorated American democracy, with such high levels of participation. It's also very good to see the robustness of that democracy in terms of the institutions there counting the votes and making sure that it is done credibly. I know that President Trump says he doesn't like losing; no-one does. I can reflect on my own experience of being unelected when the Electoral Commission, through misadventure, lost some ballot papers that affected the outcome of elections to this place. But there is no evidence that has come forth from the United States that there is any illegitimacy to the record-breaking participation in that election.
What the US election also very much shows is that people will vote for strong support for and strong action on climate change, which was a key part of Joe Biden's election campaign. We know that President-elect Biden campaigned on a promise of strong action on climate change—not only a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 but also a proposed $2 trillion in clean energy spending, and zero power plant emissions by 2035—and a 'build back better' plan to recover from COVID and the COVID recession. It is all about creating jobs from sustainable infrastructure and clean energy.
This Australian government likes to point to its own manufacturing agenda when it looks at that, but, although it says it wants to pursue low-emissions technology, it isn't seeking to use the structural levers that will drive the economic uptake of these new industries. That was clearly delivered with the renewable energy target as being a key lever that has helped renewable energy industries gain traction in Australia. But we see a complete lack of commitment and ambition coming from the Australian government. It is high time that the Australian government got itself a proper climate change policy, a policy that the Australian people can get behind because it will lower emissions and put us on a low-emissions path. The simple fact is that with the US now coming on board to make this transition and with the UK, Japan and Europe all already on board to make this transition, we will do a great disservice not only in the context of the impacts of climate change but also— (Time expired)
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:06): I was on my feet in this august chamber in 2016 when I saw a text come across my phone that President Trump had been elected. I remember stopping my speech and making a contribution about that and expressing my significant concern about what dark and dangerous days we had ahead under President Trump. I think, reflecting back on that, it's been entirely accurate.
What we learnt thanks to my colleagues' questions in estimates just last week about our current emissions trajectory in Australia and around the world was that, if Australia sticks to its current business-as-usual targets, we'll reach four degrees of warming by the end of the century. That will mean massive job losses in farming, tourism and trade, especially in Queensland, the Northern Territory and WA; extreme workplace risks for firefighters, health professionals and construction workers; huge price spikes for basic food, where only the wealthiest will be able to afford to secure what they want; 95 per cent of irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin will be wiped out, a former food bowl reduced to growing predominantly cotton; vast dead zones in the ocean with no more coral reefs and the extinction of all shellfish; mass migration and conflict over shrinking resources; equatorial zones will no longer be habitable, forcing people to find new places to live; intolerable heat stress and flash flooding across most of northern Australia, making it uninhabitable for most of the year; the end of Boxing Day tests and relaxed summer barbeques; and one in six animals in the world will become extinct. This is based on science; this is based on fact and what will happen if the world warms by four degrees by the end of this century.
We just heard two weeks ago in the latest scientific report by JCU in Queensland that 50 per cent of the corals have now gone from the Great Barrier Reef in the last decade. But there is a glimmer of hope, because on the weekend people in the US voted for change. They voted for a different vision; they voted to change the presidency. They voted for a president who campaigned on climate change, a green new deal and a green jobs recovery. I don't for one minute expect that that's not going to be a difficult thing for this President to achieve—it's a very divided country—but he has been very strong in his statements, as has his new administration, on acting on climate change.
Our Prime Minister and this government have been buddying up to a man who has been found to have lied 25,000 times to the American people and who, in recent days, has been attacking the principles of our democracy. It's time for us to change. It's time for us to accept that this is a new global reality, take real action on climate change and deliver a future for our grandchildren.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (17:09): On behalf of Centre Alliance I would like to congratulate President-elect Biden on his success in last week's election. When he assumes office in January, there will very much be an enormous weight of expectations on his shoulders. I don't envy him having that responsibility, particularly given the divisive nature of the previous president. But I believe America and the world are stronger when American leadership reflects the democratic, optimistic nature of the American people. I hope the new president fulfils these ambitions. I particularly welcome his pledges on climate change and commitment to rejoin the Paris Agreement. American leadership on climate change is absolutely essential. Few other countries or institutions have the ability or the influence to secure global commitments.
Global commitments are a necessary first step in ensuring policies are adopted to prevent climate change becoming a catastrophe. We've seen examples of that in Australia over the last six to nine months. Australia is one country that can and must do more. Recent natural disasters have demonstrated the impacts climate change can have on our country. They are a reminder of the need for action and that we must raise the level of our ambitions—and we must do it soon. It's been 13 years since former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared climate change the 'great moral challenge of our time' and yet we still haven't done what countries like Britain, Canada, New Zealand and many others have done and taken serious action. I continue to hope our government accept this reality and lets it inform their policies, and I hope that the new president's election provides the catalyst for change both here and abroad.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:11): With the election of Joe Biden and the predictably graceless but thankfully now inevitable demise of Donald Trump, Australia is left even more exposed as an international pariah on climate action. We have the US now committing to a zero-emission electricity sector by 2035, yet Australia now remains a global outcast on climate, along with countries like Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Leave aside the issue of national pride, leave aside—for now—the catastrophic impact on nature, on wildlife and on billions of people mostly living in poverty around the world; this will have massive local human and economic consequences.
But, sadly, it won't be the coal huggers or the gas boosters in this parliament who will bear the brunt of it. Nor will it be the executives of the fossil fuel companies who have purchased the Liberal, Labor and National parties in this place. It is going to be the working people of Australia who'll pay the price. Every day we waste in this place not taking action on the climate on our terms we make it even more certain that the decisions will be made on somebody else's terms. That means in the parliaments of other countries. That means in the boardrooms of the same fossil fuel companies. If we don't take action on our terms then more Australians will be thrown on the scrap heap more quickly. We need to make sure that we do take the action that the climate science says we need to take.
In doing so, we need to support the people and the communities who have built their lives and their economies around fossil feels and logging native forests. We need to support them through the inevitable transition that is approaching us. If we don't support them through the transition, the transition will happen to them anyway. We need to work with them to understand their fears, to understand their desires and to support them through the transition. We have to close the revolving door between the major parties and the boardrooms of fossil fuel companies in this country and we have to end political donations from those corporations and from the big loggers so that we can start looking after the climate, repairing nature and looking after the working people of Australia who need our support.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:14): It's with great pleasure that I rise to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. It is a momentous victory to stare down fascism and win. It's a win for women, for people of colour, for LGBTIQ+ people and for immigrants. It's a win against white supremacy and authoritarianism. It's a win for science and for the fight against our climate emergency.
Joe Biden has affirmed climate change as an existential threat. He has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and he has a plan for net zero electricity emissions by 2035. Australia, in contrast, is lagging woefully behind on the world stage and is an embarrassment. But Prime Minister Morrison and the Liberal and National parties are not listening. They're not listening to the fact that the science is clear that climate change is driving natural disasters and extreme weather. At current rates we risk hitting 1½ degrees of global heating by the end of the decade and four degrees by the end of the century—within the lifetime of children alive today. Just one degree of global heating resulted in last summer's devastating bushfires. You cannot adapt to four degrees of heating. If Australia is going to play its part to keep global heating to under 1½ degrees then our targets have to be at least a 75 per cent reduction by 2030.
Tackling our climate crisis is not about whether we meet pathetic reductions based on abysmally weak carryover targets from 15 years ago. It's about our future. It's about taking the required action to avoid unliveable conditions for children alive today. I said in my first speech, in 2014, that my agenda for my time in this place is clear: I want to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them that it was during my time in the Senate that Australia turned the corner and legislated to begin the shift to a zero-carbon safe-climate economy. I said we had to stop subsidising fossil fuels, we should close coal-fired power stations, we should say no to new gas and coal and we should make the big polluters pay for all the damage they're causing.
But shame on this government that we are still having to call for this six years later. It has been six long years of the Liberal-National government doing nothing except the bidding of its fossil fuel donors. We know what we need to do to fight the climate emergency, but we need the political will to make it happen. It's clear that this government hasn't got the political will. We need to turf it out and get a government that has.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:17): I rise to make a brief contribution on this urgency motion. What a relief. The US election result is a good thing for humanity. Donald Trump is a poisonous force in global politics. While it has become something of a cliche to say that Trump is a symptom not the cause of the far Right extremism he represents, it's also clear that the racism and white supremacy he stands for have been dealt a big blow. We can't dismiss the symbolic and practical importance of his removal from office. All who believe in equity, freedom, social justice and climate justice cheered on Trump's defeat.
As I reflect on the election result I'm thinking particularly of migrants and communities of colour in the US that have suffered much under the Trump administration, for whom there may now be some hope. I'm also thinking of the black-lives-matter, the green-new-deal and medicare-for-all activists who worked so hard to end Trump's regime. It was a joy to watch ordinary people filling America's streets with impromptu parties, dancing and laughter. We should celebrate this win in Australia. A win against the autocrats and the far Right is always worth celebrating. But while we celebrate we should also recognise a few uncomfortable truths.
Trump's new fascist presidency was too often given a free pass or endorsed by large sections of Australia's right-wing media and political classes, including some in this very chamber and some of the loudest media voices in the country. With the writing on the wall and Trump on the way out, quite a number of his former allies and advocates are now distancing themselves from his administration, but, mark my words, we won't forget what they supported and attempted to normalise, and we will continue to challenge their reactionary and toxic politics.
The dystopian racism and authoritarianism of the last four years has been rejected. More ambitious climate and energy targets are a good step forward. One consequence of the Biden election is that Australia will be more and more isolated in our dead-end obsession with fossil fuels led by this dead-end Liberal-National government. It's frankly embarrassing that our country is now even more of an outlier in addressing the climate emergency.
The future is so uncertain, and in the United States, here in Australia and across the world, as COVID-19 rages on, the urgency of tackling systemic racism, economic inequality and the climate emergency is only ramping up. I must say that all my strength and solidarity goes to the insurgent politicians, the grassroots activists and the social movements, which have been incredibly powerful. It goes out to them as we begin the end of this horrific chapter in global politics.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (17:20): I will make a little contribution on this motion here this evening. I don't have too much of an issue with the first part of the motion, which seeks to congratulate President-elect Biden on his victory. I think seeing a democratic election of a leader from whichever party is always a celebration of the free principles that we live by here in this country, and we hope other people around the world can similarly have rights to choose their own leaders. I celebrate that, for sure. It is strange, though, that the second part of the motion is almost seeking to undermine those very principles of democracy.
This motion seems to indicate that, because of the result of an election in the United States, we should change our own policies here. It seems to indicate that, because there was an election in the US last week involving, I think, something like 140 million to 150 million Americans who voted in the end, that should determine the policies of our nation. I've got a sort of quaint view that the policies that are decided in this country should be dictated by the free people of this country, expressing their views through a democratic process in our country—not in other countries. Those countries are free, and they have every right to elect the leaders that they choose, to adopt and implement policies as they see fit, but I firmly defend the right of Australians to decide what should happen in Australia. The latter part of this motion seeks to undermine what I thought would be a pretty standard and well-regarded principle across the chamber in this place, but we see people who otherwise support democracy—they say that they're against fascism and that they support democracy—wanting to see the Australian people bound in chains by the votes of those from overseas. Those two views are a little inconsistent and expose the lack of sincerity of those seeking to say that they support democracy when they're actually seeking to get their way. That's what they want; they want to get their way.
There are, of course, allegations in the United States of fraud occurring in this election last week. There are allegations of people from different states voting in other states and there are even allegations of dead people voting, but I haven't seen a single allegation that—maybe I've missed something—an Australian got to vote in the US election. Did that happen? Did any Australians get to vote in the US election? I don't think anybody has made that allegation yet; I don't think that's being litigated in the United States. Maybe I'd change my view on this if there were actually some kind of voice from Australians, but I don't think, despite the Greens attempt, we are going to be the 51st state of the United States. The Greens here seem want us to be part of the US. They want us to sign up and tie ourselves to the US and somehow become the 51st state of the union. I don't want to do that to Australia. I love America. We've got a great relationship with the United States, but we are a free, proud, independent nation here and should cherish and protect that.
No-one from the other side has mentioned that—they might have missed it; I've only seen some contributions from the other side—we had an election here last year. It wasn't that long ago that we had our own election in which all Australians got to vote and have their say on a range of issues, including the one that's dominating this debate: climate change. In fact, I went and had a look this afternoon. The Guardian website declared before last year's federal election that it was, in fact, a climate-change election—that the whole election was about climate change. The then Leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten, made it his final pitch a couple of days before the election, saying he wanted to send a message to the world on climate change. He made that policy a central part of his pitch. Labor took to the election a policy of cutting Australian carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030. That was a central part of their policy platform. Australians had their say last year and the Labor Party lost. They lost the election—they lost the climate-change election. Australians did not sign up to impose unilateral, radical cuts on our carbon emissions that would cost jobs here and do nothing to lower the temperature of the globe. They were not the policies that the Australian people supported at last year's election. They re-elected a government that, yes, through the agreements we have made, did seek to have a plan to cut our emissions, but to do so in a way that was consistent with other countries around the world, or at least with what other countries have said—I'll come to that. They elected a government that wanted to see the growth of great industries in this country, like coalmining. They wanted to see the Adani coalmine get going. It's up and running now. Over 1,500 people are now employed at that mine, thanks to the re-election of the Liberal-National government here in Australia.
That is what should happen in a democracy. The Liberal-National government gets to implement the policies that it took to the election, and policies of cutting carbon emissions by more than what we agreed with other countries were rejected. This motion seems seeks to overturn the will of the Australian people expressed just 18 months ago and impose a different set of policies because of an election in the US. What an absurdity.
I'll also just briefly touch on the fact that this motion glosses over the fact that there were many elections in the US last week. Many elections occurred in the United States, one of which, of course—the presidential election—has the most focus. But at every US election there is also an election for the House of Representatives and an election for the Senate—or at least a third of the Senate every two years. In those elections, the policies of the Democratic Party—I'm not seeking to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party in the US, but others are here in this chamber—purportedly saying that somehow they wanted to radically cut carbon emissions were all rejected. The Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives. They did not take over control of the Senate. So it's unclear that the United States will take any further action, from a legislative perspective, on climate change now, because their chambers, the ones elected by their own people, have not significantly changed from before the election.
That's just a small point though. The bigger point here is: what should we do? The bigger point is we should look to base our actions on what other countries do, not what they say. Too much of this debate is focused far too heavily on what other countries are saying. Whether it's the President-elect of the United States, whether it's the Chinese government, whether it's European governments or whether it's the re-elected New Zealand government, there's always this focus. Someone's come out and said they are going to go to net zero emissions—whatever that means—by 2050. They've committed to that. Therefore, we should act. In what universe should you do something based on what people say, not what they do? Smart people, sophisticated people, actually base their business decisions and their actions in life on action—what people actually do—not what they say. Anybody can say anything. It's very easy to say words. It's very easy to say: 'I'm going to do a 10-kilometre run this afternoon. I’m going to save lots of money this year. I'm going to cut back my spending.' It's very easy to say these things; it's a lot harder to do them.
We've seen that writ large through this climate change debate in recent years. For example, the New Zealand government has a net zero emissions commitment by 2050. They were just re-elected on that platform. They want to implement that policy. But they had a five per cent reduction by 2020 target under the Kyoto agreement. They wanted to cut their emissions by five per cent by this year. Guess what? Their emissions have only gone down by one per cent. They only got to 20 per cent of the target they committed to with the Kyoto agreement. But we're meant to believe: 'No, it will be different over the next 30 years. Don't look at what we've done; look at what we now promise to do in the next 30 years.' Why would we base our decisions in this country on that? Why would we put jobs and people's real livelihoods—people's actual jobs—and the sustainability of our public finances and our ability to fund our public services on the line?
Why would we put all that on the line based on the empty rhetoric and statements of other governments? Why would we put that on the line for the sake of the Paris Agreement, which doesn't impose any obligations on governments around the world? The Paris Agreement makes no binding commitments at all. That's demonstrated by the fact it never went through the US Senate, so it's not actually a treaty. It wasn't ticked off by the US Senate, as is required for treaties under the US Constitution. It's simply an agreement between countries that have no obligations to commit to it. No enforcement mechanisms were put in place at the behest of the Chinese government, which refused to sign up to proper accountability and enforcement under the agreement. There is no way of even knowing if other countries are doing what they say they are doing. So we should keep the long cherished principle of this nation that we decide what happens in this country. We should continue to act in the interests of those Australians who want to work, who want to have a job, who want to see our community thrive. We should not act on the views of those who are not in this country and we should certainly not act on the empty statements and rhetoric expressed by other governments that are not backed up by real action and real change.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the position moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (17:38): I present four ministerial statements relating to Australia's energy future, Australian industry and manufacturing, developing northern Australia, and rural and regional budget outcomes.
Developing Northern Australia
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (17:38): In respect of the ministerial statement on developing northern Australia, I move:
Motion to take note of documents nos 4, 6, 7, 13, 22, 23, 29, 51, 57, 59, 64, 72, 87, 92, 121, 157, 183, 185 and 200 moved by Senator Ciccone. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 9 moved by Senator Faruqi. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of documents nos 14, 27, 46, 47, 106, 141, 151, 180 and 194 moved by Senator Siewert. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
Motion to take note of document no. 15 moved by Senator Rice. Consideration to resume on Thursday.
I rise in response to the minister's statement to deliver a reply on behalf of my colleague, the shadow minister for northern Australia, Senator Watt. Labor shares the government's commitment to our nation's north. For decades, Labor has called for and supported its economic development, the protection of its fragile environment, the provision of quality health, education and other services to its people and the empowerment of our large First Nations population. Unfortunately, though, in northern Australia what we've seen from this government is what we've seen in so many other areas—plans off in the never-never which take forever to get out the door. In this statement it is interesting to see the government is blaming COVID-19 and last year's bushfires for its lack of progress in northern Australia. In reality, the government was struggling to deliver for the north well before Australia had ever heard of COVID-19.
The people of northern Australia have been waiting a long time to see the type of change that was promised. As the government admits in its statement, it still hasn't fulfilled all of the measures it announced five years ago. That's because the north Australian white paper is a prime example of what this government loves doing most—a big flashy announcement and zero follow-through. Five years on, the white paper must be gathering dust in the bottom drawers of an office somewhere. It's been slow progress for a plan that was supposed to mark the beginning of a new era of growth in northern Australia. Time after time, the government talks about the north's potential, but what it doesn't seem to understand is that people in the north are looking for action to realise that potential.
It's easy to lose count of how many reviews and rehashes of programs the government has announced for northern Australia in the last few years. Ask someone living in the north: they don't want another announcement from this government; they want delivery. The north Australia white paper is the crowning jewel. Its big-ticket announcement was supposed to be the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, now widely referred to as the 'non-action infrastructure fund'. It has been a huge disappointment to northern Australia and Australians in the north. The government is always happy to talk about how much they have approved or how much they're going to spend from the NAIF, but they're dead quiet when you ask, 'How much has actually gone out the door and into communities?' There's probably a good reason why they don't like to talk about that.
It's taken more than five years to squeeze out less than five per cent of the funding. Less than five per cent of every dollar promised for northern Australian projects has actually been delivered. This means it would take 116 years to finally complete the program if it kept going at the current spending rates. The NAIF has spent more on itself in administration costs than it has across all of Queensland: $10 million on job-creating projects, $31 million on itself. Not a single Queensland project north of Townsville has received a single dollar from the NAIF. The government has now given itself another five years to try and hit its funding targets, but communities in the north can't keep hanging on for funding to trickle down.
Labor has been calling for major projects for the NAIF for three years, and finally, recently, we saw the Morrison government admit its failures and commit to a much-needed overhaul of the program. Money must start getting out the door faster so that it can start turbo-charging northern Australia's recession recovery. Communities in the north are some of the harshest hit by the economic fallout of COVID-19 and have been repeatedly let down and forgotten by the Morrison government. The decision to pull back JobKeeper support too early has hurt businesses and workers across northern Australia, particularly in areas like Cairns, Townsville, Darwin and the Kimberleys, which have been hit hard by the international border closures.
With a bit of big-picture thinking and national leadership, northern Australia has a great opportunity to lead the way out of the COVID pandemic. The remote working opportunities that many of us have embraced during the COVID period have opened doors for many workers and businesses to expand beyond the city skyscraper. The work the state governments have done in the north during the pandemic has been tough. They've had to take tough decisions, but they have kept people safe and helped businesses to reopen to the customers on the doorsteps. This hard work was recently recognised at both the Northern Territory and the Queensland state elections, where voters backed in these decisions.
The government has always failed to follow through on its promises to create new jobs in the region. An article in the Townsville Bulletin over the weekend revealed that around three-quarters of the NAIF's staff live in Sydney—about 1,400 kilometres from the southernmost point of northern Australia. We also recently found out that the government doesn't have a single full-time worker stationed in North Queensland at the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority—not one. The authority has been operational for 18 months, and the best the government can do for the people of North Queensland is a team in Canberra, consulting on important projects for North Queensland, including the Hells Gate dam, the Big Rocks weir and the Hughenden irrigation scheme projects. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Morrison government's northern Australia agenda is northern in name only. Perhaps, with that level of attention to detail, it shouldn't be a surprise that they had to scrap the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, which failed to deliver a cent of its $2 billion fund. But, hey, at least they delivered the announcement. The ministerial statement makes it clear that all the Morrison government has delivered for northern Australia in the last five years since the white paper was launched is a series of announcements.
We all want to see the northern parts of Australia flourish. A strong northern Australia is good for the whole country. But, at the moment, the federal government is unable or unwilling to make that happen. People in the north want more than platitudes about their potential and resilience. It's time the Morrison government got on with the job and started delivering real results for northern Australia, rather than just talking about it and doing nothing. Northern Australian people need better than this.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:47): I also rise to take note of the statement on developing northern Australia. I want to make a few remarks.
Last week, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia was up in the Pilbara with regard to the Juukan Gorge destruction. I'm not going to comment on that, because that's the subject of a report that will be coming out in the next two weeks of sitting. However, it is related to why I want to comment on this statement. What's very significant about the statement is that, under 'Partnership with Indigenous Australians', it says:
Working in partnership with Indigenous Australians lies at the very heart of northern development.
What we heard about last week when we were talking to First Nations peoples, and, in fact, it's what we've heard when we've had other hearings in the Juukan Gorge inquiry, is the impact that mining is having on First Nations peoples in the Pilbara, on the traditional owners—their inability to get onto country. You've got First Nations peoples and traditional owners having to ask permission from mining companies just to go on a camping trip on country. They have to give the companies 48 hours notice, and then someone turns up with a key and lets them onto to their own country.
Last week, we heard that one of the Aboriginal corporations was spending 80 per cent of its revenue on governance. We delved further into that issue, and it's actually about mining and clearance, about heritage clearances for mining. So 80 per cent of the royalties that they get is spent facilitating mining on country that they have to ask permission to get onto now. So you have these mining companies and the government saying, 'Aboriginal organisations and First Nations peoples make money out of mining because they get royalties.' But here's this corporation having to spend its royalties to facilitate yet more mining, which will exclude them from more country. You've got First Nations people being denied access to important sites because there's rail access nearby, and therefore they can't enter that country—because of the rail easement going through. How is this 'working in partnership with Indigenous people'? It isn't.
Of course we all know about what happened to Juukan Gorge. We all know that there are 100 other sites that are currently covered by section 18 development applications. Many of them are in northern Australia. The government, both state and federal, is not doing anything to stop those section 18s going ahead. Yes, we have draft changes to the heritage act in Western Australia, but those sites are still under threat. So you have those sites under threat and, once you get a section 18, mining companies take them off their plans so they can't see them as a site anymore. You have people being denied access to their country more and more. That is not a partnership. That is continued occupation of land by mining companies and pastoralists. First Nations peoples come down the bottom when it comes to being able to get access to their land.
Things need to improve. We need to completely relook at how mining is allowed to occur on First Nations peoples' country so that they are not kept off that country. You can't even go for a camping trip. It is having an impact on people in the Pilbara. Go and talk to them. We need to acknowledge that this is not the way that we should be doing business in Western Australia or anywhere in the north of Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Energy
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (17:51): In respect of the ministerial statement on energy, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
The minister's statement on energy was just as you'd expect from Minister Taylor—20 minutes of self-congratulation, having achieved remarkably little. It was the parliamentary equivalent of telling yourself 'good job' on Facebook. The clearest statement of what the government thinks about energy policy is not what the minister said in the House. It's what the government has been doing or, more correctly, not doing for the last eight years.
The Liberal and National government has had 22 energy policies in the last eight years. Those 22 energy policies have had two things in common. None of them have made a real difference in driving down electricity prices and none of them have made a real difference in driving down emissions. Energy emissions reduction policy actually marks a break from the government's tradition of overpromising and then failing to deliver, because this government won't even begin with the first part—promising. There's no policy, and that is because this minister's goal is not to deliver an emissions policy or an energy policy; it is to fight renewables.
This is a minister who before his appointment was a fixture at anti-wind-farm rallies. This is a minister who after his appointment went on Alan Jones's show and said, 'There's too much solar and wind in this system.' This is a minister who said in the other place:
The new climate religion … has little basis on fact and everything to do with blind faith.
His ideological position shines through loud and clear in the government's 22nd energy policy. The problem is that it was outdated eight years ago and it has only become more irresponsible since.
