The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, 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
Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan: Select Committee
Treaties Committee
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan—Select Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) today, from 5.10 pm.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—public meeting on Monday, 21 June 2021, from 11 am.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (09:31): In the remaining five minutes in my contribution to this debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 I want to focus on the elements of the bill that Labor finds unpalatable—well, we find the whole bill unpalatable—particularly the casual worker clause. Seriously, I recall the Attorney-General saying at the start of this conversation that this was about making it fair for workers. It seemed to me at that point that the Morrison government had recognised that workers on the frontline during the pandemic—aged-care workers, early childhood educators, cleaners, security officers, paramedics and a whole lot of people—had very precarious employment. Many were employed as casuals and many had less than full-time work.
We've seen that with security officers in charge of our hotel quarantine. I thought at that point there was some hope that the Morrison government—once and for all—was going to fix up the casual worker clause. But, sadly, I've been mistaken. Disappointingly, so have thousands and thousands of workers across Australia, who saw the opportunity that the Morrison government might fix this and fix their employment. Sadly, if this bill goes through this place today, each and every one of those Morrison government senators and MPs who vote for this bill, along with whoever supports them from the crossbench, will be the ones who condemn Australian workers—casuals in particular—to continued insecure employment and continuing in not knowing how many hours a week they're going to get. They can get a text message from their employer, saying, 'Come to work,' or, 'Don't come to work'.
This is not a respectful way to treat workers. It is time in this country—and we like to pride ourselves on saying we're a fair country—that we treated the lowest-paid in our community with fairness, with respect and with dignity. Today I would urge those on the crossbench who, from all accounts in the media, have yet to make up their minds that it's not too late to do the right thing by Australian workers. Do you know what? Bosses will survive this—they will. Their businesses are not going to crash to the wall because they have to give permanent employment to casuals after a period of time.
At the moment, what's being proposed by the Morrison government—and it's a sham—is that you can be made permanent after six months. But if the boss doesn't do it you have no recourse; there's no recourse for you to go to a court and argue in a fair way to get a fair go. In this place today we have the opportunity within our hands to fix life for casual workers, to fix it once and for all and to make it secure. Those people who took this country forward during the pandemic deserve at least that.
There are a lot of other things wrong with the bill, but in my experience as a union official what stands out to me is seeing women scraping by, looking after families, not knowing from week to week what their take-home pay will be. We know that in this country there are way too many children living in poverty. If the Morrison government agree to this casual clause today, and if those on the crossbench agree with them, they will be condemning a generation of children to poverty. I urge them to take a long, hard look at this and change it.
We want fairness. That's where this debate started—with trying to make the pandemic better for employers. The trade union movement agreed at that time to some temporary changes, but now it seems we're trying to lock those changes in forever. That is not on. I say to the government: if you do that in here today the Australian public will punish you at the voting box, and you will deserve to be punished for condemning low-paid workers to insecure work forever and a day. It is not on. Do the right thing. Do the fair thing. I urge the crossbench not to agree to the amendments or to the bill the government wants to put up today. Listen to the ACTU. Listen to workers out there. There's so much on social media today about people's personal stories, about how life is so hard for them. Don't do this to yet another generation of workers.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:36): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. There are few certainties in life; I think, as we have all lived through 2020, we certainly know that for sure. But you know one thing we can always count on? We can always count on the Liberal Party taking any opportunity they can to make it easier to exploit Australian working families. You see, despite their rhetoric, those on the other side have never been on the side of Australian working families. Most of the time they feel they need to hide it. They have to hide their contempt. They have to hide their true intentions. But there are moments when they show their true colours, what they really think and what they really want to do.
There were a couple of times when they thought they could get away with it. I was here after 2004, when John Howard won a majority in both houses and the Howard Liberals thought they were permanent and invincible. They finally had the confidence, therefore, to reveal that they were not on the side of working Australians and never had been. What did they do? They rammed through the extreme Work Choices law. Australians got the message right away and sent the Howard government packing. Since then the Liberals have been trying extra hard to hide their stripes, but their stripes don't change. Now here we are again, for a second time, with a Liberal government that feels unassailable, takes Australians for granted, feels it's permanent and thinks the collective goodwill and trust in government generated by our shared response to the pandemic means it can get away with things it never normally gets away with. Once again, the government will be proven wrong.