With the election of President-elect Biden and his commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, more than 70 per cent of Australia's trade is with countries who have committed to net zero by 2050—and Australia is an outlier. Net zero by 2050 is becoming the global orthodoxy, and there are real costs for Australia in continuing to be a laggard. There is a race on. It is a race to attract investment to transform the global economy, and that investment means more projects and it means more jobs. Australia could and should be a leader. We should be a clean energy superpower. We have an extraordinary wealth of resources necessary to play that role, but we are not doing anything about it under this government, which is unable to settle on an energy policy. It seems increasingly likely that there may be trade consequences for countries that don't act responsibly on climate, and Australia may well be vulnerable to measures like carbon border tariffs unless we act.
Net zero by 2050 is not—as some of the people on the other side of this chamber would have you believe—an unusual proposition in the Australian debate. The BCA, the AiG, the big banks, the big insurers and the super funds have all said that the pathway to economic recovery should be aligned with the national commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. That target is supported by every state government. The reason for that support is pretty straightforward: energy transformation is an opportunity for developing good jobs. It's an opportunity for industry, and that is particularly the case in regional Australia.
The Clean Energy Council has gone on the record saying there are renewable energy products that already have planning approval and are ready to be built. That would create 50,000 jobs, and we are just waiting for an investment framework that would accommodate them. That's the advice from the industry body. It's in stark contrast to what's available from the government's gas-fired recovery announcement, which I explored with the department during estimates. I gave them multiple opportunities, on multiple days, with a week in between, to come back to the Senate and tell us what jobs would flow from their announcement. They cannot point to a single job that will be created, within a relevant time frame, in the next 12 to 18 months. This is the period when the Australian economy will need support. Yet the announcement, the press release, put out by this government contains absolutely nothing to stimulate jobs. The CSIRO modelling used by the New South Wales Liberal government shows that net zero emissions by 2050 will deliver higher wages, stronger economic growth and lower power bills.
You have to wonder what it is about Minister Taylor and his ideological fixations that don't allow him to respond to that evidence, to the government's own science research agency, because Australia is not on track for net zero and, despite what the Prime Minister is fond of saying, we are not on track to meet our Kyoto targets. We are in the bottom five of performers as ranked by the Climate Change Performance Index. But it's also apparent from the government's on data. The August figures show that in the last six-year period of the last Labor government emissions came down by 15 per cent. What happened over the six years of this government? Emissions came down by one per cent. It will take 600 years to get to net zero emissions under this government's current rate of emissions cuts.
The Prime Minister said we smashed the Kyoto protocol target. That's only if you count the reduction under the policies they opposed and have since repealed. The Prime Minister continues to claim that we'll meet and beat our Paris target of 26 per cent by 2030. That would be true if we maintained the trajectory we were on in 2013, but the government's own projections from December last year show that between 2020 and 2030, on this government's policies for a whole decade, we'll cut emissions by four per cent. It will take us 230 years, at that rate, to get to net zero emissions.
The anti-renewables crusade prosecuted by this minister, who delivered this statement, has delivered Australians higher energy prices. Indeed, the fixation with promoting new coal-fired generation is only commercially viable if there are higher wholesale prices, and analysis after analysis shows that this is true. It's what analysts have been saying, generally, about new coal for a long time. Bloomberg New Energy Finance said:
But even if the government were to completely de-risk coal by paying for the whole plant and guaranteeing an exemption from any future liabilities, the lowest LCOE that could be achieved is … still well above wind, solar or gas.
According to AIG:
… new coal-fired generators are unlikely to bring current prices down because they require even higher prices to be bankable; they are a poor fit to stabilise the grid …
Even the Prime Minister himself, when he was Treasurer, said, 'We shouldn't kid ourselves that a new coal plant would bring down electricity prices anytime soon.' Despite this, the two main outcomes that the government has delivered since the election are a grant to operate the Vales Point Power Station and a grant to Shine Energy, a decision that has been referred to and is being investigated by the Auditor-General.
There is another way to approach this. We have rich natural resources. We do have the opportunity to be a renewable energy super power exporting into our region. The minister could have chosen something very different. He should have delivered a statement that set out a real plan for Australia to bring on those jobs and bring that industry to our shores, to our regions. Instead, we got an empty speech from a minister who has described climate change as a religion, led by a Prime Minister who brought a chunk of coal into the parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Rural and Regional Budget Outcomes
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:00): In respect of the historic first annual Ministerial Statement on Rural and Regional Budget Outcomes, delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place on 8 October and tabled here today, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
As the National Party Senate leader and a very proud rural Australian, I welcome and endorse this statement. It is our plan for a rural-and-regional-led economic recovery. The Nationals are proud barrackers for the bush in good times and in tough times. The 2020-21 budget is a budget for regional Australia. It is a plan to ensure we emerge post-COVID in a stronger position.
The year 2020 has been like no other in living memory. Many of our regional communities continue to navigate through years of drought and communities across northern Queensland faced the worst flooding on record. Large areas of the country were ravaged by summer bushfires which tragically claimed 33 lives and decimated more than 17 million hectares, and we sadly saw the death of more than one billion Australian native animals. Then, as the recovery process started, an equally tragic pandemic swept the world. It brought so many of our already hurting rural and regional communities to their knees.
However, out of every tragedy and hardship there is cause for hope. This is an opportunity to review and to reset our targets and goals. From the rubble of these hardships, we've already seen the opportunities we've been able to create for an even more prosperous and vibrant future. From COVID-19 we've seen the rapid expansion of telehealth, increasing connectivity gains, greater remote-working opportunities and agile and flexible manufacturing from our regional manufacturers. We've seen the migration of so many city residents to their new homes in the country, who we welcome with open arms. Bernard Salt has been mapping that transition of urban Australians embracing our lifestyle and liveability out in regional areas. We've seen the ability to truly collaborate with some, not all, of our state and territory counterparts to deliver sensible policy with less red tape for our industries—like the code achieved for our national freighters—and that's kept us going.
As the Deputy Prime Minister outlined in his statement on regional Australia, the regions offer opportunity and, along with that, a quality of life that is second to none: a life with less traffic; homes with big backyards; reliable, well-paying, sustainable jobs and careers; and affordable living. This is regional Australia, where you are connected to your fellow Australians in a very human-like community and you can tap into and connect with the natural environment in ways that you can't in our capital cities. It's not just the National Party that have been saying it, the Business Council of Australia has penned an opinion article recently which recognises the key role our regions will play in securing Australia's economic and social recovery.
We have the jobs too. I continue to hear and read of unfilled jobs out in regional Australia in everything from high-paying professional careers, to hospitality and to jobs in our fabulous, globally focused agriculture industry. It's absolutely dire for so many in agriculture right now. Many farmers are at their wits end, having to plough-in bumper crops after fabulous rains to start off the season because they can't get the workers. In Maranoa, in the Darling Downs, we've got 10,000 jobs in agriculture that need to be filled just this season. Farmers in Cairns and Wide Bay need 15,000 workers right now. The New South Wales grain industry alone was calling for 3,000 workers at the start of harvest. Not to mention there are the tens of thousands of job vacancies in agriculture in my home state of Victoria, in Shepparton, the Mallee, Gippsland and beyond.
The Nationals back incentives to help fill the worker void in the region. There's up to $6,000 available to cover relocation costs for Australians wanting to head inland. We back the incentives to help those who want a better life with us out in regional communities. We back tax relief that will boost GDP by $3.5 billion in 2020-21 and $9 billion in 2021-22. Our lower-tax approach will help create 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22. The key indicator of success in economic recovery is the number of jobs we create. When we think back to National Party governments of the past we think of Black Jack McEwen and his backing of the manufacturing, mining and agriculture sectors, driving reforms across international trade frameworks. His one KPI for himself and the Menzies government was full employment: how would we get the increased number of immigrants who flooded our shores post World War II employed in sustainable careers not just in our capital cities but right throughout regional Australia as well?
We're supporting young people to get into tertiary education so they can get the jobs they want in industries where they're needed. And we're supporting the millions of small businesses, who are the heart and soul of rural and regional communities, with a $32 billion cashflow boost to around 800,000 small businesses. More than 99 per cent of businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion can write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase for their business. The Nationals back small businesses because they employ local people and support local communities, like our footy and netball clubs. Small businesses are our innovators, our adapters to change and the value-add champions. This budget is for them, to help them rebuild their communities and our economy through value-added manufacturing. Our $1.5 billion modern manufacturing plan sets six priority areas that include regional industries, because the regions are the perfect place to build advanced manufacturing across foods and beverages, minerals and critical resources, defence, and sustainable forestry products. I'd like to see the government back not just our food and beverage industry but our fabulous fibre industries—our timber harvesters, who have world-class processing facilities; our wool producers, including our growing alpaca-farming community; our cotton gins et cetera. We want to value add to those primary products in regional communities, and I'm looking forward to seeing government support for that.
As we've seen firsthand through the pandemic, Australians are resilient and adaptable. No longer do we need to rely on congested cities and high-rise office towers to collaborate and innovate. Our regional small businesses are perfectly placed to pick up the manufacturing baton. We need to encourage businesses out of the city. City based small businesses should make the move and make their mark in regional Australian manufacturing. The Nationals' vision is that Australia will make the products Australia needs right here at home. We need to make Australia make again by investing in industries in the regions, where we already produce 32 per cent of total manufacturing, to create jobs.
We're building water infrastructure, through the national water grid, to build on our potential. Just add water—we've got everything else we need out in regional communities! We're building rail infrastructure, such as the $10 billion Inland Rail project, to connect producers to markets like never before. Our $5 billion Future Drought Fund, for instance, is about preparing for the future. In communities right across regional Australia the Nationals are backing infrastructure. We're backing connected communities, which isn't just about ports, rails and roads but about digital connectivity as well. We're proud to be part of a government that's investing $4½ billion in new upgrades to the NBN. Our Mobile Black Spot Program now has more than 850 activated base stations so businesses can connect to their markets and customers anywhere in the world. We've also backed connected communities through our $100 million commitment to regional airports over the next four years. This will ensure our regional airports maintain their vital link for regional communities, from food deliveries to health care, from transporting our fabulous fresh, clean, green produce to the markets of the world to ensuring that our medical professionals can get into regional communities and towns and service their residents.
The $50 million Public Interest News Gathering program will provide financial support to our 91 regional media outlets at a time when we need our fourth estate more than ever before. We don't want capital city newsrooms reporting on us; we want news gathering and news reporting that is from us, that is embedded in our communities, that understands who we are and what we need to hear—not some romanticised version of who they think we are.
The fact is that the Nationals are working to ensure our nation's recovery through practical investment in regions and industries that will deliver jobs, drive economic growth and give confidence to Australians that, together, we will get through this pandemic. We are building our sovereign capability and, by doing so, we are securing the future of Australia and our nation.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (18:11): The regions are the key to Australia. They are the key to our history, our culture and our future. They are the key to our recovery from this crisis. The regions are home to about a third of our population, but they punch well above their weight in accounting for almost 40 per cent of our national economic outlook and contributing half of our nation's growth since the global financial crisis. Too often our regional communities are talked about in terms of crisis—of drought, flood, fire and lack of services—when in fact their story is far more complex and their contribution to our nation far more significant. From farming to resources, energy production, manufacturing, tourism and service provision, our regions contribute so much to our nation—often more than they are given credit for.
Labor knows and recognises this. It is only a month ago that Mr Anthony Albanese delivered his vision statement on regional Australia, talking about the talented, ambitious Australians who work hard and work smart in our regions—the regional people who do so much for our country and who have the potential to do so much more. Over recent years and, most accurately, over the last 12 months, those strong communities and proud people have been tested. I won't pretend that times have been easy. The regions of Australia have borne the brunt of multiple challenges—drought, flood, fire and the pandemic. Alone, each of these challenges would have historical significance and would have been remembered as markers of a period. Instead, we had all four over the course of a few months. Through it all, regional Australians have shown their best and stood up to everything demanded of them. Communities stood by each other through fire, flood and drought. Through COVID, communities came together in new ways. They met on Zoom. New businesses emerged, and walking outside became the new meeting room.
Now, as we recover, regions are poised to lead the way. The Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow minister for infrastructure have had many political differences, but they truly are on a unity ticket when it comes to the joys of living in regional Australia. I cannot understand why anyone would live anywhere else; we know all the regional members of the House share that feeling! Regions are joyful places, marked by strong communities and proud people. They are the economic powerhouse of our nation, contributing a third of our national output and providing employment for a third of all working Australians.
Our regions have been central to the economy of our nation through times of crisis in our history. Labor has long known this. In 1942, with war still raging, John Curtin looked to the regions as a source of untapped economic growth to drive postwar reconstruction. In the 1970s Gough Whitlam looked to the regions as a source to tackle the entrenched social inequality that marred our nation. Bob Hawke helped build regional centres such as Geelong, Newcastle, Mackay, Townsville, Bunbury, Launceston and Hobart into wonderful, vibrant places to live, with strong local communities.
Last time Australia faced an economic crisis, back in the global financial crisis, another Labor government looked to the regions. We focused on sparking regional growth and building connections between regions and cities, knowing that doing so would build regional resilience. Today, as we emerge from these crises, the regions can do it again. However, to drive regional recovery you need a regional policy and a plan, and this government, despite the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister, does not have a regional policy, let alone a plan for regional Australia. As you heard, all they have is a grab bag of programs and funding initiatives, without a central policy to guide them. They have no clear vision of where regions are now and where they want them to be in the future.
You cannot get to your destination without a map. The Morrison government is driving blind. The government's own Strategic Regional Growth Expert Panel—chaired by Peter Ryan, former Victorian Deputy Premier and Nationals leader—highlighted just this point. In their final report, which the government belatedly released only after a Senate order, this expert panel recommended the Commonwealth implement a regional development framework. They also recommended that the government deliver a white paper on regional Australia as soon as possible and be completed no later than July 2020. It's now November 2020 and we ask, 'Where is it?'
Instead, regional policy has continued under Prime Minister Morrison the same way it did under Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull—a grab bag of funds largely in the control of the National Party for their use in pork-barrelling. When it comes to the regions, this budget is more of the same. Now they have gotten so brazen that they don't even try to hide it. Last month on ABC Ballarat the Deputy Prime Minister was asked why that part of regional Australia again missed out in the budget. His answer: 'Maybe you need to look at your federal member.' I'm not making this up. You can't make this up. He isn't even bothering to hide it. The only regions he cares about are those that elect members of his party room. This is nothing short of disgraceful. The Deputy Prime Minister openly said to residents of regional Australia that he will only deliver the infrastructure and services they need when they vote for a member of his party.
Maybe that is why we don't have a regional plan—because it might involve supporting, God help us, all of regional Australia. Instead, we have a grab bag of funding schemes and endless pork-barrelling. Guess what? It ain't working. Health, employment and education outcomes are generally poorer for regional Australians than for people in metropolitan areas. In the regions they also have greater difficulty in accessing services. The Morrison government is doing too little to fix it. Geographic distance, small markets and economies of scale all contribute, of course, but the government needs to provide the services that can make this better.
The Nationals like to talk to themselves and whoever might be unfortunate to hear them. They talk themselves up as the party of the bush, but their stranglehold on allocating regional funding continues to the detriment of regional cities and remote Australia. It has got to change. The local governments across the country that worked so hard to submit applications to the main regional funding program—that is, the Building Better Regions Fund—describe it as nothing short of a lottery. If it were a lottery, at least each region would have an equal chance of winning. But under the Morrison government money continues to flow to the favourites and, unfortunately, the others miss out.
Funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, the Building Better Regions Fund and the Drought Communities Program has been so highly partisan that it is no wonder that the ANAO is now taking an interest in these programs. Under round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund, 155 of 165 projects were in coalition seats or coalition targets—155 of the 165. Ahead of the last election, four regional Labor seats in Newcastle and the Hunter shared just over $200,000 through the Community Development Grants Program, with two of them receiving nothing, while the two Nationals seats received—are you ready for this?—$20 million each. And who can forget the North Sydney pool? In the shadows of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, this pool scored a $10 million upgrade through the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream, a program designed to remove barriers to women participating in sport 'in our regions'—the proud regional community of North Sydney! So much for the Nationals being the party of the bush!
At its current rate, the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility will take 150 years to spend its $5 billion. It's just been extended again, because you cannot get the money out the door. That's the truth of the matter: you can't get anyone to apply for it. This in no way grows the regions. It serves only to entrench disenchantment, pit regions against each other and deliver worse outcomes. No-one talks up regional Australia like the Nats, but no-one lets down regional Australia like them either. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Manufacturing
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (18:21): In respect of the ministerial statement on industry and manufacturing, I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
In her ministerial statement on industry and manufacturing, the industry minister stated, 'For too long successive governments have tinkered at the edges when it comes to manufacturing policy.' I agree, but it's a real shame that this government plans to keep tinkering around the edges, persisting with its delusion that corporate investment will be enough to create a sustainable energy sector and its refusal to take responsibility for all of our welfare by properly investing in the industries of the future. It's a shame this government continues to be captured by its donors in the fossil fuel industry, jeopardising the future of our young people, our economy and the planet. Either this government has no vision for the future or it can see the future its irresponsible policies will create and it simply does not care. I'm not sure which one is worse.
With the welcome end to the Trump administration, Australia will be even more of an outlier in the fight against global warming and the climate catastrophe. If we do not act now, we will not only be condemning humanity and the planet to the terrible consequences of the climate crisis but also be facing increasing hostility on the global stage for our irresponsibility, and our trade relationships will inevitably deteriorate. We should not be climate rogues when we are so well placed to lead the renewable energy revolution. Australians are not climate deniers, and our leaders need to wake up to that fact. An industry and manufacturing plan that does not address climate is no plan at all. A gas-led recovery is no recovery at all.
This government sees our beautiful environment as a quarry. It sees our workers as mere cogs in the wheel of the economy. This government is basing its industry and manufacturing policy on backward principles. It thinks that the economy and the society we live in should be designed according to what's good for big business and financial markets, not people, not communities and not nature. It thinks deregulation, corporate welfare, tax cuts for big business, the wise invisible hand of the private market and 19th century fossil fuel sources are what will take us forward. Well, they will not. They will do quite the opposite, and we won't let you take us backwards. Encouraging unsustainable industries now means locking in an even deeper climate catastrophe.
So what would a real manufacturing plan look like? A really future focused industry and manufacturing policy would be based on principles of collectivism, environmental justice and social justice, where workers have agency and the ability to have a real say and control in their workplaces and enjoy the value of the goods they produce, and where communities lead the planning for their renewable energy future to transition their local economies to suit their needs and make the most of their strengths and local expertise.
As an engineer, I have been trained to solve problems. I know that Australian manufacturing can help us bring a clean, jobs-rich future. The prospect of remaking manufacturing using innovation and advanced technology whilst simultaneously addressing sustainability is quite exhilarating. The possibilities are endless, and we certainly have the expertise to make this happen, but what has really been lacking is political will. There is no shortage of sustainable projects that the government could directly invest in that will help us create the safer sustainable world we want to build for future generations. Rather than exporting climate-destroying fossil fuels, we should be exporting our sunlight and wind as green hydrogen or zero-emissions processed minerals and resources. We should implement a jobs-rich manufacturing revival by investing billions in green industry programs to support the shift to clean green manufacturing. We should modernise and expand Australian manufacturing by promoting manufacturing processes of the future, including green steel hubs in Queensland and New South Wales, as well as green aluminium.
The future of work is in diverse models of ethical, cooperative workplaces. Researchers from Western Sydney University, Newcastle university and my previous uni, UNSW, are exploring the exciting opportunities presented by social enterprises and microfactories. By supporting alternative models of production and workplace organisation, we could enrich our industrial and manufacturing landscape. We should put in place new government procurement policies that prioritise Australian products in Commonwealth funded projects and ensure that our supply chains are sustainable and ethical. We could invest in renewables research and development and set a course to become a renewables powerhouse and attract 21st century industries like data centres, battery and carbon-fibre manufacturing. As fossil fuel production ends—and we know that it will—we can create enough good, secure, well-paid jobs to more than cover for those that will be lost. A just transition for workers in dying industries is essential, and the government is abrogating its responsibility to these workers by not planning and not investing in the wholesale shift to sustainable energy.
When I imagine the world that we could build together, I see a place where country is respected and cherished, where we care for each other, and where our TAFE and uni is fee free so that we can nurture, encourage and champion the brilliant ideas of our people to fruition.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:27): Labor has also welcomed the fact that the government has finally, at long last, put forward a plan for Australian industry and manufacturing. We've seen seven years of neglect under this government, where it has not put forward any serious commitment to Australia's manufacturing sector, and this is very sadly an agenda that the government has recycled.
Australia has always been a country that makes things. We're very good at it. People see the Australian Made logo here and overseas, and they know that what we've made is of good quality. But the coalition neglected Australian manufacturing and, in fact, worse than that, goaded General Motors Holden into leaving Australia. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how important Australian manufacturing is to us. When the need for personal protective equipment and hand sanitiser increased, our local manufacturers did indeed answer the call. Shifting their production, they started producing materials that we needed here. I want to say that we are all, as Australians, incredibly grateful to all those manufacturers that have kept us safe. But this is no thanks to the Australian government.
When I asked the department of industry in estimates what they had done in this space, they said they'd put the call out to Australian manufacturers to see what they could do. And, yes, indeed, Australian manufacturers responded. So what did the department of industry then do? They passed that information on to the Department of Health, which is all well and good. However, the Department of Health is there to make sure that we've got a supply, that it meets the quality standards and that we've got enough supply, but actually it was completely agnostic, as far as I can tell, as to whether any of the products that were acquired by Health were actually manufactured in Australia. So for all that talk from the Commonwealth government, from the Morrison government, about their support for Australian manufacturing and those who've dug in deep to get supply happening in the context of COVID, when I asked the department of industry, 'Where's the record of what Australian manufacturers and suppliers have done?' they said, 'Oh. You would have to ask the Department of Health, but generally their tenders are for the product itself, and I wouldn't expect they would necessarily know whether the product was made in Australia or not.'
It has taken a global pandemic, not just on this front but on many other fronts, to expose the failures of the government with respect to supporting Australian manufacturing. When the government announced their manufacturing plan, I wasn't and Labor wasn't surprised to see the six areas identified in the plan as being priorities. They are priorities, and indeed they were priorities when Labor put them in our plan, A Plan for Australian Jobs, back in 2013. These were certainly priorities and remain so seven years later when the government has finally announced them as their priorities. So, because of this neglect, it's not so much a plan as it is a reversal of bad policy decisions, the biggest of which, of course, is the research and development tax incentive, which was a backflip of astronomical proportions. It'd be gold at the Olympics. This government would have you think that it's a $2 billion investment in research and development and not, as we know it to be, a reversal of a proposed $1.8 billion cut. It's not new money. It's not new investment. Under this government, Australia's R&D investment has fallen below two per cent of gross domestic product. All of this is at the same time as universities, which do much of this research that also supports our manufacturing sector, have had much of their research budgets massacred by the impact of the loss of international students here on Australian campuses.
It is not just the tax incentive that the government's backflipped on; we have a government that got rid of the instant asset write-off and then brought it back. They got rid of the loss carry-back and then they bought it back. They got rid of Commercialisation Australia, and now again the government talks about how important it is to commercialise Australian research and products. So it's no surprise to me or anyone else in the Labor Party that they would scrap Labor's manufacturing plan and bring it back some seven years later.
This government's great at its big policy announcements, big headlines and great photo opportunities, but they lack the follow-up. They really do lack the follow-up. All of these are areas of priority within a manufacturing plan that should have been sustained, maintained and not put forward as some new invention now.
My good colleague Clare O'Neil MP said in the other place, 'They are all froth and no beer.' They have spruiked their $1.5 billion plan for manufacturing for all the cameras, grabbed headlines and photo opportunities but the details—it's all in the details—show only $40 million of the $1.5 billion plan is being spent this financial year. That's less than three per cent of funding slated in the budget for this program for Australian manufacturing being spent this financial year. That is at a time when we know that many Australian manufacturers have experienced a crisis in demand, an impact on employment supply or, in some cases, a desperate need for support to scale up because of an increase in demand as a result of the changes in trade dynamics. It is absolutely woeful that this is the state of the government's agenda. Our economy needs stimulus now, and our government should be providing it, not just the macrostimulus of JobKeeper, JobMaker, asset write-offs et cetera. This manufacturing policy is completely devoid of any commitment to the parts of our manufacturing economy that should be supported with bespoke policies in different ways.
Labor have always supported the Australian manufacturing industry. We consider manufacturing in this country to be a critical part of our economy and the creation of well-paid jobs. That has always been our commitment and our vision. It's not something to just trot out when you need a headline for economic recovery; it should be an embedded part of an economic agenda always. We want to keep presenting strong policies that would see well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs right around our country—in our metro areas and in our regions.
One really good opportunity that this government isn't delivering on is to get behind Australia's national rail sector. There are billions of dollars slated for future public transport, which the Commonwealth has finally got around to changing its agenda on and is willing to support, but why not leverage off procurement to support that? Billions of dollars are being invested in public transport projects: Western Sydney rail, Melbourne metro, Perth METRONET and many more. Eleven thousand new railcars will be required in three decades. We want to see rolling stock manufactured here in Australia. It would see some 659 full-time jobs, boosting our GDP by up to $5 billion.
These are the kinds of plans that we need for Australian jobs and Australian manufacturing: plans for jobs in places like Maryborough, Newcastle, Dandenong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Perth; plans to stop job losses; plans for better cooperation and coordination between the states to create a strong and stable industry for the future; plans for federal funding for rail projects, leveraging real local jobs and a local industry. In a manufacturing agenda for this nation we more than a press conference and a photo opportunity. We need a plan that delivers real investment where it is needed—and quickly.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020
Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:39): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:39): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. I move:
That these bills be now read a second time
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
AGED CARE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (IMPROVED HOME CARE PAYMENT ADMINISTRATION NO. 1) BILL 2020
I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020.
This Bill amends the way that home care providers are paid Government subsidy.
Providers currently receive the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient in advance, using an estimate based on previous months. The provider then lodges a claim after the end of the month, at which time a reconciliation occurs. Underpayments of subsidy are then rectified immediately, while overpayments are withheld from future payments.
This Bill will amend the legislation such that a provider will not receive a payment in advance, but will be paid the monthly subsidy for a home care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia after the end of each month.
The Government intends to introduce a second Bill that will amend the legislation such that home care providers will only be paid subsidy for services rendered to a care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent subsidy for which a care recipient is eligible in each month.
This unspent subsidy will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of a care recipient as services are provided in future.
This will address stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and align home care arrangements with other Government programs, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (IMPROVING UNPAID PARENTAL LEAVE FOR PARENTS OF STILLBORN BABIES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2020
The Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave For Parents Of Stillborn Babies And Other Measures) Bill 2020 introduces a package of important changes to the unpaid parental leave provisions in the Fair Work Act.
COVID-19 has dramatically changed how parents are combining work and care. That's why, in addition to the various measures already introduced by the Government to support employees impacted by COVID-19, the Government is pressing ahead with delivering on important reforms to unpaid parental leave as part of its ongoing commitment to parents and families.
These changes will provide improved support to employees who experience stillbirth or the death of a child in the first 24 months of life and introduce much needed flexibility into the unpaid parental leave provisions, which employees and employers alike have criticised for being too rigid and preventing them from agreeing on more flexible leave arrangements following birth.
Under these changes, parents whose babies are hospitalised following birth will also have greater flexibility in deciding how they can use their unpaid parental leave.
Finally, the changes will also provide all parents with more choices in how they take their unpaid parental leave in a way that suits their family, to complement the changes the Government recently introduced to increase flexibility in the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Stillbirth and death of a child in the first 24 months of life
Stillbirth is a tragic event for any family. Six babies are stillborn every day in Australia, making it the most common form of child mortality in Australia.
Informed by the recommendations of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Education and Research, the Government is developing the National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan. The Government has brought together key government and non-government organisations to improve stillbirth prevention and care, raise awareness and strengthen education, improve bereavement care and community support following stillbirth, improve stillbirth reporting and data collection, and prioritise stillbirth research.
Under the current Fair Work Act, parents on birth-related unpaid parental leave who experience a stillbirth or the death of their child in the first 24 months of life can be recalled to work from their leave with just six weeks' notice from their employer. Parents on adoption-related unpaid parental leave whose child dies in the first 24 months of life can be recalled to work from their leave with just four weeks' notice.
If these parents are not already on unpaid parental leave, the Fair Work Act allows an employer to cancel their upcoming leave in these circumstances.
While recognising most employers are supportive of their employees, particularly where they have suffered such a tragic loss, the Bill will ensure that the entitlement to unpaid parental leave for a parent whose baby is stillborn will be as it would have been if their baby had lived.
For an employee whose child dies during the first 24 months of life, the Bill will ensure that their employer will no longer be able to cancel any upcoming unpaid parental leave they might have, or, if they are already on leave, require them to return to work earlier than they may wish to.
The Bill will also provide better and clearer access to compassionate leave in relation to stillborn babies and babies who die during a parent's unpaid parental leave. The Government understands that employers want to support employees who have experienced such a loss. Under this bill, an employee will be allowed to access compassionate leave for their stillborn or infant babies when already on unpaid parental leave without having to forego their right to either.
Employers can of course continue to offer leave that goes beyond the minimum safety net, including paid parental leave through enterprise agreements, employment contracts and workplace policies.
While recognising that the pain of stillbirth and infant death can never be repaired through a workplace entitlement, I hope these changes will provide some peace of mind for parents in these traumatic circumstances.
Premature birth and immediate hospitalisation
The Bill will also remove a current legislative barrier that hampers sensible arrangements being made at the workplace level where an employee's baby is hospitalised immediately following birth.
Many parents of babies who are hospitalised after birth - a situation that particularly affects babies born prematurely - have said they would like the option to work while their baby is in hospital and have more time at home with their babies once they are discharged from hospital. Currently under the Fair Work Act, if an employer and employee agree for the employee to return to work while their baby is in hospital, the employee will then lose the remainder of their unpaid parental leave entitlement.
The Bill will remove this restriction, allowing employers and employees to agree to the employee 'pausing' their unpaid parental leave, returning to work for the period their baby is in hospital and resuming leave once their baby is discharged from hospital.
It is important that the legislative framework gives employers and employees the ability to discuss and make arrangements that suit them. Importantly, those parents who 'pause' their unpaid parental leave will ultimately have more unpaid parental leave available to spend with their baby at home.
Flexible unpaid parental leave
Finally, this Bill will make unpaid parental leave more flexible for families to structure their work and caring in ways that suit them by introducing the capacity for an employee to take a portion of their unpaid parental leave flexibly.
This change will provide employees with greater choice in how they use up to 30 days of their existing 12-month unpaid parental leave entitlement.
This change complements the new flexible parental leave payment under the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. Employees will be able to take up to 30 days of unpaid parental leave flexibly and claim flexible parental leave payment from Services Australia for these days, if they are eligible. Ensuring there is a corresponding leave entitlement to enable parents to claim flexible parental leave payments will reduce unnecessary stress for parents in the joyful but often demanding period of new parenthood.
Under the proposed changes to the unpaid parental leave entitlement and the recent changes to the Parental Leave Payment, parents will have access to up to 30 flexible days until the baby's second birthday.
This change is significant in that it reduces the current rigidity of unpaid parental leave. Many parents would like to combine working and caring for their newborn but are not currently able to achieve this using unpaid parental leave, which generally must be taken in a single continuous block. Once a parent returns to work, they will usually forfeit any remaining untaken leave.
This current rule may discourage women in particular from reconnecting with the workforce after their baby is born as they will lose their entitlement to any further unpaid parental leave, and may deter men from taking leave to care for their newborns as they must stop working completely while they are on unpaid parental leave.
The new capacity for parents to take up to 30 days of their 12 month entitlement to unpaid parental leave flexibly could mean, for example, a new parent spending a block of unpaid parental leave with their newborn after birth and then taking 30 days flexibly after they return to work.
Employees will be able to take these days as a single day, groups of days or a single continuous block.
The measures in the Bill will require employees to give their employer appropriate notice of their intention to use some of their 12-month entitlement flexibly and separate notice before actually taking flexible unpaid parental leave, aligned with the existing notice provisions for unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act as far as possible.
This will assist employers to best support their employees who are new parents while also balancing and managing workflow priorities and the needs of their broader workforce.
Conclusion
The amendments in the Bill are balanced reforms that will provide new parents with more choices and flexibility about how they use parental leave, and reflect contemporary expectations about how families should be able to structure work and family arrangements.
These expectations and the needs of Australian families for greater flexibility to combine work and care have been brought into sharp relief by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. More flexibility for parents in how leave is taken following birth is an important part of reshaping how we approach work and care.
The improvements to the unpaid parental leave provisions of the Fair Work Act contained in the Bill have been carefully considered and consulted on. They are based on the data and evidence presented to the Government by key stakeholders, including, importantly, by parents themselves.
On behalf of the Government, I want to thank all of those parents who shared their stories, noting that for many of you these were incredibly painful memories to relive.
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT (INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES) BILL 2020
Improving the livelihoods of Indigenous Australians by unlocking job-creating infrastructure projects and the positive impacts of critical public facilities for remote communities is needed over the coming years to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
To realise social and economic security, Indigenous Australians require the provision of housing and essential infrastructure. Timely access to safe and suitable public housing, education and health facilities on Indigenous held land is fundamental to this goal.
In recognition of the work the Attorney-General and I are progressing on native title reform, I introduce the Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020, to extend the operation of section 24JAA for a further 10 years. This will help secure approvals for public housing and infrastructure on Indigenous held land where alternative approval processes have stalled. This will deliver public health, housing, education, policing and emergency services infrastructure to meet the current and emerging needs of Indigenous Australians.
The Bill ensures section 24JAA will continue to operate as originally passed by the Parliament of Australia in 2010. To date, due to differing land tenure and legislation requirements across the jurisdictions, section 24JAA has only been used in Queensland and Western Australia.
In Western Australia and Queensland, the provision's extension is particularly important. It will enable state and local governments, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Councils of North Queensland, access to Indigenous held land to build critical infrastructure for the benefit of local Indigenous communities, when expediency is needed and alternative pathways are not available. Without section 24JAA, provision of infrastructure may not be possible in some situations.
The provision is a streamlined mechanism to facilitate Indigenous land access by state and local governments in limited circumstances. Section 24JAA is part of the Native Title Act's 'future acts regime' which specifies how acts that affect native can be validly done on land where native title exists. Section 24JAA requires native title holders and claimants to be notified about the proposed public works and provides them with the opportunity to be consulted about the impact of the proposed future act on their native title rights and interests.
In accordance with the established non-extinguishment principle in the Native Title Act, the Bill continues to ensure native title is not extinguished, by the construction of public housing and infrastructure, and the provision provides for compensation.
Section 24JAA operates as an important mechanism between an ILUA and compulsory acquisition to enable a future act to be validly done to progress critical Indigenous housing and infrastructure in a timely and effective manner while safeguarding native title rights and interests for the future. This reflects the reality that land dealings may be complex and sometimes involve lengthy negotiations and timeframes given the different parties, processes, regulations and interests involved.
All other state and local government planning and building requirements will still need to be followed. This includes protections, such as cultural heritage legislation. Through the consultation process, section 24JAA provides an additional opportunity for native title holders to advise the state authority about other planning needs and cultural heritage sites.
Forty-two per cent of Indigenous Australians living in remote communities reside in overcrowded or severely overcrowded housing.
Although, states and territories are responsible for public housing, the Australian Government has invested over $5.4 billion since 2008 to support the states and territories to address remote overcrowding. This investment reduced overcrowding from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15, and was projected to fall to 37.4 per cent in 2018.
Since 2018, the Government has paid $121 million to Western Australia, $37.5 million to South Australian, and this year is investing $105 million in Queensland through the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Councils to assist the states to continue to meet their obligations to provide remote housing for Indigenous Australians. This funding, coupled with each state's own remote housing commitments, represents a pipeline of capital works to continue to address remote overcrowding and unlock land and economic opportunities for the benefit of Indigenous Australians into the future.
As recently agreed by all Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks, the new National Agreement on Closing the Gap sets ambitious targets, including housing, for states to meet by 2031. Section 24JAA will help to facilitate the timely delivery of public housing infrastructure to meet these targets, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia given their land tenure arrangements and unmet Indigenous housing need. High need communities on Indigenous land stand to benefit the most from the timely delivery of assets and infrastructure to help reduce overcrowding.
ILUAs are the standard and preferred mechanism for negotiating acts on land subject to native title rights and interests. However, there is no timeframe for completing negotiations and entering into an ILUA. The Queensland and Western Australia governments have advised that negotiating an ILUA for the type of infrastructure covered by 24JAA can take between 18 months to three years to complete. However, where there are intractable blockages, section 24JAA facilitates investment in Indigenous communities that can be made, including compensation for communities.
This is why since 2011, section 24JAA has been used sparingly, approximately 126 times on almost one thousand (961) residential lots. The provision has been used in Queensland 52 times and in Western Australia 74 times. This includes 778 public houses and other facilities in Queensland, and 312 public houses and 73 other facilities in Western Australia.
While section 24JAA has mainly been used for public housing, the provision has also been used for emergency facilities such as women's shelters, fire brigades, police stations and child safety housing; public education and health facilities and staff housing for public school teachers and public health employees.
The Australian Government and the native title sector recognise ILUAs are the preferred mechanism for all parties negotiating acts on land subject to native title. This is why I am only proposing for a temporary extension. Section 24JAA is a pragmatic tool to be used when an ILUA is facing intractable negotiations or cannot be reached. Retaining section 24JAA provides an alternative that facilitates the critical infrastructure and safeguards the native title rights and interests for the long term.
Section 24JAA has allowed infrastructure to be delivered that would otherwise not be possible. For example, Queensland Health entered into an ILUA to construct a wellbeing centre and staff accommodation in a remote community in Queensland. The ILUA was unresolved after 18 months of negotiation due to contested claims to country on other native title matters. Queensland Health used section 24JAA for the grant of the lease to deliver new health facilities. As a result, the whole community continues to benefit from health services instead of being disadvantaged by a broader dispute between groups.
Throughout the targeted consultations on the operation of section 24JAA in 2017, 2019 and this year undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department and the National Indigenous Australians Agency, there were views expressed for and against the extension of the provision. These views and the stakeholder experiences that were shared, reinforced the importance that when dealing with Indigenous land and native title holders, the needs of the community, whether it be housing, health or education are paramount, and safeguarding native title rights and interests over the long term are essential.
I am conscious of the need to balance the rights and interests of native title holders and meet the needs of Indigenous Australians. For these reasons, the Bill retains the temporary status of the provision. This serves to appropriately address unmet remote housing and critical infrastructure needs while maintaining a long term commitment to safeguarding the rights and interests of native title holders. Extending the provision for a further 10 years provides the opportunity to reassess the need for the provision at a later time.
The Bill provides for native title holders and claimants to retain a mechanism for raising concerns about land use while ensuring government investment in Indigenous communities can be made in a timely and effective manner.The extension of section 24JAA will ensure relevant state governments can continue to invest in Indigenous and remote communities, respond to emerging needs and ensure better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Investment in housing and infrastructure construction will support economic recovery and stimulate industry and employment, particularly as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleague, the Attorney-General, for our joint work on native title reform in recognition of our mutual interest in advancing the interests of Indigenous Australians.
TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (SERIOUS CRIME) BILL 2020
The Australian Government has the responsibility to keep Australia safe and secure, and we need to do more to protect Australia's airports and seaports.
This is why we are introducing the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019to ensure that Australia's airports, seaports and offshore facilities are no longer safe havens for serious criminal activity.
Serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life. It causes enormous human suffering and is estimated to cost the Australian economy more than $47 billion per annum.
Airports and seaports are transit points for organised crime groups to import weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. This is a serious threat to Australia's security and prosperity which we need to prevent.
The 2015 National Ice Taskforce Report and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement recommended the Australian Government harden the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for the aviation and maritime security identification card (ASIC and MSIC) schemes.
The ASIC and MSIC schemes are essential to the Government's approach to transport security. They ensure that all those accessing the most secure areas of Australia's airports and seaports have undergone a background check. However, the background check only determines whether an applicant is a threat to aviation or maritime security, it does not consider whether they pose a criminal risk.
Our airports and seaports are vulnerable to exploitation by serious criminals and terrorists. While the schemes have been very effective in helping to protect Australia from terrorism, they have still allowed approximately 100 individuals with serious criminal convictions or links to organised crime to have access to the most sensitive areas of our airports and seaports.
Organised criminals are exploiting the schemes to gain a major source of revenue from the illicit drug market and this market can serve to fund a broad range of criminal activities, including terrorism.
Drug trafficking is also an attractive choice for organised criminals and terrorists in Australia as some people are prepared to pay a premium price for illicit substances compared to other countries.
The Bill will expand the purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent serious criminal influence and activity from occurring at our security-controlled airports and seaports. This will make it harder for ASICs and MSICs to be issued to individuals who pose a criminal risk or have a serious criminal record.
The Bill will establish the regulatory framework for introducing new eligibility criteria to address the existing vulnerability across both schemes. The new eligibility criteria will specifically target serious criminal offences, in addition to safeguarding Australia's airports, seaports and offshore facilities from terrorism. It will also ensure that Australia's airports and seaports are no longer places for serious criminal activity, including the trafficking of illicit goods such as narcotics and weapons.
In addition, the proposed legislative amendments will strengthen the regulatory framework by harmonising the existing eligibility under each scheme.
It is intended that new eligibility criteria under the amended Regulations will introduce new offence categories which include:
offences arising from anti-gang or criminal organisation legislation;
illegal importation of goods;
interfering with goods under customs control; and
foreign incursion and recruitment.
The new criteria will ensure that those convicted of these offences will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or MSIC.
This Bill will strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes to ensure that we prevent individuals posing a high criminal risk from holding a card which is consistent with the findings of a range of parliamentary reviews.
The Bill reduces the ability for organised crime groups to engage in illegal activities at airports and seaports.
The Australian Government is committed to improving the safety and security outcomes for all Australians.
The Bill should be approved without delay, as it is substantially the same as the previous Bill, which was considered by both the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Standing Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. The imperative for this legislation is growing stronger as the costs and impacts of serious crime continue to grow.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020
Services Australia Governance Amendment Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:40): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:41): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING BANNING ORDERS) BILL 2020
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill strengthens the existing powers of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguards Commissioner to ban a worker or provider from delivering services in the NDIS market.
This Bill aims to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm from service provision and the people who work closely with them.
The recent tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ann Marie Smith in South Australia has highlighted just how important it is to have the strongest possible protections available for NDIS participants.
The death of Ms Smith is absolutely shocking and the circumstances that led to her death must never be allowed to happen again.
As is appropriate, the circumstances of Ms Smith's death are being investigated by the independent bodies established to do just that. These independent bodies include the South Australia Police, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the South Australian Coroner.
NDIS Commissioner, Mr Graeme Head AO, has also announced the appointment of former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, to lead an independent inquiry into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Smith, including regulation in relation to quality and safeguarding pursuant to the functions and powers of the Commissioner of the NDIS Commission.
We should allow these investigations to continue without prejudice, however, the legislative amendments for strengthening banning orders were raised in the context of the Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (NDIS Act) and were originally intended to be introduced as a part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Full Scheme) Bill 2020. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the public consultation and introduction of this Bill has been delayed and is not expected to be considered until the Spring legislative program.
Given this delay, and our commitment to have these protections in place, the Government believes it is important to bring forward the amendments to strengthen the banning order provisions earlier as a standalone Bill. This will ensure the NDIS Commission has the strengthened tools it needs to support the safety of NDIS participants as soon as possible.
The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australian history. It is transforming the lives of people with disability across the country.
As at 31 March 2020, there was 364,879 participants in the NDIS (excluding Western Australia). Around 150,000 of those people are receiving supports for the first time.
All Australian governments are committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of NDIS participants. In December 2016, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The Framework was the result of over three years of consultation with people with disability, carers and providers. It sets out a new approach to regulation for the NDIS to protect NDIS participants.
The national Framework replaces the disparate quality and safeguards arrangements for disability services in states and territories, with national protections to support the new national disability scheme and participants' access to services under the Scheme.
To meet the Commonwealth's responsibilities under the Framework, the Government took strong, decisive action by establishing an independent, national body—the NDIS Commission—to ensure the quality and safety of NDIS services and to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm.
The NDIS Commission, as the independent national regulator, plays a key role in building confidence in the NDIS through its regulatory and compliance functions including registration of providers, complaints and reportable incidents, oversight of behaviour support, investigation and compliance and its role in developing and implementing nationally consistent NDIS worker screening.
The NDIS Commission has been in operation in NSW and South Australia since 1 July 2018 and all other jurisdictions since 1 July 2019, except Western Australia, which will come under the auspices of the NDIS Commission from 1 December 2020.
As at 31 March 2020, 17,006 NDIS providers were registered with the NDIS Commission. Of those registered, 45 per cent were individuals/sole traders.
As an independent statutory body with integrated functions, it is important the NDIS Commission has robust investigation and regulatory powers, and can take strong action where serious matters arise that affect the safety of NDIS participants including de-registration, banning and civil penalties where appropriate.
The capacity for taking strong regulatory action is essential in ensuring NDIS participants can live lives free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.
This is why this Bill is so important. It seeks to strengthen the NDIS Commission's banning order provisions to address the limitations of the current provisions under the NDIS Act (2013). The new provisions will help ensure providers and workers who should not be delivering services under the NDIS cannot do so.
Currently, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 already empowers the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner to make banning orders.
However, it has become apparent the provisions under which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may issue banning orders are too narrow.
The circumstances in which a banning order could be applied against a person, either a provider or worker, are those listed in Section 73ZN of the NDIS Act. A banning order may be issued where the NDIS Commissioner reasonably believes at least one of the following situations exists:
the person has breached, or is likely to breach, the NDIS Act, or has been involved in a breach by another person;
the person is not suitable to provide supports and services to a person with a disability;
where there is an immediate risk of harm to a person with a disability if a provider continues offering supports and services;
the person has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty either as a worker or a Partner/director of a company who is a registered provider;
the person is insolvent under administration
A banning order may apply generally, to prevent a provider or person from providing any NDIS supports or services, or may be limited to a class of supports or services, or to particular people.
Before issuing a banning order, the Commissioner would consider if the action would be reasonable, timely and proportionate in relation to the issue in question, what action has been taken previously, and whether there are more appropriate avenues to deal with the issue.
These and other general provisions will not change.
However, under the current legislation, the Commissioner can only apply these provisions when the worker is engaged by a provider that is delivering services under the NDIS.
This means if a worker's engagement ends, such as if a worker is sacked because of the issue under consideration, the NDIS Commissioner cannot issue a banning order to the worker.
Similarly, under current legislation it is unclear, even if a banning order is applied before a worker's engagement ends or the provider they work for leaves the NDIS, that the order stays in force.
Further, the Commissioner cannot currently issue a banning order to a person who is not yet involved in the delivery of NDIS services but is unsuitable to be involved in delivering them based on their known record in another similar sector such as aged care or child care. That is, a person who could have effectively been banned from one of these other sectors for reasons relevant to the delivery of NDIS services but the Commissioner cannot ban such a person until they start to deliver services under the NDIS.
In short, this Bill will strengthen the current banning provisions of the NDIS Act 2013 and address these concerns.
If the Commissioner makes a banning order, this amendment will explicitly allow the NDIS Commissioner to use the existing NDIS Provider Register to publish details of such orders. This will include the order and enough information to identify the provider or worker subject to the order.
The NDIS Provider Register, which is generally publically available, may be searched by persons with disability and their representatives to ensure that the providers or workers they are using are not subject to a banning order. This is an important protection.
Similarly, it will be one tool for providers looking to employ workers to help ensure the employees they recruit are safe to work with people with disability and able to work in the NDIS.
Information in the NDIS Provider Register that is not published will be protected NDIS Commission information and will only be shared and used consistently with the information protection and disclosure provisions in the NDIS Act and the NDIS Commission's legislated functions with the aim of protecting participants and ensuring confidence in the NDIS market for disability services.
Conclusion
The Australian Government is committed to a high-quality, sustainable NDIS and effective national quality and safeguards arrangements. The strengthened banning order provisions support the aim of ensuring unsuitable providers and workers cannot provide NDIS services. This is an important part of developing trust in the NDIS market and the providers and workers in the market.
The NDIS Provider Register will provide timely, accurate access to banning order information for employers and self-managed NDIS participants, helping to ensure they can make an informed judgment about who should work with people with disability.
Our paramount consideration is the right of people with disability to live lives free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. The Morrison Government is committed to meeting this objective and this Bill is an improvement over the existing banning provisions that will assist with protecting people with disability receiving disability services.
Not only are the changes to banning order provisions an important additional protection for people with disability accessing the NDIS, these changes will also increase confidence in the quality and safety of the NDIS market as well as assist in ensuring the long‑term integrity and sustainability of the NDIS.
SERVICES AUSTRALIA GOVERNANCE AMENDMENT BILL 2020
This Bill amends legislation as a result of Services Australia being established on 1 February 2020 as an Executive Agency under the Public Service Act 1999. The Bill also makes related governance changes.
Schedule 1 to the Bill changes current references to Services Australia, the Department of Human Services, or the Secretary of that Department. The references will now be to the Executive Agency of Services Australia, or the CEO of Services Australia. These amendments will ensure that legislation continues to support service delivery and administrative decision-making by Services Australia as a new executive agency.
Schedule 2 to the Bill makes governance changes relating to Services Australia. The CEO of Services Australia will perform the existing statutory roles of Chief Executive Centrelink, Chief Executive Medicare and Child Support Registrar. Those three offices are currently filled by separate Senior Executive Service officers in Services Australia.
Services Australia was established to play a key role in more efficiently and effectively delivering the services that Australians rely on. Having the CEO fill those key statutory offices will sharpen the service delivery focus of Services Australia and simplify lines of accountability.
The Bill will amend the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997 to prohibit a person from using the name Services Australia (for example, as part of a business name) if that falsely implies a connection to Services Australia or Australian Government service delivery.
The Bill will amend the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997 and the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973 to require the Chief Executive Centrelink and Chief Executive Medicare to comply with any limitations on sub-delegation imposed by the delegator. For example, when the Secretary of the Department of Social Services delegates a power to the Chief Executive Centrelink, the Secretary could direct that the Chief Executive Centrelink must not sub-delegate that power to any Services Australia employee below a certain APS classification level.