What the coalition have misunderstood about these times, about how we have all pulled together through this pandemic, is that Australians have seen as clearly as ever what matters. Australians want good, secure jobs with fair pay and conditions. Australians want cheaper child care. Australians want to live in a country that makes things and supports local jobs. Australians want to live in an Australia where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. Australians want a government that's on their side. What have they got instead? Australians have a government that never delivers for anyone other than itself. They have a government that isn't on their side. They have a government that will leave hundreds of thousands of Australians behind when it ends JobKeeper this month. They have a government that makes fundamental parts of life for working families, like child care, just too expensive. They have a government of broken promises, sports rorts, dodgy self-dealing and a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. They have a government that is overseeing worsening job security and that cuts wages, as it does with this bill.
Labor has set a very simple test. We would support this legislation if it delivered secure jobs with decent pay. But the government's legislation, even with the amendments it grudgingly made, still fails that test. I will return to the provisions of the bill in a moment, but I do want to make the point that it doesn't have to be this way. Labor have set out our plan for more job security, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system. Unlike those opposite, we understand that being in secure work means people can build a future for themselves and for their families, can get a bank loan to buy a home and can take leave when they're sick or need to look after those they love, without putting their jobs at risk.
This is a better deal on offer: job security, better pay, a fairer system, having job security explicitly inserted into the Fair Work Act, rights for gig economy workers through the Fair Work Commission, having 'casual work' properly defined in law, a crackdown on cowboy labour hire firms to guarantee the proposition of same job, same pay—a pretty simple proposition—and a cap on back-to-back short-term contracts for the same role, as well as having more-secure public sector jobs by ending inappropriate temporary contracts, with government contracts to companies and organisations that offer secure work for their employees.
And of course we must tackle the gender pay gap. Labor's plan will require companies that have more than 250 employees to report their gender pay gap publicly. Our plan would prohibit pay secrecy clauses and give employees the right to disclose their pay if they want to. We will take action to address the gender pay gap in the Australian Public Service. We will ensure that the Fair Work Commission has strengthened powers to order pay increases for workers in low-paid, female-dominated industries. And we will legislate a right to 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave.
The singular driving purpose of this parliament should be how we improve the lives of the Australian people. That is why we on this side of the chamber make no apology for standing in the way of legislation that makes life harder for working Australians. And we make no apology for wanting casual workers to have the same basic workplace rights that the rest of the workplace rightly enjoys. You see, under Mr Morrison, job insecurity has worsened. Gig workers regularly get paid below the minimum wage and have unsafe conditions. What does this bill do? In an act of political opportunism, this bill uses the COVID pandemic to entrench the epidemic of job insecurity.
We know COVID-19 didn't create the problems we're seeing in our society—the inequality, the low wages and the poor working conditions, but it did shine a light onto realities that have been ignored by the government every day they have been in power. At a time when those in some of our lowest paid industries have borne the brunt of the pandemic, what thanks do they get from the Morrison government? The government thanks them, Mr Morrison thanks them, by allowing their pay to be cut—the thanks of a grateful Prime Minister! We know casual workers carried this nation through the pandemic. Do you know who they are? They're our aged-care workers, hospitality workers, retail workers, food producers and delivery drivers. Many of them are casual in name only, having essentially worked in the same role for years but without getting the sort of job security that is so fundamental to providing for themselves and their families long term.
This bill will shackle these workers into the definitions and conditions imposed on them the day they started work. Under the proposed section 15A in schedule 1 of this bill, if an employer tells a worker on day one that they are casual, then this employment definition persists and prevails, even if, through the performance of their role, the worker has a set roster and a pattern of regular and consistent hours and even if there is an expectation of ongoing and stable work. But, true to form, the Morrison government is going even further. Section 15A aims to have a retrospective application. The effect of that is that those who were wrongly classified as casual employees remain shackled to that definition irrespective of the years of work history to the contrary. So you're not only doing people over; now you're going back to do them over! This provision ignores real-world practice and turns back many years of legal precedent. Where the courts expanded the rights of workers by examining the employment relationship beyond merely what was enclosed within the express terms inside a few pages, this bill seeks to take them away.