The Chief Executive Centrelink and Chief Executive Medicare could also independently give directions when delegating or sub-delegating a power. For example, the Chief Executive Centrelink could delegate a particular power generally to all Services Australia officers above a certain APS classification level, but direct that officers can only exercise that power if it is necessary to perform the functions of their specific role.
In many respects this Bill provides the formal foundations for Services Australia.
The Prime Minister has made clear his intent for the establishment of this new Executive Agency –excellence in service delivery for the Australian Government.
In August last year, the Prime Minister stood in the Great Hall of Parliament House.
He addressed the nation's Public Service asking for them to refocus their efforts on serving Australians.
He said:
"as we gather here in this Great Hall, I want to remind you of a poignant feature of this house of democracy.
This is one of the few parliamentary buildings in the world where you don't have to walk up steps to enter it.
Our Parliament isn't a Parliament over the people or above them, but one that people, that Australians, can freely and easily approach."
The Prime Minister said he wanted this to be a metaphor for how Australians see their government.
And this has provided a beacon for how we want to deliver services for Australians.
When the Prime Minister announced the establishment of Services Australia, it wasn't simply a rebrand or a rename.
We wanted to make it clear to the public, and the public service, that the priority of government is excellence in service delivery.
He said that we want government to be easier for Australians, we want it to be much easier.
Because government services are the services Australians rely on and we want them to access those services, as easily as they can and in as informed a way as possible.
So this Bill puts in place the foundations of an Agency that will be, and has been there for Australians in need.
We could not then have known just how vital this focus would become.
In the face of the coronavirus we have had to take extraordinary steps to protect Australians.
As we have insulated Australians from the impacts of the virus we have had to make significant economic and social sacrifices.
These changes have seen Australians forgo those quintessential Aussie past-times like hanging at the beach, going to the footy or down to the pub.
But perhaps most significantly and most tragically these actions have resulted in a demand for government social supports not seen in this country since the Great Depression.
Indeed - the immediacy and scale of this demand is surely without precedent in the history of our Commonwealth.
The Australian Government has seen how Australians have reached out in record numbers and how Services Australia has delivered with a relentless focus on serving Australians, living out the expectation set by the Prime Minister when he outlined his vision for the Public Service only months ago.
In the face of significant challenges Services Australia has been a steady support for Australians in need.
Throughout the coronavirus crisis staff from Services Australia have been working around the clock to deliver new and improved income support measures and to fast-track the Australian Government's coronavirus financial support.
You only need to see the pictures of chalk drawings outside our service centres thanking Centrelink staff to recognise the gratitude of Australians for these hardworking public servants, who so often live in the communities they support.
As the Prime Minister has said 2020, for most Australians, will be the toughest year they may live through.
We all know the National Cabinet in late March took extreme health measures to get on top of the coronavirus.
But we have to also acknowledge the impact this necessary treatment has had on our communities.
We have seen Australians lose their jobs, lose hours of work. We've seen businesses that have been forced to close.
These have been heartbreaking events in our nation's history and story.
In the face of an invidious challenge, the Government has sought to chart a course through what has been an incredibly difficult time.
On the 23rd of March this year, following the decisions made by National Cabinet to close cafes, restaurants, gyms and so many parts of our economy, we saw thousands of Australians queueing at Centrelink offices across the country, seeking assistance and unsure of their future.
The queues that we saw outside Centrelink, the challenges and frustrations people have had in gaining access was a sheer function of the extraordinary and overwhelming demand for support across our country.
The scale of the need reflected the whole-of-society public health effort we had to take to keep us all safe from the virus.
Services Australia faced massive and unprecedented demands on our digital channels including myGov and massive demand on telephony channels as people sought assistance and information.
Services Australia faced what appeared to be an insurmountable task of providing social supports to over a million Australians made unemployed almost overnight.
Hundreds of thousands of these Australians had never interacted with the social support system in their lives.
Many were without Services Australia Customer Reference Numbers nor with any understanding of how to access supports further complicating what was already a mammoth task in terms of scale.
But Services Australia, in the face of the most significant demand for social supports since the Great Depression, faced that challenge and exceeded expectations enabled by the structural changes codified in this Bill
In the early morning as the queues started to form we took immediate action and that effort continues as we speak.
In the days leading up to the 23rd of March we took steps to boost the capacity of the myGov website to ensure it could support the huge volume of concurrent users.
Though it is now clear that the need was exceeded reflecting the historic tragedy of this moment in our national story.
In those moments we saw the great frustration, anxiety and worry faced by thousands of Australians.
No system is built to deal with the circumstances and events that we are now facing as a nation.
We have, as we said we would, worked night and day to build more capacity into these systems.
Australians can be assured that no resource has been spared to ensure that we have systems in place to support them in their time of great need.
The arrangements codified in this Bill provided sharper lines of accountability and decision-making. This was vital in driving a relentless focus on getting help where it was needed at speed.
With hard work and decisive action: within days we rapidly reduced the queues of new Jobseekers outside our Service Centres; we registered hundreds of thousands of Australians online; we enhanced and improved our digital channels and we made rapid changes to processes ensuring Australians in need would not miss out through the Intention to Claim registration process.
Within weeks we made impressive strides in process simplification and digital processing keeping Australians safe at home and getting them help faster.
This included enabling people to establish their identity online, providing Customer Reference Numbers via myGov and introducing a simplified online claim form, which people can complete in about 20 minutes as opposed to the previous average of about 55 minutes.
These changes may sound small but these process innovations have made all the difference to getting help where it is needed at speed.
Australians can now obtain a CRN and apply for JobSeeker all online through myGov, something successive governments have been trying to deliver for years. Services Australia has delivered this in just four weeks.
In the face of this unprecedented demand we've surged thousands of extra staff redirecting people from within Services Australia, across the Public Service and from service delivery partners – totalling around 12,000 people including the extra 5,000 Services Australia staff the Prime Minister announced in March.
The commitment of frontline staff to the task is inspiring. It is clear this surge has been getting support to Australians in need.
The Australian Government thanks all the staff, especially those hardworking Services Australia staff who have made a vocation of government service delivery - many for decades- without you we would have been lost as a nation.
And so through the hard work of thousands of Australians serving their community, within less than 50 days we've processed more JobSeeker claims than we would in two years.
More than 800,000 Australians who have lost their jobs are today receiving financial assistance from the Australian Government thanks to the outstanding efforts of Services Australia staff.
That's 800,000 Australians with greater certainty in an uncertain time and 800,000 families with a firmer footing, it is a truly wonderful thing.
As the payment infrastructure of Government, Services Australia has also been charged with delivering the Government's Economic Support Payments.
We've successfully delivered without issue the first of the Government's additional supporting payments to Australians in need.
More than $5.1 billion in $750 Economic Support Payments has hit the bank accounts of 6.8 million eligible Australians. A second round of Economic Support Payments will roll out in July.
Services Australia has also implemented a number of changes to Medicare processes so there is no need for Australians to come into an office for any Medicare related business.
All Medicare related claims, changes or inquiries can now be done online or over the phone. This includes newborn enrolments, re-enrolments for people returning to Australia, and linking Medicare cards to myGov.
They are working around the clock to allow patients to access payments and services, including essential medicines, and health professionals to claim for services. This includes telehealth, video conferencing, telephony, and pathology testing for COVID-19.
This includes implementing 279 new services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, some within hours of announcement, to support recent policy changes, and as of last Sunday (10 May), almost half a billion dollars ($479.8M) has been spent on these covid specific Medicare services alone, to support almost 5 and a half million (5.4M) Australians.
These services give health professionals flexibility to provide medical care, and essential medicines minimising the risk of infection to health professionals and other patients in waiting rooms—helping to keep us all safe.
In addition, through changes to the existing aged care payment systems, Services Australia is delivering additional payments worth hundreds of millions of dollars to support the aged care sector.
These payments include a new COVID-19 subsidy, and temporary increases to a number of current viability supplements to support aged care workers, providers and residents.
This additional funding will support around 1,800 providers of Residential Care and Home Care and their staff, and around 350,000 care recipients.
Through Medicare, the PBS and Aged Care, Services Australia works to support all Australians, when they need it, at some of the most critical moments of their lives.
Another area we've taken considerable strides in has been our digital channels.
Our digital channels today can support more Australians than at any time in history.
In 2019, about 571,000 people accessed myGov each day, and we have acted quickly to enable our systems to now support an average of more than 1.7 million logins on every business day in April.
Our busiest day, 25 March 2020, had almost 3 million people logging into their myGov account, compared to our previous record of 1.8 million logins during the July tax time peak last year, a 66% increase.
For an authenticated online platform, myGov now has the largest capacity in Australia.
Mobilising technology to support Australians has taken on a new level of complexity and importance as we fight the coronavirus.
As Australians have turned to their Government, we've had to step up to ensure services are delivered.
Whether it is financial payments to people who find themselves out of work, new communications tools to get information on coronavirus, or a technology solution to assist health professionals to contain the virus.
Services Australia has been closely working throughout the crisis with the Digital Transformation Agency leveraging technology to help Australians–this close collaboration enabled by the Prime Minister vesting all service delivery within the Government Services portfolio.
The Department of Health turned to the DTA to build and manage the COVIDSafe health app.
Entrusting the DTA to build this app showed a great deal of respect and acknowledgement for the transformational technical capabilities inherent in the DTA—which also rapidly transformed Australia.gov.au into a pandemic information website and developed the Australian Government WhatsApp Channel.
The COVIDSafe health app will help our frontline health workers stop the spread of the coronavirus in our community. The app is the product of close collaboration across the Australian Government including with the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Department of Health, and of course industry partners like the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.
This app will save lives and livelihoods.
As the Prime Minister has said this app is a critical element of the road back to normality.
Australians are already adopting this app at rates exceeding expectations.
It will make a difference and it would not exist without the exceptional work done by the DTA.
Like the DTA, Services Australia has also stepped up to deliver during the pandemic.
Many Australians have never needed financial assistance from the government before, let alone ever needed to contact Centrelink.
Faced with these challenges, Services Australia has stepped up to deliver for these Australians.
Conclusion
So with this Bill we put in place the formal foundations for Services Australia. This Bill puts in place the legislative underpinnings of an Executive Agency that has already demonstrated the capacity to deliver for Australians in great need living out the Prime Minister's vision for service delivery in the Morrison Government.
We could not have foreseen at the outset of that undertaking just how important that objective would become – it is a commitment that has assumed a new chapter of importance in Australia's national story.
Indeed that we have already achieved so much through Services Australia preceding the introduction of this Bill is testament to the challenges we have faced over recent months including our response to the bushfires in which Services Australia continues to play a key role.
In this time of great need Services Australia has imprinted its role in public service.
The commitment to being there for Australians has never been more important than it is now.
So we will continue the hard work of improving our government services and continue to deliver the Prime Minister's vison for Services Australia- the foundations of which this Bill sets out.
We will continue to equip the hard working staff of Services Australia with the tools they need to carry on with the important work of serving their community.
As we reflect on this time it is right that we hold up those government services staff in the pantheon of professions that have helped keep Australia going during this crisis alongside our nurses, our doctors, our truckies, our police and our ambos.
These Australians have been there for their community and Australians can be assured that we've taken every possible step to support them at this time of great need.
The Australian Government thanks Services Australia staff for their passion and dedication in what you have achieved for Australians so far and for what we will do together into the future.
While we have accomplished much, the road out will be long—but we will not stop in our collective efforts to meet expectations as we continue to build the trust of all Australians.
While with this Bill we lay the legislative foundations for Services Australia it is abundantly clear it is already living out its purpose.
I commend the Bill.
SOCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CORONAVIRUS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2020
This Bill delivers on a number of 2020-21 Budget measures which will provide additional support to individuals and households impacted by the economic consequences of COVID-19. These measures build on the significant support already provided to the community through the social security system, such as the first two economic support payments and the Coronavirus Supplement.
As part of the economic response to COVID-19, the Morrison Government will provide two further Economic Support Payments of $250 each at a cost of $2.6 billion. Around five million payment recipients and cardholders will benefit from these payments. The first payment will be made in the lead up to Christmas, and the second in the New Year.
Pensioners, certain concession card holders, recipients of Family Tax Benefit and Carer Allowance who are not in receipt of a primary income support payment, and recipients of certain DVA payments will be eligible if they are residing in Australia. Each member of a couple will receive the payments if both are eligible.
Amendments are also made to social security law to recognise that because of the economic impacts of COVID-19, many young people will have lost a job or been unable to attain employment, which would have otherwise contributed to them meeting the independence criteria to qualify for payments. Schedule 2 of the Bill supports young people whose path towards demonstrating independence through work has been disrupted by the economic impacts of COVID-19.
From 1 January 2021, the six-month period between 25 March 2020 and 24 September 2020 will automatically be recognised as contributing to existing workforce independence criteria for Youth Allowance. For example, under the amended definition of independence, a person applying for Youth Allowance will be considered to have worked 30 hours per week for the six‑month period, regardless of actual hours worked. Regional students will be considered to have worked either 15 hours a week or earned 75 per cent of the National Training Wage Schedule in the six-month period regardless of actual hours worked.
Without this change, many young people may not be able to meet the independence criteria and may be unable to access income support if they plan to go onto tertiary study. This could cause young people to delay their study in order to work to meet the independence criteria. The same concession will be available to ABSTUDY recipients, through changes to the ABSTUDY Policy Manual. It is estimated that this measure will assist around 4,000 young Australians by providing them with the financial support they need while they build their skills and knowledge.
Schedule 3 of the Bill will make amendments to create temporary incentives in the income support system to encourage young Australians to undertake seasonal agricultural work. The Australian Government is spending $16.3 million to help address concerns across the agriculture sector about immediate workforce availability for the upcoming harvest season. Young
Australians claiming Youth Allowance (student) payment who demonstrate participation in agricultural work throughout the forthcoming harvest season would have access to the new independence criteria.
The amendments mean that a person who earns at least $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November 2020 and 31 December 2021 will be considered as independent for the purpose of the Youth Allowance (student) from 1 July 2021, subject to a Parental Income Threshold. This change will shorten the period of time a young person engaging in agricultural work will need to work to demonstrate financial independence for the purposes of Youth Allowance. The same concession will be available to ABSTUDY recipients, through changes to the ABSTUDY Policy Manual.
Schedule 4 of the Bill introduces a revised Paid Parental Leave work test period for a limited time. The Australian Government will provide $130.4 million for the Paid Parental Leave Program to introduce a temporary change that will enable people to access Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay who do not meet the current work test provisions because their employment has been affected by COVID-19. This would enable most individuals with a genuine work history pre-COVID-19 to qualify for payments under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It will ensure over 9,000 individuals would re-gain eligiblility for Parental Leave Pay, and is expected to increase claimants of Dad and Partner Pay by over 3,500.
In order to qualify for payment, people claiming Paid Parental Leave must meet the current work test requirements, in which individuals must have worked for at least 10 months in their work test period, and for just over one day a week, with no more than a 12‑week gap between any two consecutive working days.
Currently to meet the Paid Parental Leave work test, individuals must meet the work test requirements in the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of their child for Parental Leave Pay, or prior to their period for Dad and Partner Pay.
The Bill will temporarily extend the Paid Parental Leave work test period from 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child, to 20 months for parents who have had their employment impacted by COVID-19. This change will apply to births and adoptions that occur between 22 March 2020 and 31 March 2021.
Schedule 5 of the Bill implements a 2020-21 Budget measure that addresses inconsistencies in payments that are available to families affected by stillbirth and infant death. The Bill will increase and align the amount that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth, or a child's death shortly after birth up to the child's first birthday. The Bill also removes discrepancies within the payments system in respect of multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death within the same family.
Currently, when a person has a stillborn child they may receive Stillborn Baby Payment as a lump sum, subject to meeting an income test. Under existing arrangements, Stillborn Baby Payment is paid at a high rate for the first stillbirth and a lower rate for a second or subsequent stillbirth.
From 1 January 2021, this measure will increase and align family assistance payable to families who lose their child through stillbirth or because their child dies before their first birthday. There will be one rate of Stillborn Baby Payment equal to the current higher rate and an amount equivalent to the maximum Family Tax Benefit Part A bereavement payment for a child aged under 13 years old. The Bill will also make amendments so that a top‑up amount (equivalent to the difference between the high and low rate of Newborn Supplement) is paid to families for children who received the low rate of Newborn Supplement and whose child dies before their first birthday. It is estimated that around 900 families affected by stillbirth and infant death will be assisted through this measure.
Schedule 6 of the Bill makes technical amendments to child support law to allow alternative figures to be used in place of the Male Total Average Weekly Earnings and Average Weekly Earnings trend figures, which are usually published by Australian Bureau of Statistics, for the purposes of child support assessment calculations. From May 2020, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has temporarily suspended publication of trend estimates for all Average Weekly Earnings series, due to the impact of COVID-19 on labour market. Child support law does not currently permit alternative trend figures to be used.
This Bill introduces several beneficial measures that continue to provide enhanced support to the Australian community in response to the economic impacts of COVID-19.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention Bill 2020
National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:42): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:43): I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR DEFENCE AND VETERAN SUICIDE PREVENTION BILL 2020
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR DEFENCE AND VETERAN SUICIDE PREVENTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2020
The Government recognises the great sacrifices made by our serving and former Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and their families, on behalf of the Australian community.
As a Government, we are committed to supporting our ADF members and veterans during their service, in transitioning from service, and in their lives beyond service.
The Government has a 'towards zero' agenda on suicides nationally. We know that the rates of suicide amongst our defence and veteran men and women are unacceptably high, with more than 400 deaths by suicide since 2001. These tragic deaths deeply impact the families, the defence and veteran communities, and the wider Australian community.
The data shows that ex-serving men and women are particularly at risk – the age-adjusted rate of suicide over 2002-2017 was 18% higher for ex-serving men than men in the broader Australian population, and 115% (or 2.15 times) higher among ex-serving women compared to women in the broader population, noting the limited data available for women.
Addressing this is a key priority for the Government.
That is why the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, announced on 5 February 2020 that a powerful new National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention will be established with a dedicated role to inquire into, and supporting the prevention of, ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide.
The National Commissioner ' s inquiry powers
The framework of inquiry powers in the Bill, including the accompanying offences for non-compliance, will enable full and genuine inquiries into the circumstances of past and future ADF member or veteran deaths by suicide.
The National Commissioner will have broad discretion to inquire into these tragic deaths, including issues arising during a person's service, their transition from service, the health and wellbeing support services that were available to them as a member and veteran, and other matters the National Commissioner considers relevant in the circumstances of each case.
The Bill provides that the National Commissioner will be an independent statutory office holder, appointed by the Governor-General, with inquiry powers broadly equivalent to a Royal Commission.
However, unlike a Royal Commission, the National Commissioner will be an enduring institution, with the power to monitor the implementation of their recommendations into the future. The National Commissioner will provide a report on their findings and recommendations to the Parliament each year, as well as other reports they consider necessary. The Government will be fully accountable, being required to report to the Parliament on action taken in response to the National Commissioner's reports.
This means that there will be a continuous voice to Government, the Parliament, and the public on these issues, and that long-term solutions can be delivered.
The National Commissioner's inquiry powers include the ability to compel information, summons witnesses and convene public and private hearings. This includes compelling the production of information from the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs.
Hearing from families and others affected by these deaths
The National Commissioner will provide the opportunity for families, veterans, and other people who have been personally affected by an ADF member or veteran death by suicide, to share their story in a supported way. Their contributions will be crucial to inform the National Commissioner's work.
The Bill provides that, as a guiding principle, the National Commissioner should take a trauma‑informed and restorative approach in exercising their functions, and should recognise that families and others affected by a death by suicide have a unique contribution to make to the National Commissioner's work.
To ensure transparency, the National Commissioner's hearings will generally be open to the public. However, the Bill also allows for part or all of a hearing to be held in private, such as where personal and private information about a deceased person, or their family, friends or associates, may arise. This provides flexibility for the Commissioner to account for the wishes and interests of families and other parties who may seek to share their experiences in a more confidential setting.
Working with other bodies and referral mechanism
The work of the National Commissioner will complement the work of the Prime Minister's National Suicide Prevention Adviser. It will also complement the work of the new Veteran Family Advocate, who will work closely with the National Commissioner, so that the National Commissioner's recommendations can be rapidly translated into advice to Government on policies and programs that better support veterans and their families.
The National Commissioner will also work collaboratively with a range of other stakeholders to understand the full range of issues contributing to ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide. This includes State and Territory Coroners. The Bill provides pathways for information sharing between the National Commissioner and other bodies, to support their close collaboration.
In the event the National Commissioner identifies potentially criminal or other improper conduct in the course of their work, they may refer these matters to police or prosecution bodies for independent investigation. This aligns with an equivalent referral process available to a Royal Commission.
Consultation process
The Government is committed to developing the legislation to establish the National Commissioner in a consultative manner. The Attorney-General's Department will today commence a national public and stakeholder consultation process, to hear from the families of those affected by an ADF member or veteran death by suicide, the community and stakeholders about the design of the National Commissioner's role.
The department will be receiving submissions on the Bills for a four week period until 24 September 2020. The submissions received during the consultation process will inform the ongoing refinement of the Bills during their passage through the Parliament.
Conclusion
Through these Bills, the National Commissioner will deliver genuine transparency, and uncover the factors and root causes contributing to ADF member and veteran deaths by suicide.
As with a Royal Commission, the National Commissioner will have independence and powers necessary to recommend strategies to prevent future deaths of this kind, and give voice to the families and other persons who have been affected by these tragic deaths.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is adjourned to the day after the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee reports on the bills.
Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020
Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:43): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:44): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020. I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION BILL 2020
This is the first time an Australian Government has developed new landmark recycling and waste legislation. This bill implements the agreement by all of Australia's governments to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. It also incorporates the framework of the existing Product Stewardship Act 2011. It includes improvements to better regulate and encourage our businesses—those that design, manufacture, distribute and use products—to take greater responsibility for their environmental impacts.
The waste export ban is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our waste management and recycling sector to collect, recycle, reuse and convert waste into a resource.
This reform is expected to see the Australian economy turn over an additional $3.6 billion and potentially generate $1.5 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years.
From an economic perspective, from an environmental perspective and from a moral perspective it is a resource that we need to manage effectively. Waste is not just an environmental problem to solve; it is an economic opportunity to create.
This bill establishes an important framework. It enables the making of legislative instruments needed to bring the waste export ban to life. In line with the timetable agreed by all of Australia's governments, rules will be in place to ban the export of waste glass by 1 January 2021, followed by mixed plastics from 1 July 2021; whole used tyres from 1 December 2021; single resin or polymer plastics from 1 July 2022, and mixed and unsorted paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024.
The legislation will take a stepped, targeted and measured approach to compliance and enforcement. Infringement notices will be issued for less serious offences, while serious enforcement measures may include civil penalties and criminal offences.
A person may be subject to a criminal offence or liable to a civil penalty if they:
export regulated waste material in contravention of the bill or breach the conditions of their waste export licence; or
make false or misleading claims about exported regulated waste material.
If proven, penalties include imprisonment of up to five years or fines of up to $133,000 for an individual, depending on the breach. A company could be fined up to $666,000.
Product stewardship means considering the entire life cycle of a product. To reduce waste and meet the seven ambitious national targets within the National Waste Policy Action Plan, we need manufacturers and industry to lead the product stewardship charge.
They must genuinely consider their product through the 'life after use' lens—from design and materials used, through to recycling, remanufacturing and disposal.
On 9 July 2020, the government released the Review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and supported all 26 recommendations to improve product stewardship outcomes. A number of these recommendations will be taken forward with this legislation.
We will also strengthen the minister's priority list by adding clear time frames, recommended actions, and by increasing transparency around listed products.
The Government amendments that were passed by the House of Representatives will:
strengthen the objects of the Act in relation to product stewardship,
increase transparency around the granting of waste export exemptions,
strengthen the consultation requirements around preparing the Minister's priority list,
require action by the Minister, for products on the Minister's priority list if industries have not met the recommended actions in the required timeframe, and
change the timeframe for a review of the Bill to five years.
This bill provides the incentive for industries to act and to demonstrate leadership but it also sends a clear signal that the time to show that leadership is now.
Those industries that do not step up and do not take part can assume that the government will step in for them, and enforce its own regulatory scheme.
The legislation being introduced today is complemented by an unprecedented level of industry investment. This includes $190 million for the Recycling Modernisation Fund, which together with our actions under the National Waste Policy Action Plan will create 10,000 new jobs over the next 10 years – that is a 32 per cent increase in jobs in the Australian waste and recycling sector. In addition, the government is funding a number of new initiatives to transform our recycling industry and help Australia transition to a truly circular economy.
Australians care deeply about recycling, and they want to be confident that when they put things in their recycling bin, or deliver them to a collection centre, they will be repurposed effectively, and not dumped in landfill or simply sent overseas. With the export bans in place the items placed in our kerbside recycling bins will be re-used in roads, carpets, building materials and a range of other essential uses. At the same time, we need to stop throwing away tonnes of electronic waste and batteries each year and develop new product stewardship schemes to recycle valuable resources from the waste generated from these products.
We are setting clear expectations about the need to take responsibility for our waste, we are regulating, we are expanding the capacity of industry, we are investing in new ideas and new technologies and we are expanding markets for recycled products.
The reforms will grow our economy and our future prosperity and will ensure the sustainable use of our resources for future generations.
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2020
The Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 is a companion bill to the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020.
It will facilitate the smooth transition of the existing provisions of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 into the new legislative framework.