Those opposite claim their inclusion of casual conversion provisions fixes the issue of insecure work. Do you know what? You always have to read the fine print with this government, especially with this Minister for Industrial Relations. When you read these proposed changes closely you will see that an employer is able to reject requests for conversion to part-time or full-time work on so-called reasonable grounds, and the worker can only dispute a rejection if the employer agrees to go to the Fair Work Commission for arbitration. So a casual aged-care worker requests conversion, the employer says, 'Nah, I can't do that,' and she or he has to go to the commission for arbitration. Yeah that's going to happen, isn't it! That's a good way to deal with it! There's no understanding of the disparity of power in the relationship, no understanding—or maybe, actually, they do understand, which is why they draft these provisions in this way.
On wage theft: well, this bill is consistent with the government's pattern of lagging behind the states. While wage theft provisions may, at first glance, look to be a step forward, if you are in Queensland or Victoria from 1 July they're a step back. This bill would prevail over existing state legislation, so if you're in Queensland, where fraudulent falsification of records is a crime, the bill overrides that protection. The Victorian and Queensland legislation has a 10-year maximum sentence. This bill would reduce that to four years. So for millions of Australian workers the Morrison government is reducing their protections against wage theft, reducing the deterrence to engage in it. You see, Madam Deputy President, the bill criminalises wage theft in theory only and sets a bar so high that very few prosecutions could meet it. And we know that if wage theft is not prosecuted it prevails and persists most often in the form of taking advantage of and exploiting our most vulnerable workers.
Australia's workers have demonstrated enormous good faith and solidarity through the pandemic by agreeing to greater flexibility in the workplace to help save livelihoods. These so-called JobKeeper amendments to the Fair Work Act were concessions made with the understanding that we were living in unprecedented times. They enabled businesses in receipt of JobKeeper to alter core aspects of an employee's work. They were provisions agreed to in good faith after there were decent discussions and a decent position was taken by the Australian trade union movement and those they represent. What has this government done? What they've sought to do under Mr Morrison is to take advantage of that good faith and take away protections workers have fought for and won over decades. This government wants to let businesses that never even had JobKeeper change where a worker works or even what a worker does, not during this pandemic but for two years. If that level of insecurity wasn't enough, schedule 2 of this bill plainly legislates pay cuts, enabling an employer to ask an employee to work additional hours without payment for overtime. Really? In the face of that decency, this is what you do? At a time when work is scarce and JobSeeker and JobKeeper are ending, how many workers, do you reckon, are going to be able to say no to that?
Nothing in this bill seeks to increase wages or empower workers, and the enterprise bargaining changes in particular seek to take advantage of workers by masking true intentions in complicated legal jargon—again, no surprise from this minister. We know that an agreement cannot contradict the National Employment Standards; in fact, agreements must reflect the minimums contained within those standards. What this bill seeks to do is to allow employers to insert a clause which purports that they comply with the NES but at the same time lets them include clauses which do not meet the bare minimums threshold. Even though these clauses are illegal, they remain in agreements. And, after all of that, the bill seeks to prevent a union stepping up and warning this isn't okay, because if a union hasn't been part of a bargaining process before the agreement reaches the commission there'll be no mechanism for the union to represent workers concerned. All of this adds up to less scrutiny, less transparency, worse outcomes for workers.
If these realities weren't poor enough, things are worse still for workers engaged in mayor multinational projects—construction or FIFO workers. They face the prospect of being locked into greenfields agreements for eight years without recourse. Eight years is a pretty long time. It's a pretty long time to be unable to revisit wage increases which have failed to keep up with the cost of living, or to address safety issues in the workplace, but it is what you'd expect from a government that considers suppressing wage growth to be a core objective of its economic policy.
The catchcry of this pandemic was, 'We're all in this together,' and, at the height of the pandemic, Mr Morrison established working-group processes designed to make it look like the government were interested in what working Australians wanted. They are trying to spin that this legislation is the result of working groups involving unions representing workers, but the entire movement representing working Australians opposes this bill. Do you know what the true spirit of this legislation is? It's not 'We're all in this together'; it's 'You're on your own.' Now, just as they did after John Howard's Work Choices, Australians will have a choice between a smug, tired party that govern for themselves and a government that is on their side, where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind, an Australia with job security, better pay and a fairer system—but that will come only if we elect a Labor government.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:50): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say: what a mess! Industrial relations in Australia is a mess. But there has been unexpected universal agreement that the real problem is the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act is the culprit. Union bosses agree with me. Dave Noonan, the national secretary of the CFMMEU, was in my office two days ago, and he agrees with me that it is a mess. He said, 'The Fair Work Act has not protected wages and conditions.' The ACTU's Sally McManus and Michele O'Neil, in my office yesterday, agree with me. Major employer groups agree with me. Small business agrees with me. How the hell can a small-business person and employees, good workers, possibly recognise what their rights and entitlements are? The Gillard-Rudd Fair Work Act has led to union decline, poor business leadership and management and a loss of worker rights. These business and union leaders agreed to an invitation from me to continue this discussion.