This Bill provides for the repeal the Product Stewardship Act 2011 to make way for the improved regulation of product stewardship within the framework of theRecycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020.
This Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill will do this by ensuring that arrangements to manage waste are transitioned appropriately, without disruption to industry or to the public.
Schedule One of this Bill repeals the whole of the Product Stewardship Act which will be replicated by Chapter Three of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill, with a number of improvements following the outcomes of the Product Stewardship Act Review. Chapter Three of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill will establish a new framework for voluntary,
co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship to enable Australia to more effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products and a broader range of materials.
Schedules Two and Three of this Bill will provide for the continuation of existing accredited voluntary and co-regulatory arrangements for example the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. It will ensure that administrators of approved arrangements may continue their operations and do not have to re-apply for approval when the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill commences.
Additionally, this Bill will provide that the existing Product Stewardship Regulations for the National Television Computer and Recycling Scheme, as in force immediately before the repeal of the Product Stewardship Act, will continue to have effect for the current financial year.
National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme administrators are already in the process of setting their outcomes, recycling targets and other obligations in respect of the 2020-21 financial year. This Bill will ensure no disruption is caused due to the repeal of the Product Stewardship Act and commencement of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill.
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION CHARGES (GENERAL) BILL 2020
The waste export ban will commence with the regulation of waste glass exports from 1 January 2021. This will be followed by mixed plastics from 1 July 2021, whole used tyres from 1 December 2021, single polymer plastics from 1 July 2022, and mixed and unsorted paper and cardboard from 1 July 2024.
Establishing and maintaining a robust system for implementing the waste export ban will come at a cost. The Government therefore proposes to charge regulated businesses for the effective administration of this scheme. Appropriate cost recovery encourages the efficient use of government services. It also allows public scrutiny of the costs of government activities.
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 is the first of three bills that provide an appropriate cost recovery mechanism for activities associated with regulating the export of certain waste materials.
Specifically, the Bill will enable the recovery of costs associated with program management and administration, verification, and risk and compliance activities for the waste export ban.
This Bill will sit alongside the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 – that allows the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to apply fees that recover the department's costs of those activities provided directly to relevant businesses – activities such as processing export licence applications.
The Bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in regulations.
The Australian Government will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with affected businesses, in developing a Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, before imposing any fees and charges.
In accordance with the Australian Government Charging Framework, this Bill ensures the Minister for the Environment is satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely cost of delivering the activity. This will provide affected businesses with confidence that the Government will not charge more than is necessary to recover the costs of operating this scheme.
Two companion bills are being introduced alongside this Bill: the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, and the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020. This package of bills will ensure that transparent and fair cost recovery mechanisms are in place for administering the waste export ban.
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION CHARGES (CUSTOMS) BILL 2020
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 is the second of three bills being introduced to form the waste export ban charging legislative package.
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of customs. The key provisions of the Bill mirror those in the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 and have the same operative function and effect.
The Bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The amounts recovered by the charges, and the persons liable or exempt from paying them, will be set in regulations made under this Bill.
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION CHARGES (EXCISE) BILL 2020
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 is the final bill being introduced to form the waste export ban charging legislative package.
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise. The key provisions of the Bill mirror those in the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020 and have the same operative function and effect.
The Bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts. The amounts recovered by charges, and the persons liable or exempt from paying them, will be set in regulations made under this Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bills without amendment.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
COMMITTEES
National Broadband Network Committee
Reporting Date
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians and Minister for Youth and Sport) (18:45): By leave—I move:
That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (A Tax Plan for the COVID-19 Economic Recovery) Bill 2020
Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the Senate of assent to the bills.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (18:46): I move:
That Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020, made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 and the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed.
Labor is seeking to disallow part 1 of schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020. When making this determination, the Minister for Families and Social Services has reinstated the liquid assets waiting period for people accessing unemployment payments. This move will force thousands of Australians in need to wait up to three months before they can access JobSeeker. The liquid assets waiting period was suspended in March, due to the pandemic, in order for struggling Australians to access the support they needed quickly. Reversing this now is an unnecessary and cruel move at a time of unprecedented hardship for so many Australians. Under the liquid assets waiting period, people with as little as $5,500 in the bank will have to wait to receive unemployment payments. Those with $11,500 or more will be forced to wait up to 13 whole weeks. Liquid assets can include savings, loans to family members not yet repaid and superannuation that has been accessed earlier; in other words, in a time of unprecedented crisis, the government expects Australians to run down every last dollar before they can access unemployment benefits.
To reintroduce the liquid assets waiting period is a false economy. It means that people will be more likely to rely on unemployment relief or emergency relief, on food banks and on other government funded supports. It makes it harder for people to look out for their families during this tough time and for people to get back on their feet. Forcing people to run down every last dollar puts families under unnecessary strain. It is easy for people who have financial buffers to dismiss its importance. Try collecting cans for a week or a month and then see whether it's so easy. I fear too many people on the other side simply do not know what it's like for the cupboards to be bare, for the fridge to be empty, to have nothing but bills in the hallway, for the car to be broken down or have no fuel, to have to make a choice about which bills to pay and which ones to keep juggling, to ignore a sore tooth before a trip to the dentist because a trip to the dentist is simply out of reach. What does this government expect people to do if the fridge blows up, if the car needs new tyres or if the family has medical bills? What if you need to travel for a family emergency or a funeral? Forcing people to use up their modest savings before they can access unemployment support is bad for people's health—for their mental and their physical health.
Reintroducing the liquid assets waiting period is particularly cruel, and it hits doubly on people who have withdrawn their super. Under the government's early access program, many Australians, when faced with uncertainty, dipped into their super and have kept that money in the bank just in case they need it. It's common to hear people talk about their plans to put money back into super in the future if they can. But the government has played a cynical trick on Australians who have taken out their super early, forcing them to run that down too before accessing unemployment support—the very same support that could have been accessed earlier if super had not been withdrawn. It's a cynical move by the government to allow people to withdraw their super because they are worried and insecure, and then, if they do lose their job, to deny them support for 13 weeks. This is not designed to help people who have lost their jobs in the recession. It is simply designed to transfer the cost onto the individuals who can least afford it, by robbing them from their futures.
On top of all this, the government still has plans in the parliament to double the liquid assets waiting period to 26 weeks. That's right: the government has a bill before the parliament right now to make people with modest savings wait 26 weeks before accessing unemployment support. The government may say that they do not have any immediate plans to force this new cruelty on people who lose their jobs, but why then is this plan still in the budget and still in the parliament? Reintroducing the liquid asset waiting period and extending it to six months will only make this recession deeper and longer than it needs to be. The government's so-called payments integrity bill has been stitched in this parliament for far too long. It is time they withdrew it and did away with the cuts to pensions and payments it contains.
The other part of this instrument reduces the rate of the coronavirus supplement from $550 per fortnight to $250 per fortnight. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn't have the power to disallow this part of the instrument without depriving people of the supplement all together, but I consider this is an important opportunity to reflect on the impact of the government's decision to reduce the rate of the coronavirus supplement and, even more importantly, on the government's failure to provide any certainty that will continue past the end of this year. This is a snapback to the tyranny that existed before the pandemic. People need reassurances and stability, not uncertainty and insecurity. By the end of the year, 1.8 million Australians are expected to be on unemployment support. This is 300,000 more people than the government estimated before the budget, and it is one million people more than at the end of 2019.
The budget provided no certainty as to what support would be available for them after 31 December. On 1 January, unemployment support is scheduled to return to its old base rate of $40 per day. Labor acknowledges that the rate of unemployment support is inadequate and that it will crush some people. It is not just Labor that acknowledges this; it's business groups, community groups and even members of the government. It's so inadequate that it is acting as a barrier for people finding work. People are unable to afford new clothes to go to job interviews, internet bills to search for work or transport costs to attend interviews. If you continue to disincentivise and devalue the poor and marginalise people, why should they hope ever to find a job? It's also placing people at risk of hardship and poverty and, more seriously, despair. At a time when the country is facing a recession, unemployment is on the rise and so many ordinary Australians are struggling to get by this is nothing short of cruelty.
The budget was a missed opportunity for the government to do the right thing and deliver a permanent increase to the JobSeeker unemployment payment. Instead, 1.8 million Australians face an anxious Christmas, uncertain and unable to plan for the future. This is not just cruel but bad economic policy. The cuts to the coronavirus supplement will cost local jobs and push people into poverty. We know that Australians receiving social security spend at local small businesses. Taking money from those most likely to spend in local economies will mean unemployment will be higher and for longer periods. While the government has admitted that it doesn't know the economic impact of its decision to cut the coronavirus supplement, Deloitte Access Economics estimate that 145,000 Australian jobs will be lost as a result of the government's scheduled unemployment cut in December.
In the midst of this recession and in the budget the government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver lasting structural change while boosting local jobs and local businesses. Instead, it is increasingly clear that the government has no plans to create jobs. The government's planned Christmas cut to the coronavirus supplement risks losing more, making the recession deeper and longer. Unemployment is painful and unfair. Hundreds of thousands of Australians will bear the impact of the recession for years to come. Those most vulnerable people—people with disabilities, carers and older Australians—will be impacted the most.
In the last sitting week Labor moved amendments in the House to the government's coronavirus and other measures bill to expand support to age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and Australians on unemployment support. Labor's amendments called on the government to continue the coronavirus supplement beyond December instead of delivering a cruel Christmas cut to 2.2 million Australians. The government used their numbers to vote those amendments down in the House. We'll be seeking to move similar amendments when the bill is debated in the Senate.
While there is nothing we can do to reverse the cuts to the coronavirus supplement in this determination and it is ultimately up to the government in the House of Representatives whether to continue the supplement past December, we will do all that we can to oppose the unfair reinstatement of the liquid assets waiting period. That is the purpose of this disallowance motion. Now is not the time to force people to draw down on their savings before they can access support. Now is not the time for the government to be punishing them because they've lost their jobs. Now is the time to ensure that people have the support they need without delay. I hope the Senate will support this motion.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:59): I rise to support this motion to disallow part 1 of schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020. This disallowance motion opposes the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period test. It is, in fact, identical to the disallowance motion I introduced in October, which we debated but, unfortunately, the Senate did not support. This gives the Senate the opportunity to make sure they support people trying to survive on the JobSeeker payment and on youth allowance payment. It gives the Senate a chance to rethink it and, in my opinion, get it right this time.
The liquid assets waiting period test was initially waived for people on JobSeeker payment, youth allowance and Austudy between March and September this year. We very strongly supported this move. It was the right and sensible thing to do, because people needed to get instant relief when they lost their jobs due to the impact of the coronavirus. They needed the immediate support. They couldn't be left waiting before they could access that support. We supported it and we support the continuation of the waiving of the liquid assets test, because we are not out of this yet. We still have the effects of the pandemic, and now we're in recession. So that sort of support needs to still be in place, particularly for those people who, for example, lose their job because of the changes in the JobKeeper payment. They come off the JobKeeper payment and then, all of a sudden, they're supposed to wait before they can get access to the JobSeeker payment, which in our mind is grossly unfair. Not only is it unfair to those people left hanging, waiting for that; it is also not good for our economy. As I said, this was an essential move in the midst of the pandemic and the recession, and those conditions continue to exist; people are still doing it tough. As I commented earlier this morning, the latest Hunger report from Foodbank shows just how much demand there is out there in the community for their support and services.
On 20 September the government reintroduced this punitive test at a time when millions of Australians are unemployed and underemployed. This means that you now have to serve a waiting period of between one and 13 weeks if you have savings of $5,500 if you are single with no dependants, or savings of $11,000 if you have a partner. At a time when people are still at risk of losing their homes because they either can't pay their mortgage or can't pay their rent, people need to have access to JobSeeker without whittling away their savings. Those savings are going to be needed, because we know, particularly with the cut to the coronavirus supplement, that JobSeeker isn't enough for families get by. It isn't enough for people who are trying to pay their rent, meet their essential bills, spend money in order to find work. It isn't enough. We know that people often rely on their essential savings to supplement the low rate of the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance, especially, as I said, now that the supplement has been cut by $300 a fortnight, and particularly with the uncertainty that still hangs over what the JobSeeker payment plus supplement will be at the end of December.
The government used the spurious argument of 'Let's wait for the labour market before we decide what we're doing with the supplement or whether we're going to increase the JobSeeker rate.' The government knows very well that the JobSeeker rate is too low; that's why they brought in a supplement in the first place. They knew it was untenable for those hundreds and thousands—and now 1.8 million—people who will be unemployed next year to try to exist on $40 a day. What possible reason would you have to wait until you see what the labour market is like, to see whether people can survive on $40 a day again? Expenses are expenses—you still have to pay your rent or your mortgage, put food on the table, pay for your medications, pay for your dental appointments, meet the gap if you aren't lucky enough to go to a GP that bulk-bills, and meet all those other essential payments.
As I said earlier today, we know that poverty, in and of itself, is a barrier to employment. The government is making it even harder for people to do things and to meet the government's own rhetoric. When they say, 'The best form of welfare is a job,' they are making it harder—although I don't actually believe that rhetoric. I don't want people to think the Greens agree with that, because in fact we think we're better off supporting some people in caring roles, for example, or making sure that they are studying so that they can get employment that not only, obviously, supports them but also contributes to our community, because educating and supporting people while they're training helps all of us.
The test makes people wear down their savings and only entrenches poverty and disadvantage. I am deeply concerned that we will see thousands retiring into poverty because the government has made them spend their savings in a job market with very limited opportunities. For older Australians, we know very well that age discrimination is rampant and has not been adequately addressed in this country, and that the training packages don't meet older people's needs. We are in danger of seeing another generation of older Australians retiring into poverty because they've been forced to use up all their savings and they then have to scrape things together on the JobSeeker payment, retiring on the pension in poverty.
This measure puts people on income support payments at further risk of homelessness and of poorer mental health by leaving them in a precarious position with little to no savings, having to survive on the JobSeeker payment. For many people, the only way they can survive on JobSeeker is by supplementing that income with what little savings they have. This could be the difference between hanging in on the mortgage or being able to pay the rent until they find more work, and losing the family home or their rental and having to move and try to find, for example, lower cost accommodation, which we know is very hard to come by.
The reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period is the latest example of the government going back to its old ways, making our social safety net punitive and harsh. Just today we saw a dorothy dixer, basically, from Senator Hanson to Minister Cash, asking about JobSeeker and mutual obligations. Minister Cash made hay and seemed to delight in the fact that over 250,000 suspensions had occurred. For those who are not au fait with our social security system, a suspension means you don't get paid. You are suspended and then you have to re-engage.
The government themselves know this is a punitive approach because, as I said this morning, in December they are in fact giving people 48 hours grace to reconnect before their payments get suspended—because the government know the impact of that suspension. They know that, for those families that are living hand to mouth, missing a payment at a particular time can be the difference between being able to put food on the table that night or not. That's why they're fixing it—well, not properly fixing it. They should get rid of the whole targeted compliance framework because it is punitive, it doesn't work and it particularly affects people on disability support pension, First Nations people, homeless people—in other words, the people that find it harder to meet some of these mutual obligations. But here we have the government celebrating the fact that there have been a quarter of a million suspensions. And don't forget that is over a period of about five weeks, folks: mutual obligations only came back into effect on 25 September, but already we have a quarter of a million suspensions. The government should hang its head in shame that that many suspensions have occurred. The liquid assets waiting period is going to significantly impact Australians trying to find work.
We know that we are not going to return to pre-pandemic employment figures until 2024, and those figures were nothing to celebrate. There were still too many people unemployed because there wasn't enough work. And the reason that we had so many people out of work is because there are not enough jobs at the moment. So people are being punished through this punitive system because they can't find non-existent jobs.
The government had an opportunity to actually reform our social security system, and that's what people want. People want reform to our social security system. They could have used this time to actually make changes to make sure that we have a system that is supportive; that cares for people; that meets their needs; that doesn't automatically stream people into stream A, for example, where they don't get the help they need; that addresses the age discrimination that we've got in the workforce; and that supports people meaningfully in higher education, instead of passing that higher education bill that went through this place the last time we sat. They could have made changes that enable genuine training, that have employment services that meet people's needs, that are supportive, that aren't punitive, that don't require the employment consultant to suspend you if you haven't turned up as you've missed an appointment or you haven't applied for the number of jobs—it's eight at the moment—because there are no jobs there. And they know very well that all they're doing is ticking the box. Talk to anybody that's been on JobSeeker payment. Particularly when you have to apply for 20 jobs, it is a pointless, soul-destroying exercise because the jobs aren't there but also because they're not qualified for a lot of the jobs they are forced to apply for just so that they've ticked that box.
In New Zealand, they've got studies that show that if you get rejected more than seven times when you're applying for a job it has an impact on your mental health. So, if you are having to apply for 20, imagine what impact that is having on your mental health and wellbeing. Again, the system is being counterproductive because it is a soul-destroying system. I always say to the government members, 'Get on the phone when your constituents ring you up and listen to their experiences with Centrelink, listen to their experiences trying to find work, listen to them in tears because they can't find work and because Centrelink has suspended them again through no fault of their own.' It is a soul-destroying system that defeats its supposed purpose, and that is to support people into employment and to support people in their time of need, and, right now, Australians are in need. Those that are unemployed through no fault of their own because the work isn't there are in need. And what do we do? We're going to make them wait 13 weeks now to get the JobSeeker payment and we're not going to give them any security about whether they're going to go back to $40 a day after Christmas other than vague promises by the Prime Minister when he's asked a question in the other place or the minister for social services at estimates saying it's highly likely that there will be an extension to the supplement. They're not saying what it's going to be or when it's going to come in. Although, we know of course it's got to come in the next two weeks of sitting and this place won't get time to properly review it. It will be rammed through this place with the dagger hanging over our heads, saying: 'If you don't pass this people will not get an increase, so after 31 December they'll be back on $40 a day.' That is not the way to run this country. It's not the way to treat people who are doing it tough right now. I urge the Senate to support this disallowance and do the right thing.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (19:13): I would like to support Senator Dodson's disallowance motion. This is a motion which is in essence an appeal to this chamber and to the Morrison government to show some compassion to the 400,000 Australians who are likely to have lost their jobs by Christmas. Put simply, this motion is an appeal for some common decency.
Reintroducing the liquid assets waiting period means that many people will, in effect, have to become destitute before they can apply for JobSeeker, even if they have modest savings of as little as $5,500 in the bank. As Senator Dodson pointed out, whether they have borrowed money from their family or, at the urging of this government and many conservative commentators, whether they have accessed their super and then lost their jobs or whether they have some redundancy payments, they'll have to run those moneys down before they can access JobSeeker. Many of them will have to wait up to 13 weeks. Often, these are people who have families. These are people who have mortgages, even if they have been able to defer them, and, if not, they will be in default. They're people who have rental accommodation and who can't necessarily secure an arrangement with their landlord. All of this is what this government is now trying to present to us as a means of helping people prepare for a COVID-normal Christmas. To me, it could be a scene from Dickens's A Christmas Carol whereby the Prime Minister is playing Ebenezer Scrooge. He's putting in a peerless performance in doing that. Not only will there be no joy, but there'll be no festivity. Many families will not be able to have basic sustenance, because of the liquid assets waiting period. This is simply not the time for the government to be obsessed with the deficit. As it was said in Alan Kohler's piece in The Australian this morning, this is a time for 'whatever it takes'. It's a time for us to understand just how deep the economic crisis is in this country.
Frankly, if the government abandons people who are struggling, as it seems so intent on doing, the deficit's only going to get worse anyway. Taxes won't be paid where there is no money to be spent or where people simply have nothing to spend. We've seen the government being dragged kicking and screaming to every measure that helps ordinary Australians who've been hit hard by the pandemic. They were very slow to introduce the coronavirus supplement for JobKeeper, and now they seem intent on winding it back as soon as they can. I've already mentioned Alan Kohler. On 29 September he wrote:
… over the next few months, hundreds of thousands of people will go from having a job in February, to getting $750 a week from JobKeeper in March, to now getting $600 a week, and then soon getting $282 a week from JobSeeker. That will be a nightmare for those hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families.
Mr Kohler points out what even the most scrooge-like member of this government should understand: apart from the misery the government is inflicting, the contribution that these folks are actually making to the economy ought not be underestimated. It's an irony, isn't it, that we read in the papers again that the banks and other financial institutions, too, will feel the consequences of the government's actions. How many Australians who are losing their income support have a mortgage? I understand there are roughly 200,000 businesses out there that are on loan deferrals. Will they be able to start repayments? The answer to these questions, as Mr Kohler wrote in The Australian, is 'somewhere between none of them and all of them'. If a third of the loans went into default, that would be four times the current total impairment provisions of the banks and nearly three times last year's total profits. The government is allowing all of this to happen in spite of what is known about the unemployment crisis. The reality is that things are getting worse, not better.
We learned at the estimates hearings that some 1.8 million Australians will be on unemployment support by the end of the year. That's 300,000 more than the government had previously predicted. A recent report by Anglicare, Jobs availability snapshot, found that there are 100 unemployed people for every entry-level job. Cutting unemployment benefits can only make that situation worse. Those benefits not only allow people to put food on the table but are spent in local businesses. Unemployment benefits are not just about supporting individuals but an economic stimulus measure in themselves. That's why Labor has been calling for a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment, yet the government is prematurely cutting support for people who are unemployed. That's why I say this is a measure that calls for a bit of decency and compassion.
This instrument reduces the coronavirus supplement from $550 to $250 per fortnight. Labor opposes this cut and supports maintenance of the rate at $550 per fortnight to support Australians in this time of acute need. At a time when the country is facing recession, when unemployment is on the rise and when so many ordinary Australians are struggling to get by, as Senator Dobson said, this is nothing short of being cruel. Unfortunately, the Senate simply doesn't have the capacity to do anything about that part of this instrument without depriving people altogether, so we're not seeking to change that. What we're seeking here is to call on the government to immediately reinstate the full amount. We can do so by opposing the restoration of the liquid assets waiting period for assessing unemployment payments, which will force thousands of Australians in need to wait for up to three months before they can access JobSeeker. The liquid assets waiting period was suspended in March, due to the pandemic, so that struggling Australians could get access to what they needed and do so quickly.
That need has not diminished. But, at a time of unprecedented crisis, the government is now expecting Australians to run down every last dollar they have before they can access unemployment benefits. That's why we on this side of the chamber are describing it as cruel and cynical. It's a double hit on those who were urged to take out or draw upon their super. It was a cynical move by a government that sought to undermine industry super in this country and went to some trouble to do that. It leaves people with no buffer whatsoever to meet the normal expenses of life. It leaves people in a destitute situation and forces them to rely upon emergency relief. It forces people to rely upon charity, and there could be nothing quite so cold as that. It's shameful that the government is allowing this to happen. It's shameful that we've had to do this again, as has already been indicated tonight. It is now time for the government to show some common decency, and for this chamber to show some common decency and support this proposition.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:24): The reality of this pandemic is that there are much fewer jobs—the ABS estimates that there are almost 360,000 fewer jobs than there were 12 months ago—and the unemployment rate has started rising again. Official estimates put the jobless rate at 6.9 per cent, with 937,400 people out of work. But the pandemic and various government support measures mean that that number drastically understates the unemployment crisis, with more than 1.5 million people on JobSeeker benefits. Reinstating lengthy waiting periods before Australians can access payments such as JobSeeker during this time is not only mean spirited; it is needlessly damaging to people and to the economy. The government should be doing all it can to support those it always leaves behind—people who rely on social security payments, the unemployed, Australians with disability and carers.
Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that aged pensioners, disability pensioners and carers have endured increased costs in relation to protecting their health during this pandemic. Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that Australians on unemployment support require certainty about the level of support they are receiving during this uncertain and difficult time. Labor believes we should be expanding support to aged pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and Australians on unemployment support. Australians should not be expected to draw down on their savings and superannuation before they can access help.
The government expects another 400,000 Australians to lose their jobs by the end of the year—so up to 400,000 Australians could be forced to wait up to over three months before they can access JobSeeker. Under the liquid assets waiting period, singles with as little as $5,500 in liquid assets must wait to access income support. Those with $11,500 or more will be forced to wait 13 weeks. Liquid assets can include savings, a redundancy that is owed but not yet paid, loans to family members or superannuation that has been accessed early. Over the past six months extraordinary uncertainty has seen a record number of Australians withdraw their superannuation early. Australians who access their superannuation early will be forced to run it down before they can access income support. This comes at the same time as cuts to JobKeeper payments, which will likely see many people pushed onto unemployment payments for the first time.
To add insult to injury, the government still has plans to double the liquid assets waiting period to up to 26 weeks, or six months. The government wants to force struggling Australians to eat through their savings before they can access income support. Now is not the time to resume the liquid assets waiting period. We ask the government to extend the suspension of the waiting period, and we call on the government to withdraw its bill to double the liquid assets waiting period from the parliament.
The Prime Minister said, 'We are all in this together.' Yet our pensioners and carers have been left behind. He said, 'We are all in this together,' but the 1.8 million Australians who are expected to be on unemployment support by the end of the year have no certainty as to what level of support will be available to them. This is one million more people than were relying on unemployment payments at the end of 2019.
The simple fact is that this recession has more than doubled the number of people who are unemployed and need access to social security. For many families, this is the first time they have needed to rely on unemployment support. This is going to be a really anxious Christmas for Australians who have lost their jobs or who have had their hours slashed. They have no certainty about what level of support will be available to them beyond December. As far as we know, the government is scheduled to cut unemployment support to the old base rate of $40 per day.
These Australians who have lost their jobs cannot plan their finances or household budgets, because they simply don't know what level of support they will be provided. They're expected to run down what savings they have, dip into their superannuation to make ends meet, and, not at all surprisingly, many are worried about how they will afford essentials, cover rent and pay bills. Those thousands of Australians who've taken redundancies at this time, many of them older workers, are having to wait months before support kicks in. Some have had to sell cars and other possessions or pare back necessities to make it through each week. The Council on the Ageing have called on the government to reverse its decision to reintroduce the liquid assets waiting period. They know that unemployed mature workers are among the most vulnerable in what will be a long-term recession.
As businesses restructure, experience from past periods of economic downturn tells us that older workers are amongst the highest proportion of people forced into redundancy. Once unemployed, older jobseekers face poor employment prospects, due largely to age-discriminatory hiring practices. Mature-age unemployed people must not be forced to deplete their retirement savings in order to become eligible for JobSeeker, especially when the overall JobSeeker asset test should be sufficient to determine need. But their arguments have fallen on deaf ears on the government side. With more jobseekers than there are job vacancies, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. It's even more difficult to find a job in our regions, the result of the government's failure to deliver a jobs program for our regions. In fact Anglicare's recent jobs snapshot found there are more than 100 people unemployed for every entry-level job. Yet for some reason our Prime Minister and this government seem intent on blaming Australians for losing their jobs.
We know that Australians receiving social security spend on local and small businesses. It means local and small businesses have more to spend on wages and jobs. Unemployment support is economic support. Labor's proposal would disallow the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period, as it impacts people with modest savings, including those who have withdrawn their super or are waiting on modest redundancy payments. With the economy in recession, people who have lost their job should be able to maintain a buffer to cover unexpected expenses. They should have a buffer if they get sick, if the car breaks down, if the fridge blows up and so on. This is a false economy, because it will mean more people are forced to rely on emergency relief.
This is the biggest recession in almost a century. It is not the time for this government to be punishing people who have lost their job.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:32): The government does not support this disallowance motion. Means testing is a longstanding and fundamental component of the income support system, and the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period is consistent with the targeted support the government is providing through the extension of the coronavirus supplement and the six-month extension to the JobKeeper program.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ): The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Dodson be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [19:37]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)
BILLS
Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (19:40): I spoke earlier in this place about how many Australian workers have been left out of JobKeeper. I spoke about how the administration of the JobKeeper scheme had failed to ensure that public money did not go to executive bonuses. I spoke about how hundreds of millions of dollars of public money had gone to companies like Qantas, who then had nothing to stop them from pocketing the money with one hand while turning around and sacking or outsourcing Australian workers with the other hand—all under the guise, at the same time, of JobKeeper, while they were carrying out massive forms of wage theft.
Just as Labor stood up in this place and argued for a better JobKeeper scheme that included all workers, the government's own embarrassing error revealed that they had already budgeted an extra $60 billion for JobKeeper that would not be spent. Even then, they refused to include some two million workers that they had left out. JobKeeper was not what it should have been, because it failed so many working people and their families. So Labor will take a hard look at JobMaker. We will judge the program from the standpoint of working people and working families—and from the businesses that they support and the economy that thrives if working people also thrive. We know, despite its flaws, that JobKeeper had been the lifeline for millions of workers and thousands of businesses, which is why we called on the government to keep JobKeeper in place and not cut it back while it is still the middle of a recession. But then they went ahead and cut the rate of JobKeeper in September, and the final cliff is coming for these workers and their employers in March 2021, when JobKeeper will end. It will end without a real plan for local jobs, local manufacturing or local procurement. And, of course, there is no plan for the aviation industry.
That brings me to JobMaker. JobMaker is the latest policy announcement to come out of the Prime Minister's policy marketing production line. Like all of this government's policies, it is nine parts announcement and one part delivery—if you're lucky. Announced as part of the budget, JobMaker comes after the recent ABS figure shows 30,000 jobs were lost in the two weeks to October 17. This was the first fortnight after the government cut JobKeeper back prematurely. We've already lost half a million jobs since COVID hit, and we are set to lose another 160,000 jobs before Christmas. We must never forget that those official unemployment figures do not include the two million Australians who are underemployed.
Labor has said from the outset that we would be constructive and work with the government to support our workers and businesses during the pandemic. But they cannot hide from the fact that this measure is going to do very little to support the creation of secure, long-term jobs. In its current form, JobMaker will encourage turnover of longstanding employees. It will provide a tax incentive for these employees to be replaced with short-term workers in insecure jobs. The government will say that the jobs we have are new. The headcount must increase. They will say that each new job must be 20 hours, but there is nothing stopping an employer replacing one worker who works full-time with two young workers, or replacing one casual worker working substantial hours similar to full-time hours with two younger workers. The headcount goes up, the hours go up and someone loses their full-time job because of the government policy. For the two young people who get a casual job, those insecure jobs can be withdrawn as soon as the subsidy ends after a year, presumably allowing for another batch of short-term or part-time jobs.
This government is fond of saying that the best form of welfare is a job. What that glib marketing statement ignores is the quality of the job. It tries to gloss over the epidemic of underpaid and insecure jobs in our economy. It makes clear that all this government is about is a bandaid solution of short-term jobs to pump up the official employment figures and get through to the next election. What Labor stands for is secure jobs, jobs with rights, jobs with training, jobs with fair pay and decent conditions, jobs with superannuation for an appropriate and dignified retirement.
The JobMaker bill should make sure that these jobs include minimum and legal rates of pay, that they are of the highest standard and that they are for the long term. JobMaker also ignores millions of workers aged 35 and over, leaving them without access to any meaningful government support once JobKeeper ends. The JobKeeper scheme guidelines also contain no provision which guarantees workers access to any form of redress, such as an arbitration process, should their employment be unjustly impacted by the scheme. While some workers have access to dispute processes through their enterprise agreement, the majority do not. What this means is that workers will have their hours cut or their jobs terminated to make room for subsidised insecure workers.
What is particularly disturbing about this bill as it stands is that an employer can sack a worker and the worker would not even know that they were being replaced by a younger subsidised worker or workers, which is why it's in the interest of fairness that JobMaker must be transparent. To the greatest extent possible, the public must know how the billions in public money will be spent on the JobMaker scheme.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the extent to which job insecurity had already become endemic in our economy. COVID-19 is a crisis. Its aftermath should be an opportunity to rebuild better than what we had before, an opportunity to build secure, well-paying jobs with rights, superannuation and training; jobs that come with access to adequate sick leave, including when a worker needs to self-isolate. What we need is a government that promotes secure jobs and builds a lasting legacy of prosperity for all Australians. Instead we get JobMaker, which is really 'job replacer', 'job churner' and, if you're over 35, 'job excluder'. We have a government unwilling and unable to grapple with the job insecurity it had itself embedded in the economy before COVID. Instead of tackling insecure work, this government policy is to promote it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:48): I rise tonight to make a contribution to the debate on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. This bill allows the Treasurer to make rules to facilitate the JobMaker hiring credit scheme that was announced in the October budget. The JobMaker scheme will be targeted at workers aged 35 years and under who have received JobSeeker, youth allowance or a similar payment in the past three months. This bill lacks important details and protections for workers, would give enormous power to the minister, would lock in insecure and low-paid jobs for young people and would allow big business to use public money to bolster their profits under the guise of a wage subsidy.
In its submission to the inquiry on the bill, the Council on the Ageing, COTA, said that it is deeply disappointed that older workers are not included in the scheme or supported through a similar program targeted at employment for older Australians. As COTA explains, although older workers haven't experienced as large a spike in unemployment as younger workers, there has been a major increase in unemployment amongst older people.
History tells us that once an older worker becomes unemployed they find it much more difficult to re-enter employment than younger people and are at greater risk of becoming long-term unemployed. We see the problem in a growing trend of older workers becoming a bigger cohort of the long-term unemployed. Past recessions have led to a warning for older workers. Two years after the 1991 recession, the share of long-term unemployed for 55- to 64-year-olds peaked at 56 per cent, compared to 33 per cent for 25- to 34-year-olds. After the 1990s recessions, many older people, in fact, never worked again.
One of our chief concerns with this bill is that it doesn't provide a single detail about the scheme, nor does it detail the eligibility criteria, and my colleagues have pointed out the large flaws in this scheme. Instead, this bill delegates the power to the minister to establish an unlimited number of publicly funded wage subsidy schemes until 6 October 2022. There are significant risks involved in leaving these details out of primary legislation. A point that the Greens have raised many times is this growing trend to leave important details out of the primary legislation. This bill is taking it to another level. The Greens share COTA's concerns that proper safeguards need to be built into the program to ensure that older workers and their jobs are protected. The government must demonstrate how the JobMaker scheme will not result in employed older workers being displaced by subsidised younger workers. It would be irresponsible for the government to oversee a scheme that pits younger workers against older workers.
There is a strong case for supporting older workers through this crisis as well as younger workers. We only need to take one look at the JobSeeker demographics to understand this. In September, the Parliamentary Budget Office reported that there had been an increase in people, especially women, who had been on the JobSeeker payment for more than one year. The increase in long-term and older JobSeeker recipients is likely to continue, irrespective of short-term fluctuations in unemployment. What's worse is that the JobSeeker payment is now acting as a pre-age pension payment for some unemployed older Australians, and they then retire in poverty. Without tailored programs and interventions, older unemployed workers will continue to be left behind by this government. The growing proportion of older workers in the trend of the long-term unemployed is, unfortunately, a strong warning of where we may end up after this pandemic and after this recession. This bill provides us with the opportunity to discuss an issue that too often flies under the radar and is ignored, and that is the very real issue of age discrimination.
The Australian Human Rights Commission found, in 2018, that 65 per cent of human resource professionals consider candidates aged over 50 as too old. Imagine being told that you are too old at 50 years old, and then you face the prospect of not working again even though you may live for decades longer. Or you may, in fact, end up in a series of casual jobs that guarantee no security. A survey conducted by LinkedIn, earlier this year, found that 25 per cent of surveyed Australians reported age as one of the top barriers to securing work. Age discrimination undermines an older person's right to work, their right to economic security and their ability to enjoy the benefits of paid employment, including those things that the government talks about all the time: dignity, independence, social inclusion and a sense of purpose. These are all things that the government constantly tells us are important, but apparently they are not important for older workers.
Working later in life, past retirement age, is a choice that many people do make. But age discrimination takes away that choice. Under its current composition, it's possible that the JobMaker scheme could also take away this choice for older workers, essentially meaning the laws of this place and its failure to address unemployment in older workers will mean that older workers will retire in poverty.
At Senate estimates, I noticed the government ministers were keen to spruik the benefits of other wage subsidy programs that exist for other cohorts of workers. This includes the restart wage subsidy program, which is designed to support older workers. However, the restart wage subsidy isn't a suitable alternative to JobMaker. As COTA pointed out in its submission:
The program is not a COVID-19 measure.
… … …
For now, there is an urgent need for a COVID-19 specific measure. Restart Wage Subsidy is not fit-for-purpose in the current economic environment.
I agree with COTA; it isn't.
Per Capita also recommend in their submission that:
… the Government urgently revisit the design and implementation of the Restart Wage …
According to Per Capita, the program has outlaid less than half of its expenditure and created just a quarter of the anticipated jobs since it was announced in 2014. I would not say that is a successful scheme. Certainly, in talking to older workers, people have commented to me many times that the program doesn't fit the bill. So the government can't fall back on that and say, 'It's okay; we've got the restart scheme.' It's clear to me that the restart program is not a suitable substitute for looking after older workers and ensuring that they can find work and supporting them to find work.
We need more action to make sure that older workers who are unemployed as a result of this recession get the support they need. We need to make sure that older workers are not being left behind by this program. Older workers have much experience and wisdom to offer in our workplaces and they will play a critical role in rebuilding our economy. They must be given the opportunity to play that role. Many older Australians experienced age discrimination before the coronavirus hit. As I articulated, they are a growing cohort of the long-term unemployed—and, believe me, it's not through not wanting to work. Older workers want work. They can't find work. I've had older workers talk to me about being knocked back for jobs such as filling shelves in a supermarket that they saw re-advertised. They applied and then saw them re-advertised. That's age discrimination.
As I said, many older workers experienced age discrimination before this pandemic hit. This pandemic is amplifying that. We are now faced with choices about how we are going to rebuild and get through this crisis. If the government are genuine in leaving no-one behind, they will make sure they look after older workers. We must ensure that the choices that we make leave no-one behind and that we ensure that we are supporting older workers. I strongly support the need to support younger workers, but, as I said earlier, we can't play one off against the other. We need to make sure that older workers are not discriminated against yet again.
This bill needs fixing. The Greens have many amendments, and I know others do too. This bill needs to be amended to ensure that the key elements of the scheme are not left to delegated legislation and are articulated in the primary legislation. I commend the amendments that Senator Faruqi will move on behalf of the Greens in the chamber and look forward to the debate on those amendments.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (19:59): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. JobMaker was announced in the budget with much fanfare. The Treasurer announced his headline—'JobMaker will support 450,000 jobs'. Why didn't the media think to ask the Treasurer to define the word 'support'? His own Treasury doesn't agree that the word 'support' means what the Treasurer thinks it does.
Treasury indicated at Senate estimates hearings that JobMaker will create not 450,000 jobs but a meagre 45,000 jobs—one-tenth. This inconsequential measure will not make a noticeable difference to the prospects of everyday Australians and yet the government is treating JobMaker as a headline grabber. Here's a brochure from the government. The centrepiece of their economic recovery plan for Australia is 'JobMaker—creating jobs and rebuilding our economy'. It's right here on the cover. It must be true because it's glossy.
Once again this Liberal-National government is misrepresenting announcements as achievements—a well-worn ploy that many marketers use. Coupled with a glossy brochure there are diagrams, high-viz vests, headlines and lots of colour. JobMaker is budgeted to cost $4 billion. Yet, with only 45,000 jobs likely to be created, the cost is actually only $400 million. To put that into perspective, the government will spend $400 million on JobKeeper in one day—$400 million is one day's JobKeeper.
Let's turn to the number of jobs and training places created in this budget. When they're added up, they exceed the number of people unemployed. This budget is a hoax. According to the Treasurer's own numbers, this budget will put everyone back into a training place or a job before the next election—zero unemployment. Didn't the Treasurer add up all these wild claims in the budget and realise that the numbers just don't add up? The government has let hyperbole run amuck. Then again, working a calculator has never been Treasurer Frydenberg's strong suit. JobKeeper itself was out by just $60 billion!
The coalition's Restart program was announced in 2014 as a $10,000 subsidy to help 30,000 older Australians back into the workforce every year. Six years later this scheme has helped only 9,000 older Australians a year, less than one-third of the 30,000 a year the government announced. Even worse, almost half of those workers were terminated once the minimum employment period ended. That leaves just 4,500 per year.
On top of that, many of the businesses that claimed Restart were not serious about putting on a new employee. Instead, those businesses were serious about free money from the government. That's the problem with corporate welfare. It turns businesses into subsidy farms reliant on the government. It creates phony jobs, not sustainable breadwinner jobs. It creates weaker companies, not stronger companies. It replaces the profit motive with a handout mentality. One Nation opposes corporate welfare—the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to large corporations.
This government's economic recovery plan for Australia is more corporate welfare, more printing money to give to the banks and more pumping up of the housing bubble. That's it; that's the whole plan. If the government were fair dinkum about creating jobs, it would create the right business environment for growth and would invest in restoring our country's productive capacity. Our productive capacity has been destroyed by a lack of infrastructure and by the decimation of our electricity sector, which is driving manufacturers overseas. We've gone from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to having the highest, and manufacturers are leaving in their droves and taking with them their jobs to China, India and Asia. Restoring our productive capacity includes building dams, power stations, roads, bridges and transmission lines. It involves cutting red tape, cutting blue tape and cutting green tape. It would involve—if the government had courage—comprehensive tax reform so that we had a proper, honest, effective and efficient taxation system, a transparent taxation system. And then let the economy get on with the business of creating jobs and wealth for all Australians.
Instead, this government chooses to promote a casualised workforce. JobMaker is not about creating full-time work; it is the reverse. It motivates, indeed drives, businesses to replace one full-time employee with two casual employees, replacing one real, breadwinner job with two junk jobs. The JobMaker protections around higher payroll and headcount allow for this casualisation process. This is an attack on breadwinner jobs—jobs that can support families; jobs that can put kids through school and university so kids have an option for a better life than their parents had. Remember that, Australia? Remember when kids fared better than their parents? Under successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments, that's become a thing of the past. Our generation is the first generation to pass on less, not more, to our kids—less wealth, less opportunity, less freedom.
The Liberal-National coalition have form on this. Prime Minister Howard's government spent 11 years breaking up full-time breadwinner jobs into junk jobs—casual and part-time work. They are jobs that have no bargaining power, with lower wages, fewer entitlements and less security. I've talked about that many times in the Senate. I have got so much data and evidence on that. There is no wealth creation in these low-paid, casual, subsistence jobs. As a result, Australia's median wage has gone backwards over the past 30 years. Why some union bosses have gone along with it is beyond me, but we can talk about that another day. Today we're talking about the Liberal Party declaring war on families, on holidays, on workers' home ownership and on everyday Australians trying desperately to accumulate wealth just to stash a bit away for the future.
JobMaker is another nail in the coffin of Australian families, courtesy of the corporate greed, hubris and arrogance that have overtaken the Liberal and National parties. One Nation opposes this legislation, this marketing ploy. Instead of trying to look good, government should do good. We need to get our country back to basics. We need to invest in restoring our country's productive capacity. That's what decides our country's future.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:07): I rise tonight to speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, colloquially known as JobMaker. I'm going to do something a little bit unusual tonight, with your indulgence, Mr Acting Deputy President. I'm going to read a section of the Constitution, because it goes to a core problem that exists with this bill. I go to part I, section 1 of the Constitution, under the title 'Legislative power':
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.
Make no mistake: when Senator Roberts stands up and says he is a servant of Queensland, actually he has an obligation under the Constitution to recognise that it is in this place that laws are made; they're not made in back rooms of some office somewhere in the executive establishment. That is the problem with this bill at the moment.
This bill basically has two substantive paragraphs. It allows the government, the executive, to create a scheme that can have:
(a) one or more kinds of payments by the Commonwealth to an entity in respect of a time that occurs during the relevant period, being payments that are primarily for the purpose of:
(i) improving the prospects of individuals getting employment in Australia, or
(ii) increasing workforce participation in Australia;
That's all it says. That's all we've been asked to vote on. What we've been asked to do is grant a power to the executive to go off and do whatever it is that they want, provided it fits roughly within the scope of what I've just read to you. That is not how this is supposed to work. We may be actually operating contrary to the Constitution.
Of course, there is delegated legislation; we understand about delegated legislation. Delegate legislation is where we enable the executive to make regulations of an administrative nature, or perhaps in circumstances where there is an emergency. So during the COVID crisis, when we were very concerned about whether or not the parliament could or could not sit, it was appropriate to pass a head of power for JobKeeper and for JobSeeker so that we could let the Treasurer get on and make sure that we dealt with a rapidly changing situation. We allowed the social security minister to work with a rapidly changing set of circumstances. That was an appropriate use of a head of power. But, thankfully—and I will give the government some credit for this—we are now back in a situation of relative normality and a situation where, if necessary, we can call the parliament together using remote log-ins as well. So there's very little question that we can't get the parliament to come in and deal with any piece of legislation with which there might be some problem.
Therein lies the problem. If I go back to a 2019 report from the Scrutiny of Bills committee, it says:
Generally speaking, about half of the law of the Commonwealth by volume consists of delegated legislation (as opposed to Acts of Parliament). The volume of delegated legislation made each year has increased over time. For example, in the mid-1980s there were around 850 disallowable instruments tabled each year. By contrast, around 1,700 disallowable instruments are now made annually.
Enough is enough. You heard me read from the Constitution. Passing legislation that grants a head of power, but then assigns the functions of generating the rules to the executive, is not consistent with our job. We're abdicating our job to people in the backrooms of government buildings. You see, how this is supposed to work is: legislation is presented to the chamber and we talk about it. We contest that legislation, we debate that legislation and, ultimately, we vote on that legislation. When we vote, the people we work for—our constituents—get to see who voted for what and what they said. That doesn't happen in this circumstance, because the rules have been developed by the executive. We don't know who that is.
When we vote for this, perhaps later tonight or tomorrow, we're not even certain that the rules that have been circulated—because they're in an exposure draft form—will be the ones that actually come into play. The Senate doesn't even understand what it's voting for. As we go through looking at the bill tonight, as we go through the committee stage and people want to move amendments to change things, it's very difficult to do so, because, actually, all of the provisions are really in the rules. Sure, they might be disallowable, but disallowable not in a way where you can amend a regulation or seek to strike out part of a regulation—it's a job lot; you've got to say no to everything. And when the government wants to change something, they'll just do that. They'll change it. They'll table the regulation. They'll know that actually it's quite difficult in this chamber to have a disallowance, so it will go through. And you know what? Unlike when the government comes in with a bill to alter some legislation to which, provided it's roughly in scope, you can move amendments—because you've listened to your constituents and you know what the problems are and you want to make changes—you can't, because all of the details are set out in the rules. This is not the way things are supposed to work. This is not us doing our job properly. We should wait until the government has presented the rules to us, and then decide on that legislation on its merits.
On the basis that this bill is being constructed in a manner that abrogates the responsibility of the Senate, I will not be voting for it. I will not be voting for it. I am going to move an amendment that seeks to bring the rules back into the primary legislation, because that is how it's supposed to be. I hope I get the support of the crossbench and I hope I get the support of the Labor Party, because that's how the laws are supposed to be, not in some regulations drafted by someone in an office that we never get to see and voters never get to see.
I have some difficulty with some elements of this bill. I don't like the way in which it discriminates against people who are over the age of 35, and I'll have something more to say about that during the committee stage—indeed, I'm moving an amendment in relation to that. But I hope that in this instance the Labor Party stands up against the government. The government go off and do whatever it is they want to do, and they're quite comfortable doing that, and it is the job of a strong opposition to make sure that we constrain the government and make sure that they behave in a manner that is constitutional, and that is not what is happening here.
If we listened to what Senator Roberts just said, One Nation, very clearly, are not supporting this bill. And I've just indicated that, in its current form, in its unconstitutional form, I won't be supporting it either. What does that tell Labor? You've got the numbers to stop this. So, anything you don't like about this bill, you can stop. Later tonight or tomorrow, you can vote no at the third reading stage. I know that you're worried that that will somehow be portrayed in the media as you guys not supporting job creation, but it's not what that would mean. It would mean: 'Government, go back and sit down with the Labor Party and work together to find legislation that you can bring back to the chamber that is acceptable to the Labor Party.' We've just given you the numbers to do that. You now have strength because the government cannot get this bill through without the support of the Labor Party. That's pretty powerful. You have the choice now, the ability now, to go and talk in a room, to bring the rules back into the primary legislation, and let everyone see, discuss and debate it, and let everyone see how the people who propose the legislation are going to vote for it, because that is how this is supposed to work.
I will just repeat that, based on what Senator Roberts said, One Nation are not supporting this, so the government doesn't have the numbers. That gives you strength. But what you can't do now is wave it through. You can't just wave it through. You have the ability now to negotiate hard with the government, and I encourage you, I beg of you, to bring the rules back into the primary legislation so that the bill is constitutional, so that we are seen to be doing our job and so that we can lend support to some of the criticism that has come from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee from watching lots and lots of delegated legislation go through that does very significant things within the economy, within our communities. I encourage the Labor Party to think very carefully about this.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (20:20): The JobMaker scheme has not been properly thought through. It has too many flaws to successfully entice businesses into hiring extra employees and help rebuild the employment sector post COVID-19. This pandemic induced recession is an extraordinary once-in-100-year event that has brought Australia and much of the world to its financial knees, and it needs something special to turn it around. JobMaker falls short.
The Senate might recall that on 24 February I was the first member of the Senate to question why the Morrison government allowed Australian universities to put profits before the health and security of this nation. Why I asked that series of questions was that a handful of universities here in Australia were circumventing international border closures unnecessarily and further spreading cases of the virus. It was a precursor to the troubles we would face as a nation due to the virus—in particular, the crumbling of the workforce. It was always going to require significant support from government to help trigger businesses to rebuild Australia's employment sector.
JobKeeper may have helped keep the heads of individuals above water, but it hasn't helped in any way to help businesses restore employment numbers. JobMaker, which is the next stopgap measure, also won't fix it. JobMaker offers little genuine financial incentive to business owners who are struggling to stay afloat. Just like many government programs, it was announced with much fanfare, but when it is truly analysed it doesn't really do much to help. Government seem to prioritise getting positive publicity rather than actually solving the problem they claim to be solving. The money that has been thrown at JobKeeper and now proposed for JobMaker is wasted money that might be good for the short term, but in the long term it must be paid back with interest, with nothing long term to show for it.
The $4 billion initially earmarked for JobMaker would be better spent on building infrastructure that would not only create jobs during construction but generate ongoing income for future generations. The modernised Bradfield Scheme, which I have highlighted for two decades, is the type of infrastructure project that could make a massive positive difference to the economy. It will pay for itself and then also generate much-needed ongoing income for Australia. It could irrigate such large parts of Central Queensland that it could become a food bowl not only for Australia but for the rest of the world. It's a shame the Queensland Labor government doesn't take this project seriously. It needs the federal government to make it a priority project in the national interest to get it off the ground.