As the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 is, though, we cannot support it. We have many substantive amendments and many technical amendments that will need to be accepted before we can consider this bill. Let's have a look at some key facts. Australia's largest employer of workers is small business—830,000 workers. In Australia we have, across many sectors, 2.5 million casuals, with diverse needs, including flexibility and options. Unions in the private sector now account for just nine per cent of workers. We will protect that nine per cent and we will work for the rest of the 100 per cent and for small business. Remember, only investors, employers and workers create jobs.
We have three aims in addressing this bill: to protect honest workers, to protect small business and to restore our productive capacity in Australia. We want jobs, confidence, certainty, security, workers' rights, protections and fairness. We've invited more than 80 groups to come and talk to us. We've invited them in writing. We've talked to more than 100 groups, some twice. We are listening widely. We've had ideas from the ACTU, unions and employers. We asked, 'What about small business?' There was a hushed silence. I want to point out something else, too. We have rejected the government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity No. 2) Bill 2019. We were slammed in the media and slammed by the government, and now employers are coming to us and saying that we did the right thing. In the past we also took the other view, and we supported the ABCC, the ROC and the ensuring integrity bill No. 1. We don't take sides. We get the facts.
There are five key areas in this bill. I will talk first about casuals. Everyone has ignored this problem for six years—Labor and Liberal. Simon Turner is now totally and permanently disabled. Others in the Hunter Valley were crushed emotionally, and some crushed physically—discarded. Stuart Bonds came to their rescue in the Hunter. I grew up in the Hunter. I've worked as an underground coalface miner and as a mine manager. I worked with the Hunter Valley CFMEU in the 1980s as a member and then as a manager and argued with them, and we respected each other.
Coming back to the present, I've pushed for justice and entitlements for Simon Turner for 21 months and will continue pushing. He suffered under a dodgy initial employment breach of award, then under an enterprise agreement that came out of a faulty process. Yet the Hunter Valley CFMEU approved that enterprise agreement and surrendered rights to complain. Joel Fitzgibbon, the Labor member, ignored six letters from Simon begging for help and then he misrepresented me and the problem in the Hunter. The Labor Party has failed. I acknowledge that Senator Sheldon has done some work in that area, but he has come up against a brick wall. The Liberals and Nats have failed, although I acknowledge the Attorney-General and Senator Marise Payne for doing something there. Senator Murray Watt has blown in from Queensland and now mentions the Hunter Valley and Newcastle. Where was he for 21 months? Where was he for the last six years? The union has failed, the Liberal and Nats New South Wales ministers have failed, the employer groups—the New South Wales Minerals Council and the Minerals Council of Australia—have failed; they're not even interested. But there is a shining light: Alex Bukarica, the CFMEU mining division's legal counsel. I applaud his courage and integrity, because he has acknowledged my words about what's happening in the Hunter and how the workers have been sold out.
Let's talk about the Hunter Valley CFMEU. Back in the eighties, when I was a mine manager, they started casuals and then became an employer. They had good intentions but they became an employer. Later they became a major shareholder in TESA and negotiated enterprise agreements for TESA. The Hunter Valley CFMEU made big money when it sold its company to TESA. It reportedly sold enterprise agreements with shelf companies. It approved enterprise agreements that exploited miners. It facilitated, negotiated, approved and recommended more than 300 enterprise agreements containing casuals, yet the Black Coal Mining Industry Award has no casuals working in production, only permanents. The Hunter Valley CFMEU enabled casuals, drove casualisation and now denigrates casuals, while not protecting them in their claims of injuries and serious safety violations. I have lost respect for the Hunter Valley branch of the CFMEU. It also shows that the industrial relations system is broken.