Another infrastructure scheme worth analysing is Project Iron Boomerang, which would see the construction of steel smelters near the coalfields of Central Queensland and near the iron ore mines of Western Australia, with the two areas connected by rail. Coal and iron ore could be easily freighted between the two. It would mean we could process our iron ore to produce all Australian steel requirements here rather than exporting raw materials to China and then importing steel at great cost. We could then export to other countries. It would generate $72 billion in income per year, plus $21 billion in tax revenues annually, and create an estimated 75,000 jobs.
These two projects would help pay off Australia's debt and help the economy to recover. It's disappointing that projects like these two and others are not given serious consideration, yet debt-creating handout schemes are jumped at with enthusiastic fervour. The government would much rather throw borrowed money at welfare schemes that might put smiles on people's faces but will have minimal long-term benefit. It fails to mention that all that money will also need to be paid back courtesy of the very people who receive the handouts: the taxpayers.
Rather than providing support that is genuinely helpful, the financial offerings under JobMaker are relatively small and largely dependent on the courage of the business owners themselves to take a leap of faith to hire new workers. This is a big ask at a time when we're still in a significant recession and those businesses are struggling to survive. I have mentioned previously that the $4 billion to set up the JobMaker hiring credit scheme could instead go towards helping the states to raise the payroll tax threshold, which would support businesses and business growth across the board.
JobMaker also comes with administrative headaches for businesses, which are required to report quarterly to government to affirm their ongoing eligibility for the credits. A lot can change in business in three months. To be eligible, they need to prove an increase in total employee numbers. It makes it a worry for employers who fear the unexpected loss of a staff member or two could see them lose their entitlement to that support. The reality hanging over their heads would create more unwanted uncertainty in a year that has already been plagued with considerable uncertainty. On top of that, the wage credits are paid to the businesses quarterly, potentially adding to the administrative challenges and reducing the attractiveness of the scheme.
JobMaker supports two sectors of the workforce: those aged 16 to 29 and those aged 30 to 35. Jobseekers of other ages are therefore overlooked and disadvantaged, including those who might be a little older but who have considerable expertise and still much to offer. As I pointed out when the scheme was first announced, it is discriminatory towards school leavers and older workers, even possibly breaching age-discrimination laws. While federal laws like the Fair Work Act 2009 outlaw age discrimination, some state laws allow special exemptions that aim to lift those sectors of society that are disadvantaged. So the murkiness of JobMaker gets even murkier.
It was hoped that JobMaker would encourage the creation of 450,000 new jobs, but Treasury itself has downgraded that expectation to more like 45,000. Experts from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, believe the dollars on offer through the scheme are not high enough for businesses to offset the costs and risks of hiring more employees. At $200 for a new worker aged 16 to 29 and $100 for someone aged 30 to 35, the employer who takes up these incentives still needs to find the bulk of the new employee's weekly wages. To commit to finding that extra money upfront each week is daunting for many business owners, many of whom are in survival mode due to more than six months of hardship. As I said earlier, the credits are paid quarterly, so they are forced to pay full wages upfront and wait months for the credits to be reimbursed—a further disincentive. Many businesses are still finding their feet and they remain uncertain of what the future will bring. They will obviously baulk at the idea of taking on the costs that come with additional employees. Committing to hiring additional staff members means the business owner is also committing to finding hundreds more dollars in income to make up the full wages. If business growth were that easy, he or she would have hired without the need for a wage subsidy.
JobMaker would be more likely to interest employers if their business had entered a growth phase, but many small and medium businesses today are in a survival phase. It is my concern that JobMaker would encourage the loss of full-time jobs and reduce job security. JobMaker encourages the subsequent casualisation of any new roles. The $200 payment requires a new employee to work a minimum of 20 hours, so it makes sense that an employer might think to employ two workers, each working 20 hours, to qualify for two payments. This would better subsidise an employer than employing someone in a full-time equivalent position. This reduces the demands on the employer, but, unfortunately, the workers miss out on full-time work and the employment sector generally suffers.
Governments of both colours have always believed wrongly that small-business owners live the high life. The reality is that most small-business owners work the longest hours of all their staff, often doing paperwork late into the night. They are the first to be in the office in the mornings, and they are the last to get paid after invoices and overheads are taken care of. As we know, there are many businesses across this country crying out for workers. But, because of the decisions made by this government to make welfare so lucrative, there are not many people willing to take up these jobs. JobSeeker has made it easy for Australians to live comfortably without needing to work. JobMaker has been devised by government to rectify that problem but is unlikely to be successful for the reasons outlined. JobMaker is not a strong enough system to help prise JobSeeker recipients off their couches and back to work. It is throwing bad money after bad money. One Nation will not support it.
The government needs to move away from the damaging handout mentality that is stagnating job growth and building debt. It needs to start thinking about measures that will fire up economic activity and make Australia the powerhouse economy that it can be. The government needs to shift focus to investing in infrastructure projects that will benefit Australians and Australia as a whole for the decades to come.
As I've stated in my speech, we won't be supporting this. I've spoken with a lot of small businesses along the way. A lot of businesses are thriving. They're doing extremely well with COVID. They've come out the other end. The trouble is that they don't want the $100 or $200 that's given to them. What they want is people to work. The signs are out there. When they're taking on 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds for work because they can't get anyone else to work then we have a real problem in this country. I know a lot of people are happy, and, under COVID, we needed to pay people who have lost their jobs and the jobseekers. I understand that. But extending this program out to March next year is not getting these people out of the way of life of sitting and getting paid by the government. That is not getting them to go and apply for these jobs.
My question to Michaelia Cash today was about what the government are going to do about these people who are offered jobs. We have 20,000 people in Cairns and the Hervey Bay in Queensland on JobSeeker, yet the farmers are crying out for about 15,000 workers, and they can't get anyone. No-one applies for their jobs. If you go to Maranoa or the Darling Downs, there are another 7,000 on JobSeeker, and the farmers can't get workers to pick the fruit. The farmers are ploughing their crops into the ground because no-one will pick the fruit. Is this how low this country has come—people don't want to get out to work because it's too hard? The handouts don't send out a lot of money. It's not a lot of money by the time you pay the rent, but the fact is that people here are quite happy to live this lifestyle. They don't have to get up, get in the car, go to work and travel an hour to work like most other Australians have to do. They're quite happy to receive that money and live this lifestyle, because they don't have to be told what to do or work for that money. There is a handout mentality in the third and fourth generations of this nation—a handout mentality of people not working. They feel it's an entitlement; it's not. It was set up as a helping hand.
When we bring workers from overseas to pick the fruit in this country, we have a real problem. Both sides of parliament keep giving handouts to buy votes. Once you give the handouts, you can't take them back. People think they're entitled to them. Where has the country that I grew up in gone? People have to provide roofs over their own heads, not rely on the government to provide them. It is there for those that need that helping hand. But when we have a generation on welfare payments, we have a real problem. This here is not helping the situation. Businesses don't want handouts. Businesses want Australian workers.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (20:36): [by video link] On the legislation before us, the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, let's step back a little bit to the beginning of the conversation and explore what people, particularly young people as a generation, are experiencing right now, what this bill does, the problems with it and what needs to be done instead of it. We know that right now in our community people are really struggling. We're struggling with three things, primarily. There are the impacts of the health crisis and the continuing impacts of coronavirus in terms of our opportunities, whether they be in education or the employment space. We know that we're also struggling with a broader climate crisis at the moment, and many young people are staring down the barrel right now at a future that will be dominated by the backdrop of a rapidly escalating climate crisis that the major parties don't seem willing to address. Finally, we're dealing with the crisis of mental health in our community, particularly for young people. We know that levels of mental ill health, of anxiety, have never been higher than they are right now, and that many of us as young people struggle to access mental health care supports where and when we need them.
In the context of these triple crises that are facing us as a generation, we have a bill come before the Senate tonight that is casually known as the 'JobMaker bill'. It is a bit of a strange title. On the surface it doesn't really explain much of where it fits in a broader context, but you hear the word 'JobMaker' and you are inclined to think that it is designed to make jobs. It's a funny old thing; we have a Prime Minister with a marketing background and tonight is a night when you certainly see it, because if you pop the lid on this particular piece of legislation you discover a very small piece of legislation that doesn't really have much to do with making jobs. There is not much evidence to suggest that it will create many jobs at all. Ultimately, it doesn't address many of the long-term challenges that we as young people have been experiencing in the employment space, even before COVID began.
Let's go a bit deeper and look at what this bill does in simple terms. It basically enables large corporations to claim a wage subsidy, an amount of money, as a result of employing a young person, within a certain age range, to engage in a job for no fewer than 20 hours a week. This wage subsidy scheme has a very basic structure, and that has a couple of potential flow-ons that there are legitimate concerns about and a couple of flaws as well. Firstly, because of the way that the legislation has been worded, unfortunately it will be possible for an employer to take a full-time position, for which they are not receiving a wage subsidy, and split that position into, say, two or three 20-hour a week casualised positions. The employer will then receive the wage subsidies, increase its budget bottom line and, at the end of the 12-month period, sack the three people it hired and go on its merry way.
It's another example of how, when you dig into the government's response packages to COVID, you find that, while they look reasonable on the surface, there are structures by which public funds are disproportionately redistributed to large corporations that make sizeable donations to the Liberal Party at the state and federal level. That's part of the reason that if we look at the corporate profit trajectories over the last year or so we see that, despite the economic impacts of COVID-19, the share prices of some of our largest companies have shot through the roof. The profits have been outstanding, because so much money has been passed from the public purse into the corporate bottom line.
One of the nastier effects of this legislation will be to pit older workers, particularly older women, against younger workers. We know that it is very difficult for a young person to get a job right now. We also know that if you are over the age of 50 or 55 there's a lot of age based discrimination at the other end of the age spectrum. This will result in a lot of discrimination in the workplace, but one of the great concerns about this particular piece of legislation is that it will incentivise the hiring, on short-term, insecure contracts, of younger people at the expense of older workers, particularly women. This is a cohort, a group of people, that we already understand to be really disadvantaged when it comes to employment outcomes as well as retirement savings. The superannuation of older women in the workforce is disgracefully lower than that of men of the same age, because of a lot of wage based discrimination related to gender and different roles in the workplace.
Finally, I think it's important to look at the moral that sits behind this legislation. This might be a controversial observation, but I ask you to stick with me in consideration of the central question that you discover when you back up the truck a bit from this legislation and look at what we might call the fundamental premise. The fundamental premise of this legislation is that, regardless of the type of work—regardless of the amount of time, regardless of, in some ways, the conditions, the wage, the way that job insecurity might impact on your mental health—any job is better than no job, no matter how poor that job might be. This idea comes to us after decades, really—in some ways century on century—of a building idea that human value is inextricably connected to a human being's engagement in the workforce, what we sometimes hear spoken of as the inherent dignity of work. On its surface, this idea seems quite normal, quite uncontroversial and not particularly damaging. However, we need to look a bit deeper and ask ourselves the question: what does this mean for groups of people who are structurally inhibited from entering the economy, like young people or disabled people?
Many of us are locked out of the workforce. But many of us are also placed into jobs in so-called disability enterprises that pay 30c an hour, and those practices are justified because it is suggested that there is an inherent dignity in work regardless of what you are paid or the conditions of that payment.
It's one of these strange old ideas that have grown out of a misinterpretation, in my belief, of the foundational tenets of workplace activism and unionism. The reality of the history of the union movement here in Australia and around the world is that it grew out of an understanding of the inherent dignity of the worker; the inherent dignity and right of all people when they're on the job, when they're at work and when they're in the workplace to be safe and fairly paid. These rights and high ideals have over time been taken and twisted into a space now where there is a belief that the engagement in the job itself is the wellspring of the dignity. It is an idea that I think we need to push back on as young people and legislators because it ultimately sets up so many in our community to fail, to feel a sense of indignity and shame because of an inability to gain work. The reality is that human dignity is inherent to human beings, regardless of whether we might be able to sell our labour for an hourly rate in a market place that is high enough for us to be able to eat or drink water or have a secure roof over our head. It's an idea we need to bin and replace with an idea of inherent human dignity for all people in all places. This bill doesn't address that; this bill makes it worse, at a time when we as young people, as I said, are battling against a history of insecure work that stretches back far, far before COVID.
The latest figures that I've been able to find for WA show us that even before the pandemic we were struggling as young people with a 30 per cent insecure work rate, in some parts of our state, between 25 and 30 per cent. For many of us, insecure work is some of the only work that we have ever known. The practical function of this bill is to come in on the back of that to supercharge it, if you like, to make it a hell of a lot worse, to pit us against people in their 50s, people trying to make their way, and to pay McDonald's a fat packet for the privilege of doing so. It is a con job; it's a marketing exercise. It's a glossy pamphlet with nothing under the hood. One of the most pernicious parts of it, in many ways, is that there's nothing under the hood because it delegates a huge amount of power to ministers in the executive branch of the government to basically make it up as they go along. This bill is the emptiest of scaffolds that will then be given to the Morrison government to design nearly any and all programs that they can, in any way, link back to improving people's opportunity of gaining work, which is a real shift in where the legislative accountability should be.
I could go on for a lot longer on these issues if there were more to read in the bill, but the reality of this piece of legislation is that there isn't much there. There are no details as to how the program will work, because it grants the minister the power to make it up as they go along in a way that is quite unacceptable to us in the Greens. Senator Faruqi will be putting forward a number of amendments and suggested changes to this legislation, through the course of the debate, in order to attempt to improve it and make it better. But the bill that sits before us right now, unamended as it is, is not something that the Australian Greens will be supporting and not something that the community supports.
People in our community, be we young people or older people, want meaningful opportunities to expend our time, build our lives and define purpose on our terms. Some of us may come to the conclusion that paid employment right out of school is what we want to do. Some of us may decide that we want to study at university or go to TAFE or do something in between. The goal of us here as a legislature should be not only to provide the opportunities, the abilities and the support mechanisms that are needed for people to explore that life path, to define and discover for themselves what constitutes for them a good life, but also to find new and innovative ways to reduce the overall amount of time that we as people have to expend in workplaces that might not be the most enjoyable thing, away from our friends and family.
There was a point in history where, at least for an admittedly very narrowly defined group of people, Australia was defined as a worker's paradise. It struck a balance between work, leisure and rest. However, in 2020, we discovered that we are an economy that is driving people more and more to spend time away from their friends and family to make wages that are stagnating, giving their lives to work, living to work rather than working to live, which is ultimately the goal people want to achieve. If you talk to anybody in Europe, particularly in countries such as France or Italy, they take a look at the Australian work-life balance and they laugh and laugh. We have to be addressing those underlying issues. This bill doesn't go anywhere near doing that, and that is why we in the Greens will be opposing it as it stands.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (20:51): I was just saying before that I did enjoy my two sessions working remotely from my Launceston office, but I will say that it is good to be back in the chamber for many reasons. My question to the government is: where is the evidence that this $4 billion job scheme will work? Where is the evidence that this is going to employ lots of young Australians? I'll tell you where the evidence is that it doesn't work. I'd like to take senators in the chamber back in time, on a little journey to August 2013. I have a document here in front of me called 'The coalition's policy to boost employment in Tasmania'. It's from August 2013. On the front is a picture of Mr Malcolm Turnbull—who I understand is on the Four Corners TV program as I speak—Mr Robb, Joe Hockey, I think, Tony Abbott and, I think, Julie Bishop. I'm not sure who the other fellow is. I've forgotten who it is already. They were the senior Liberal leadership team.
This policy, I remember, came with great fanfare in my home state. Let me tell you what it is, because this is going to interest everybody here. It was called a Tasmanian jobs program and it was a job hiring credit to any business that wanted to hire a young, unemployed Tasmanian. They wanted these young, unemployed Tasmanians to be hired quickly. This is where it gets quite interesting. They called it 'a trial jobs program for Tasmania to turbocharge a lacklustre jobs market'. A 'trial'—I will come back to that in a minute because it is actually quite important. This scheme was actually more generous. It offered a one-off payment of $3,250 to any Tasmanian business that hired an unemployed jobseeker. That worked out to about $250 a fortnight for a total subsidy of $3,250. It was expected—and they were very clear about this—that it would be first in, first served for Tasmanian businesses. There were 2,000 initial positions made available. I remember Senator Abetz speaking in the media saying that they believed it would be so successful—and he can come in and correct the record if I'm wrong; it was a fair while ago—it could employ tens of thousands of people. It was a trial for the rest of the country,incidentally.
You might be interested to know how the trial went , because it was designed to be assessed following the pilot program—the study. It was assessed by the Australian government Department of Employment in June 2017, two years after it expired , and the department said that , overall, over the two years that this program ran, there were 363 commencements. That was 18.2 per cent of the expected job placements. So, by any measure —and I haven't even got to the good bit yet— it was a failure. Eighty p er cent was unused; l ess than 20 per cent of it was used by Tasmanian businesses. It was actually proportionately lower than the take - up of another wage subsidy prior to that , called the restart subsidy , which also had a very poor success rate . It had previously failed in Tasmania.
Now, this is the interesting bit . In addition, most employers, 66.7 per cent, which is almost exactly two-thirds , who employed a jobseeker through this program reported that the Tasmanian job program incentive had not —I repeat: had not — influenced their decision to hire the jobseek er at all, e mploying what economists call a high level of dead weight loss. These were , to quote the report, in 'the largest employing and growth industries in Tasmania', such as construction , the retail trade, accommodation and food services. In other words, these businesses were going to hire tho se workers anyway , and the government just gave them a nice taxpayer subsidy for what they were already going to do. I'm not going to dispute that any single new job created is important , because it is.
So, on these measures — I ' ve got to do some quick maths on the hop here ; what's a third of 363? — 120 or so new jobs were created in Tasmania because of this scheme. The political spin that this created was immense. I don't ever really remember seeing it being reported on as a failure, but I thought I'd go back and check , because at the time I was on the public record in this place and in the Tasmanian media saying it would fail , and the reason is simple : businesses don't go out and hire an extra worker for a couple of hundred bucks a week. Even though this scheme is slightly different in it s construction, a worker still has to work for a minimum of 20 hours a week , so you ' d be looking at paying them at least 500 bucks a week to get the 200 bucks . Multiply that by 52 weeks and a business has to come up with at least $26,000 to take on an extra employee —plus super, plus, plus. As we know, for businesses it's a lot of work to take on employees . I run a small business myself . My wife and her partners employ 25 Tasmanians. They know what it 's like to hire new employees. It ' s not an easy thing. It's something you do i f you expect the demand for your services or your business to cover the costs of that additional employee. So, as I said at the time, why would any business in a difficult time go out and hire these employees, knowing they'd have to pay $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or more — most likely a lot more than that — just to get a couple of thousand bucks? It did not make sense and it still doesn't make sense. And this is almost identical.
W hat I would like to know from the government , and this is perhaps a good question for the minister in the committee stage , is that, if the Tasmanian jobs program was designed to be a trial , and the report from the department was scathing, w hy have we seen it re-created during the COVID crisis ?
It didn't work. It literally didn't work. The department scrambled to find some minor positive things about it, and even they were hedged in terms of, 'Well, you know, there's no real evidence that even that worked.' I accept, and the Greens accept, that this is a difficult period. I suspect things are going to get a lot worse in six or 12 months time. This is a form of stimulus. The Greens supported constructive amendments and changes to JobSeeker. My colleague in here Senator Siewert has campaigned for decades to try and get an increase to the previous Newstart allowance or the JobSeeker allowance. In fact, I would argue that the Greens were the first out there to say that we needed a living wage during the COVID crisis; I would be happy to spar with anyone on that publicly. I've got the tweets and I've got all the information. We called for a living wage early in the piece, because we thought it was important. It was backed by business. It was backed by the unions. It made sense. We've never been through a period like this.
We accept that we need to do what we can to employ young Australians. My son, like a lot of young Australians, has been impacted by COVID. He started working at Target a couple of months ago, and he's been a new, improved kid since he got a job. So I understand how important it is to get young people into work; I really do. This is not the way to do it. This is a mirage that just offers false hope and all the political BS that goes with it. If we really wanted to see jobs for young Australians we would employ them in direct government programs, in areas that not just employ young people but give them skills and solve problems at the same time.
I met recently with agricultural stakeholders—and this is something you would be interested in, Acting Deputy President Sterle, given your longstanding interest in the rural and regional affairs committee—who tell me there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs for Australians out there in regenerative agriculture and so on and so forth. They are also talking about setting up government funded programs to employ young Australians to look after the bush, to help farmers, to restore our soils and so on and so forth. There are so many opportunities, if we would think outside the box. We can solve problems at the same time we can find work for young Australians—meaningful work that offers them long-term careers. There is a huge future in something like regenerative agriculture, and that's just one example.
These are green led recoveries, and the word 'green' is used internationally; it's not a Greens party thing. It's talking about creating a value for communities, a value for the environment and a value for ecosystem services. In my home state of Tasmania there are incredibly important jobs waiting to be funded in fire management, for example. In recent weeks I was down in our World Heritage areas camping—some of the most stunning areas you'll ever see on the face of planet. It still surprises me that after nearly 20 years in Tassie I still haven't been to a lot of these places. While they were magnificent and I enjoyed them, the scars from climate wildfires are everywhere to see. Some of these forests have never seen fire in their thousands of years, but they have in the last five years. Things are changing. There is an enormous amount of work—constructive, meaningful work—in managing that land. We earn good income off that land, because millions of people every year come to Tasmania to see what is special about my state—that is, its wild, magnificent country. It is rare, and people will pay for it. There's more work in looking after that bush than there is in chopping it down, let me tell you. There are so many opportunities, and those are just a few.
I know my colleague Senator Faruqi has spoken at length about many of the other issues we have with this piece of legislation, but I just wanted to raise a point in this debate: where is the evidence that giving $4 billion to corporations will employ 10, 20 or even a thousand or 5,000 young Australians? Economic theory tells you that the businesses most likely to take up this subsidy would have employed them anyway—in other words, you are giving a handout to corporations. Many of them are big corporations, because small businesses won't go near this. They just won't. Right now, they have no certainty in their forward planning. In corporations law, it is enshrined that businesses must maximise the present value of future cashflows. That sounds like a technical term, but what that means is they need to make a risk based decision on what their future profits are going to be. I hate to say it, but I agree with what Senator Hanson said tonight: it is a very uncertain time and in uncertain times small businesses, especially, pull in their belts. Big businesses have more leeway but they will see this and go, 'Great, I was going to open a new McDonald's store anyway,' or whatever it happens to be, 'I'm going to take this.' They would have done it anyway. This is corporate welfare. I know my colleagues have spoken about this, so I won't go into it in any more detail, but I challenge the government to put up their evidence on why these wage schemes work.
I hope we get some sensible amendments to this to, at least, protect young workers should they go into these schemes. I would hate to see someone like my son lose his job because of dodgy employers, and I'm sure everybody in here would agree with that. So those safeguards are going to be very important, and it's certainly going to be important to get the Greens' support for this bill. I will look with interest, in the committee stage, to see what the government says about where they got the idea from, where the evidence is that these things have worked and why the pilot study results of the, perhaps now famous, coalition policy to boost employment in Tasmania were not used when they put this $4 billion mirage together to employ young Australians.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (21:06): What I would like to do with my opening points is acknowledge what Australia has been hit by in the last six months. It is something that is unprecedented in the history of Australia but also in the history of the world. You can go back to the Great Depression, which was something my grandparents used to talk about, growing up in a household where there wasn't any money and people had to hit the road to get work. But they didn't have that axis of health on one side and economics on the other. What we're seeing here in Australia is an axis of an economic hit and a health hit.
What we've got to focus on—what Scott Morrison and the government have been trying to do from the beginning—is protecting lives, saving lives, but also protecting livelihoods. That is so important for Australians. Over the last six months we've seen Australia at its best. We've seen an Australia that has come together. We've seen an Australia where, through the national cabinet, which probably at times was slightly boisterous and rambunctious, leaders of different levels of government came together to focus on the national interest. I think that is something we've forgotten about, when we look at coronavirus, that we have seen the best of Australia. We've seen people put aside their political partisanship to look at how we can work together.
I have strong views on how some state Labor governments have treated coronavirus and have used it as a political weapon. I certainly have strong views, that I've picked up through the magic of osmosis, on what has happened in Victoria with the infringements on civil liberties but also, importantly, on how people have given up their civil liberties, that they understand it is in the national interest. So, when we come to looking at the piece of legislation that has come through us here today in the Senate, it is about what is in the best interests of this country and what is in the best interests of trying to help Australians. That is so very important.
Some of the speakers tonight have talked about JobSeeker. In Queensland at the moment, we are faced with not getting workers who go and pick fruit. This is a massive issue in Queensland, where we have a very important agricultural industry. Thousands of jobs and thousands of businesses depend on this industry, but we cannot get workers to pick the fruit. One of the reasons that those in regional Australia give is that JobSeeker is actually acting as—and this is where the law of unintended consequences comes in—a handbrake on people being able to go and look for work. So you find in the Wide Bay-Burnett area—a massive horticultural area—and in the Darling Downs, where I come from, that the fruit that needs to be picked is going to rot on the trees and then fall off onto the ground because we cannot get people to pick the fruit there. We as a society have to focus on whether it is the right thing that we allow businesses to effectively go broke. These businesses earn money and pay taxes, but these taxes are going to people on JobSeeker who should be looking for work but are not prepared to go and pick fruit. This is a serious issue facing Queensland, but it's not just about picking fruit.
In regional Queensland, there are areas of very high unemployment. But there are jobs going there. I met with the Mayor of Mackay, a wonderful guy called Greg Williamson—
Senator Scarr: Great mayor.
Senator McGRATH: a great, great, great mayor. He got out his mobile phone, went to SEEK and showed that there were 1,000 jobs going in Mackay. People there were unable to get work. So what we as a government have to try and do here is look at what pieces of legislation we can pass and what work we can do to help people get into work and help businesses employ people, because we've got to look at where Australia is going to be in 18 months time, two years time, six months time or even in a month's time before Christmas.
There is a new dawn coming; we will get through coronavirus. But if, sadly, we don't get a vaccine—and look at what has happened at that mink farm in Denmark where the coronavirus has mutated—and if the coronavirus effectively becomes like an annual flu that comes through, we've got to learn to live with coronavirus. We can look around this chamber here now, and, for those who might be listening at home, I'll paint you a picture: we have—
A government senator: Paint us a picture!
Senator McGRATH: I'll paint you a picture. The Senate operates by having expanded pairing. We have bottles of water. We have people who sit socially distant. This chamber can still operate under such a new order. It's how Australia will need to operate under such a new order, because what we've got to do, whether it's in the Senate chamber or in businesses in trying to employ people, in trying to train people—I think Senator Whish-Wilson is trying to get your—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson?
Senator Whish-Wilson: A point of order, Acting Deputy President. I know the Romans used to call it filibuster, but I just wondered whether we allowed such wideranging debate on a piece of important legislation like this and whether you perhaps could ask the senator to come back to discuss the topic at hand.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. As we know, second reading debates are very far reaching and they do wander off into certain spaces. But, Senator McGrath, I would bring you back to the topic at hand.
Senator McGRATH: I appreciate your gentle guidance, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. But I think it is important in the topic at hand, because it comes through coronavirus; it comes through the impact on the economy. The JobMaker hiring credit is something that is going to accelerate growth in the employment of young people during COVID, and that is so important. It is so important that we can give young people the opportunity to get into work. And, in any second reading debate, we should always have a broad discussion of the different issues so those people who are listening at home can see where we're coming from—our different perspectives and our different approaches in life. What we've got to do on this side of the chamber is make sure that we help businesses. We want to give businesses the incentives to take on additional young jobseekers.
An opposition senator: Paint us another picture!
Senator McGRATH: I'd love to paint another picture, but I think my paintings sometimes are best left at home! The JobMaker hiring credit is going to be available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months for a young person between 16 and 35. It is expected that 450,000 positions for young Australians will be supported through the JobMaker hiring credit, at a cost of $4 billion. I will admit that I'm one of those people who get slightly terrified about debt, slightly terrified by large figures, but what the federal government has had to do on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia is go into debt to help protect the Australian economy, go into debt to help protect businesses, whether it's money that has gone into JobSeeker to help those people who lost their jobs during this recession or it's money that has gone into the many other programs that this government brought into play to help businesses survive the recession. When I talk about businesses surviving the recession, I'm actually talking about businesses being able to keep people on their books, because, as unemployment has gone up, the government not doing anything would have been far worse. It would have been far worse for the economy and for Australian society if the government had not borrowed the money to help protect businesses and, in fact, protect jobs.
I can talk in particular about Queensland, and I know, so can Senator Scarr, who travels around the state quite a lot. In terms of the message that we get from businesses around Queensland, it's that, of all the programs the government has put in place, the JobKeeper program is the one program that has saved their businesses. When they talk about saving their businesses, they don't particularly care about the fittings or the sign out the front or whatever's out in the garage; they actually talk about the fact that it has kept people in employment. So, when they say JobKeeper is brilliant, it's not because their business keeps going; it's because they can keep employing people. This is so, so important, especially in regional Queensland. Whether you're a travel agent out in Roma or you run a restaurant at Airlie Beach, to a woman, to a man, they've all said to us that JobKeeper is brilliant and they're all very, very enthused about what the JobMaker hiring credit can do to assist getting young people into work, because in Queensland there is a very high unemployment rate—in fact, we've got the highest unemployment rate in the country. This is just another brick in the wall that is our defence against coronavirus. This JobMaker hiring credit is something that can help young people get into work, get the skills and get businesses going.
In conclusion, I would like to commend the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 to the chamber, and I look forward to hearing the contributions from my colleagues who I understand are also very keen to speak on this bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Rice, and welcome back.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (21:20): Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. It's really good to be back.
I rise to speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020, the JobMaker legislation. I think we've had JobSeeker, JobKeeper and JobMaker. JobMaker is a good name. It's a noble ambition to make jobs, particularly when you're in a global recession and potentially a global depression. Creating employment is incredibly important. Everybody has got the right to a liveable income and to a safe, secure and meaningful job that pays them good wages. It is particularly important because even before the pandemic struck us we had an underemployment and unemployment crisis in this country. As our dissenting report to the committee report on this bill says:
In March 2020, the national unemployment rate was 5.2 per cent, and was even higher for young people at 11.6 per cent. The underemployment rate was even worse, at 8.8 per cent nationally and 19.1 per cent for young people.
These are really horrifying statistics. We know that we are setting up young people and putting them on track for a pretty bleak future. We know from previous recessions that when people get left behind and end up experiencing long-term unemployment it is very hard for them to get back on track, even when economic conditions improve.
We Greens agree that there is a need for government action so that young people aren't left behind. That's why, when the crisis struck, we released our Invest to Recover plan, which would have created 870,000 jobs. We want to see government take meaningful action to create jobs. We think that young Australians should be offered a jobs and income guarantee so that no-one is left behind, so that every young person has the choice of a job that is secure, well paid and satisfying, or a place in education—and a free place at that—at uni or TAFE, or a guaranteed income.
When it comes to these jobs, we reckon that the government should spend their money on public sector jobs. They should be provided in the employment sectors of the future, in which we know there is so much work to be done, whether it be tackling our climate crisis by investment in renewable energy, transforming our grid or environmental restoration. We know that we've got huge problems across the country in our degraded environments that require that people be employed in good, quality jobs restoring our precious natural environments, tackling the threatened species crisis and implementing recovery plans rather than not doing them and having them on the shelf. Jobs in teaching, jobs in aged care, jobs in child care—these jobs would be at a cost that is way less than the $99 billion that this government is handing out in handouts to big business.
We have done these sorts of employment programs before in this country. I remember when I was in my 20s in the 1980s and we had the Commonwealth employment program. It was a very successful program. I remember many of my contemporaries being given a leg-up and a start to their careers with a job under the Commonwealth employment program. In fact, we know that there are programs with public sector jobs that are operational now in Victoria. We have got the Working for Victoria program, the half-a-billion-dollar program which is creating six-month or 12-month positions in the public sector and providing really good, quality jobs.
I'd like to share the experience of a young woman who I know quite well, who, at the end of last year, finished her master's degree in urban planning. She had been supporting herself in hospitality throughout her university career. We got to 2020 and the pandemic hit. She'd finished her degree. Her hospitality jobs, of course, completely dried up. She no longer had a university course to go to; she no longer had a job to go to, but she managed to get herself one of those Working for Victoria jobs in strategic planning. It's a six-month position in Melbourne local government, and she has done really well. The six months is going to be up, come January, and she's now applying for jobs in similar positions throughout local government across Melbourne and is really confident that she's going to be successful in getting one of those roles. It has been such a leg-up for her career. These are the sorts of jobs—public sector jobs, good-quality jobs—the government could be putting money into and providing, but that's not what this legislation does. So the Greens have got very significant concerns about this legislation.
Fundamentally, the bill does not offer the protections that are needed for workers. It entrenches insecure, short-term, low-paid work for young people while handing out public money to big business under the guise of a wage subsidy. There are insufficient protections for existing workers to ensure that they don't lose hours or their jobs so that businesses can hire workers that are eligible for the credits. New jobs should not be created at the expense of existing jobs, and workers must be protected, and we are going to be moving amendments to safeguard the conditions of workers to that effect.
There's nothing in this legislation to prevent wage theft, which is already an enormous issue. Qantas was recently found to be underpaying its workers with respect to the JobKeeper payments. Coles previously announced underpaying workers by $20 million. McDonald's didn't pay penalty rates for decades and is currently facing a potential class action for denying workers paid rest breaks. We reckon that the hiring credit should be revoked for businesses who are found to be underpaying their workers, and our amendments propose changes to that effect.
On top of this lack of safeguards in the bill for young workers, we've got another fundamental issue with this bill. As our dissenting report to the committee inquiry notes, it's essentially handing the Liberal Party government a blank cheque. Why would you give a blank cheque to the party that's already given us sports rorts, that's given us one rort after another? Again, what we said in our dissenting report was that the Greens do not support the JobMaker hiring credit scheme being established by the minister, effectively, solely through regulations; nor do we support the broad and unrestrictive powers proposed to be granted to the minister in this bill. Our concern is shared by many of those who made submissions to the inquiry, as the chair's report identifies. The JobMaker hiring credit should be created through legislation and subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment.
Sadly, this government has got form when it comes to rorts. And it's not just sports rorts. The JobKeeper scheme was paid out via employers, despite concerns about it getting rorted, and there have been too many experiences of that happening. It has turned into a job rorts. As we said in our dissenting report, while workers are doing it tough, we've seen some of Australia's biggest companies increase their profits and pay out even bigger executive bonuses and higher dividends to shareholders. In August, it was revealed that the publicly funded JobKeeper wage subsidy was being used to prop up company profits, and 17 of Australia's top companies paid $250 million in dividends while also receiving JobKeeper. Under the proposed JobMaker rules, there is nothing stopping big businesses abusing the hiring credit in the same way. Wage subsidies should subsidise wages. They should not be used for corporate profits and higher dividends for shareholders. So we're going to be moving amendments to tackle this issue as well. I really hope that all senators in this place support them. After all, companies should not be able to pay out increased dividends at the same time as they're getting a subsidy.
Throughout this crisis the Liberal Party have played favourites with who they have supported and who they have left behind. The Liberal Party let Virgin, one of our two key airlines, go under. Thousands of workers were at risk because the Liberal Party refused to support them. At the same time the Liberal Party handed out millions and millions of dollars to their mates in a separate airline. This Liberal Party fundamentally left behind the dnata workers and the thousands of others represented by the Transport Workers Union. I want to acknowledge here the important advocacy of the TWU in standing up for the workers that this Liberal Party has left behind. If you're talking about JobMaker, you do not allow thousands of workers to be left on the scrap heap.
The Liberal Party managed to give out millions of dollars to wood processors, who are ripping into our native forests and driving our precious wildlife to extinction. Rest assured the Australian Forest Products Association had close consultation with the minister's office about how they would be bailed out. But the arts sector, which employs hundreds of thousands more people than the native forest forestry sector, hasn't seen a cent. The Liberal Party are playing favourites. They are all rorts, all spin and no delivery for so many people who are being left behind.
Fundamentally the Liberal Party stand for big banks, big fossil fuel companies and big corporations. They don't care about the environment, they don't care about workers and they don't care about your family and the struggle that people are facing to stay afloat in this recession. Many during this period have had an awful moment in the supermarket of thinking what they will put back on the shelf because they don't know whether they have enough money to pay for what they need. There's that moment when you don't know whether your credit card is maxed out—but, if you've been bankrolled by fossil fuel corporations for decades, you can't identify with what that's like. You think that just saying 'jobs and growth' often enough counts as support. You think that giving money to the banks will somehow trickle down to the most vulnerable in society. When the big banks feel the squeeze, the Liberal Party makes sure that they get a bailout and a handout for their executives, but when people who are doing it tough need a hand then the Liberal Party gives them a kick in the teeth.
This bill as it currently stands has, as I said, great ambitions to make jobs. It's a noble ambition. But as this bill stands it is pretty blooming awful. We will be moving amendments to improve it.
Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (21:32): I rise to speak on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. This legislation will make a very real difference in people's lives and for the national economy. The state border closures have ensured that there are industries and small businesses reeling from the effects of the coronavirus lockdowns. These businesses and families need to see a way out, a way forward, with the federal government smoothing the path back to normality.
I'm afraid to say that I've rarely heard such nonsense as I recently heard from the Greens on what this package will really do. There's such a lack of understanding of what it's really like to employ people out of the hard-earned dollars and the sweat of your family and their future. In the hospitality and tourism industries, pubs, clubs, travel agents and movie theatres have been financially devastated. The JobMaker hiring credit will give businesses incentives and assistance to take on additional young jobseekers who have been struggling to find work. By helping businesses we'll help young people access job opportunities as the economy recovers.
The JobMaker hiring credit will be available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months for which they hire an eligible young person aged 16 to 35 years old. It is expected that around 450,000 positions will be supported through this initiative, at a cost of $4 billion from 2020-21 to 2022-23. From 7 October this year eligible employers will be able to claim $200 a week for each additional eligible employee they hire aged 16 to 29 years old and $100 a week for each additional eligible employee aged 30 to 35 years old.
In my home region of North Queensland, this stimulus package will be most welcome. Tourism businesses especially have been hit by a virtually non-existent annual tourist season which has been made even more bleak by the prospect that international traveller numbers aren't likely to hit pre-pandemic levels for the foreseeable future. This federal package will allow these businesses to keep the doors open until things improve, while having the added bonus of keeping people employed and trained, ready to take advantage of the rebound. It is said that the best time to fix the roof is when it's not raining. It's no use businesses frantically trying to train staff and fill vacancies after the tourist wave starts breaking and, worse, after these young people have had considerable time at home without the benefits of being in work, learning new skills, working with people and getting out of the house. These businesses need to be ready to ride that wave, not to be paddling frantically and sliding off the back because they weren't ready.
In rural and regional areas in the north, non-tourism businesses have been fairly well insulated from the sharp drop in visitors and have been able to get by servicing local markets. But youth unemployment is still high, and incentivising businesses to hire these young people will make a difference to that. The difference will be not only in reducing unemployment but also in giving young people a sense of the dignity of having a job and earning an honest wage. The added bonus is learning skills that will help them for life, while also giving young people an incentive to stay in their towns and build a life for themselves—something that I believe is so critically important for regional and rural Australia. These are the regions where we know we grow the food and fibre, we have the amazing tourist products, we mine the minerals and, best of all, we grow these young people who go on to live extraordinary lives both in Australia and around the world.
Peter Davidson, an adjunct senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, has written:
More importantly, the hiring credit could prompt employers to take on people they might not otherwise have considered - those facing prolonged unemployment.
He adds that it is already estimated that there are 600,000 younger people on unemployment benefits. Business groups suggest that by next year more than a million people will have been on unemployment benefits for over a year, most of them under the age of 35, which is why this scheme is so carefully targeted at younger people.
It is concerning that Labor and others in this place have been so quick to assume a partisan position on this legislation when studies show that it is Labor held electorates that are set to benefit most from it. To quote from our Prime Minister in The Australian:
We also know from past experience that if young people lose work in a recession and can't find their way back, they risk becoming a lost generation.
We can't let this happen. We must do everything we can so that young people do not start their working lives on welfare. The facts also show that there are more young people living in Labor electorates. The need in Labor seats is greater than anywhere else. As somebody who graduated from university in the early nineties, I know, along with my colleague Senator Scarr, that it was a terrible time for looking for work. Every taxi was driven by an engineer or an architect. For those of us looking to find our first professional job in the world, it was very difficult.
There has also been speculation that unscrupulous employers will try to replace older, higher-paid workers with younger, subsidised ones. These extraordinary remarks could only have been made by members of the Greens or Labor—people who have never hired someone using their own mortgage and their own family's future as security, who think of people in the abstract. They can never understand that an excellent employee is held in high regard; that there is absolutely no way that an employer would attempt to get rid of a reliable and effective employee in order to replace that person with someone who is inexperienced, unknown and a new employee with all the regulatory risks that are attached.
Under this scheme, a business will be eligible to receive the hiring credit at the end of each quarter only if it has increased its headcount and its payroll. That is the security designed to ensure that extra jobs are created. It amazes me, as somebody who has run a small business, that these are people who don't understand the extraordinary process of advertising for new employees, weeding through the applications and hoping desperately for somebody who actually wants to do the job that you have carefully found a wage to pay for. You wait, you rule off time to go through the interview process, you carefully try and match somebody who will be a good fit with your other employees and your customers and who will grow your business, and then there is the devastation as half of the interviewees don't show and, on the day, the employee doesn't even turn up to start work. This lack of understanding—the idea that for $200 a week anybody would get rid of somebody who is a great employee, who is part of your extended family and your customers' extended family—best illustrates how Labor and the Greens have no idea about how to grow an economy, how to grow productivity or how to most sincerely value people and individuals.
While there is no doubt more jobs will organically be created as the economy recovers post-COVID, JobMaker shows this government is serious about creating an environment to ensure that this can happen. Any incentives we can provide are good for business owners, good for the towns they're based in, and good for the people who will be employed. This also shows that we are a government that is agile, pragmatic and innovative as we plan for Australia's future after coronavirus. I encourage regional and rural businesses to take up this offer and introduce local people to the world of work, or welcome them back to work if they have been unemployed. This government understands the importance of the regions and values the aspirations of regional people, be they employers or employees.
I can't help reflecting, as well, on the unbelievable rhetoric that I have just heard from a Greens senator—rhetoric about wages theft, as if every employer out there is looking for a way to rip-off the people they value the most, the people who allow their businesses to operate. Again, the Greens and Labor are people who don't understand the complexity of the awards system—the multiple rates, different hours and overtime. It is a very complex system. I can assure you that, even for somebody who has degrees and a very keen desire to ensure that wages are paid correctly, it is very difficult.
They also speak about government providing jobs, as if somehow taxpayer dollars magically—like a magic pudding—go on for as long as you like. I heard this during the Queensland election when the Queensland Labor government talked about providing additional government jobs, again with no understanding that it is private enterprise and small business that provide jobs, grow economies and grow businesses. They are the ones that genuinely provide jobs that pay taxes and allow for government jobs to then be created. It is a startling and frankly shocking lack of understanding about the way the world works. I guess it goes to their belief that you can continue borrowing money as if there were no tomorrow.
Finally, I heard the scoffing description of the forestry sector, as if somehow, because they didn't employ as many people as the arts sector, it was a lesser industry. It's the most sustainable industry. There couldn't be a more sustainable industry than growing trees that go into making houses and furniture and all sorts of useful, amazing things, and then grow again. They grow from the soil and the water and the air and the very carbon that surrounds us. In fact, in north Queensland the timber industry had been run so sustainably and so well for so very many years that the region was considered to be pristine and declared a World Heritage site. There has never been recognition for the understanding of the land and the environment these people have at work, and yet to have the forestry sector scoffed at as if they were not important was, I thought, very shocking. Once again, the Greens as a party are described as having very little connection to reality. On that note, I do commend this bill to the Senate and look forward to our recovery from the coronavirus.
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (21:45): What a privilege it is to follow my good friend Senator McDonald from Queensland. I must say, Senator McDonald, you bring many things to this place which are totally relevant, absolutely relevant, to the bill which we're considering here this evening, including the perspective of someone who's actually managed a business and employed people in the private sector. These are exactly the people we're targeting with this incentive to go out and give that young person a go, give that young person their first opportunity for a job, in the midst of a one-in-100-years pandemic. That's the experience you bring—lots of experience.
The other experience Senator McDonald brings is that of regional Queensland. Senator McDonald is of regional Queensland. She understands regional Queensland and she understands what this incentive means to businesses of all types in regional Queensland—the incentive to give young regional Queenslanders a job.
Lastly—she of course stole most of the lines I was going to use in relation to a previous Greens speaker, but there's plenty of material to go around in that regard—a material point I'd like to make in relation to this legislation and some of the contributions made by previous speakers is this: the issue of administration was raised; so will there be too much administration imposed on small businesses? Will that act as a disincentive, so small businesses won't employ those extra young people? I say this to you: Why not give it a go? Why not see if it works? Why not see if it does provide young people with an opportunity to get employment? Treasury's estimate is that this will provide 450,000 young people with an opportunity for employment. Why wouldn't you give it a go and see if it works? Why not? What have you got to lose?
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Senator SCARR: I'll take that interjection from Senator Whish-Wilson. If the $4 billion is actually spent on the scheme, that means 450,000 young people would have had the opportunity to get work. Surely that means it has worked. It's actually provided employment, and that's $4 billion which has been well spent. So I don't understand. There's an inherent lack of logic in those opposing this scheme. On one hand, people say it's not going to work and then, on the other hand, they're complaining that it's going to cost $4 billion. But, if it costs $4 billion, then it's provided hundreds of thousands of young people with jobs. Opportunity cost—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Senator SCARR: Senator Whish-Wilson, providing employment to 450,000 young people seems like a pretty good use of $4 billion to me in the middle of a pandemic. It really does.
The second point that was raised in objection to the bill was in relation to the fact that it's focused on young people. I, for one, think that it's fit and proper that it is directed at young people. As Senator McDonald eloquently put it, we need to make sure that we do not have a lost generation in the middle of this one-in-100-year pandemic. As Senator McDonald alluded to, I can remember graduating from university in 1992 in the middle of the recession we had to have. It was difficult to find jobs.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ) ( 21:50 ): It being 9.50 pm, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Harrison, Mr Neven Maxwell (Max), OAM
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women) (21:50): I want to make some remarks this evening about a dear friend who passed away a short time ago at age 95 after a life well lived. Kingswood resident, Max Harrison, christened Neven Maxwell Harrison, came to Australia with his family. His parents were Scottish. The family originally came here in 1892. Max was born in 1925.
Max Harrison was one of my original Liberal Party preselectors in 1997. That was how long we had known each other. He was an extraordinarily talented singer, which wasn't well known; he got himself a scholarship to the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music. In 1934, when he was eight years old, he starred in a movie made by Charles Chauvel called Heritage. But, as was often the way in those days, with his brother he left school when he was 14 to pursue an apprenticeship, first on a dairy farm and then as a butcher. Then, as with so many men who grew up in the twenties and thirties, the Second World War took his younger years. He joined the Royal Australian Air Force to become an aircraft fitter. Ultimately, he was also involved in the difficult task of recovering his fallen mates who had crashed with their planes on the battlefield.
The conclusion of the war saw Max return to training at Kapooka in Wagga Wagga. I'm told he was ultimately spared deployment to the Korean Peninsula because, after an altercation with the camp butcher, he ended up with a broken arm. I suspect the rest of that is history, and that's where it will stay!
I heard in reminiscences about Max recently that Don Chipp was apparently the best man at his wedding, in those early days. He then became an entertainment director at the Army training centre, where he met his second and beloved wife, Dulcie Ruth Bourne, 'the most beautiful girl in the world'. He told everyone he spoke to, man, woman or child, that Dulcie Harrison was the most beautiful girl in the world.
They lived in Western Sydney from the mid-1950s, starting in Mount Druitt. In their home in Kingswood, where I was always welcome, they started their family with children Maxine, Joanne, Glen and David. They now have 17 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren. It's an extraordinary family story.
In both home and public life Max was incredibly engaged, always looking to better the lives of his children and give back to his community. As his son David said at his funeral service recently—COVID-safe, just with family—he worked multiple jobs with Dulcie to support his family. He was the P&C president of his children's local primary and high schools, because it mattered how a school looked after his kids. He was a devoted freemason, something he would have shared with my own father. He was a distinguished member of Rotary, becoming a Paul Harris Fellow. He was a tireless supporter of our great Liberal Party and served as the long-time president of the Chifley conference. If you know Western Sydney at all, being the Liberal Party president of the Chifley conference is not exactly a rewarding task. But Max took every drop out of it with his passion for the Liberal Party. But he never allowed ideological persuasions to deter him from fighting for very practical advances for his community, whether it was rallying against plans to rezone the well-known Featherdale Wildlife Park, fighting for better health services in Mount Druitt and making a case for the then polyclinic centre to become a hospital—and a hospital it did become, opened by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1982—or establishing a neighbourhood centre in Kingswood, which he worked for over eight years to get the funding for. Today that neighbourhood centre is the beating heart of community groups, the local chapter of the University of the Third Age and the Nepean Domestic Violence Network. Fittingly, Max was awarded an OAM in 2012 for his work in establishing the centre.
He was extraordinarily witty and he would make extraordinarily ripostes in any conversation. He had a fondness for thrift and homemade keepsakes. In fact, when he became a Member of the Order of Australia, he thought he might borrow a champagne glass from the Government House ceremony to mark the occasion. He was a great larrikin and a man with a deep Christian faith and an incredible capacity for kindness. There aren't many people in the Western Sydney community of Penrith that I call home who did not know Max or who have not, in some way, been the beneficiary of his labours. He loved his Penrith Panthers, and I think he was profoundly disappointed that they didn't win the NRL Grand Final.
There is a picture of Max and Dulcie standing proudly outside the Kingswood Neighbourhood Centre behind my desk in my Parramatta electorate office. When I see this, I'm reminded how lucky I am to have had a friend like Max Harrison, to be friends with his family and, most importantly, to have known the contribution he made to Western Sydney, to New South Wales and to Australia. Vale, Max Harrison.
Senate adjourned at 21:56