Let's look at the bigger picture. The CFMEU fought for amalgamation and now the mining division wants to pull out. What's going on? The CFMEU funded GetUp, whose main campaign is to stop coalmining and destroy jobs. Look at the Heydon royal commission findings on the CFMEU, the HSU scandal—stealing from their own members who are some of the lowest paid workers in the country—the SDA doing dodgy enterprise agreements and selling out to multinationals and the AWU doing the same. Under the Fair Work Act the unions have failed; workers have lost their protections. In Queensland, the CFMEU, in the mining division, has been admirably honest. Shane Brunker in Townsville said they have to start doing better with casuals. Jim Lambley, union delegate and vice-president in the CFMEU mining division in the 1990s, said then that the union was being overtaken by politics and personal agendas and needed to get back to service. Speaking of service, a union growing rapidly in membership, despite Annastacia Palaszczuk trying to pull them back, is the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, which focuses on service and lower fees.
How did casuals start? Small business uses casuals quite well and many employees want to be casuals, hundreds of thousands of them, because today workers want options and flexibility. Small business needs options and flexibility—everyone won on that one. Small business needs a big cut in paperwork. Then the grubby, globalist BHP—with its history of managerial incompetence in the coal sector, laughed at in coal by suppliers, workers, unions, labour hire and its own workforce—adopted casuals as a way of getting around this. We've now seen managers in many industries focusing not on making work easier or more productive but on complying with rules. Australian business leadership is poor. It doesn't listen, it doesn't connect; instead, it goes on rules.
The root cause of Australia's industrial relations law complexity—and the industrial relations club live off this monster—is the Fair Work Act. It's the core problem, not the solution. Lawyers, union businesses driving a personal agenda, executives driving a personal or career agenda, industry bodies, HR consultants, some union bosses and industry groups work together, with conflicts of interest. The IR club serves vested interests to get money and power. The IR club is about power with little or no accountability. The IR club makes workers unproductive and strips entitlements. It is a parasite on workers and employers. The complexity makes it easy for the IR club to rule. The complexity makes it difficult for small business and workers to know their rights. It hurts, supresses and harms workers. It robs young people of a fair go to buy a home. This is the core industrial relations problem. Michael Wright, the senior ETU lawyer, and Alex Bukarica, the CFMMEU mining division lawyer, said that we need fewer lawyers involved in IR, and employers agree.
Laws are written to cover the one per cent of bad employers and workers. The Fair Work Act is based on what we don't want, not what we want. We need a positive approach instead, based on needs and principles. We need to focus on the 99 per cent good and have severe penalties for the bad. Long term we need to restore the workplace relationship between employers and employees. That is the core relationship.
With this new bill we can witness our country being squeezed in the IR club's vice. Whichever way we go, there are hazards. Doing nothing is not an option, because it will throw potentially tens of thousands of people out of work. Doing something is difficult, but at least it will give coalminers a pathway to permanent work. We need to make the best of this bill to make sure it protects workers and small business.
The first section is casuals. Casuals are considered in three parts. The pathway to permanency, the conversion, is welcome. Thanks to our work in the Hunter Valley and the government listening, there is now a pathway to permanency in the coalmining industry. The award didn't have it. Remember that there are diverse needs—mums and dads; corner stores; small businesses; McDonald's, with 110,000 largely casual employees; mining; retail; and hospitality. Employees and employers today want flexibility and options. Workers need to apply for the conversion in small business to take the load off small business paperwork.
The definition of a casual is now tight and strong. We were considering making minor modifications. We've one minor modification in the amendments. It's very difficult here to make sure that there aren't future unintended consequences. The government has agreed to our amendment that we will have a review in 12 months.
The third aspect of casuals is the offsetting section. That's to prevent double-dipping. Don't listen to the scare tactics. Double-dipping is when someone is paid a casual loading instead of entitlements and then claims entitlements and are paid twice. No Australian would say that's right. No fair dinkum Australian would say that. This offset clause makes that clear, but the offset says that you still get entitlements. It just means that you can't be paid twice. Protections are built into this amendment in the bill. We checked. It protects workers' rights. We checked the government's application to the High Court. We checked that workers' rights remain intact regarding pay rates. Any legal cases underway continue and are not excluded by this. Don't listen to the lies.
The second section is compliance. We agree with the stiff penalties for deliberate systemic wage theft. We also acknowledge that we are working and discussing with the government a moratorium for small business. That's too complex for this bill, so we're not interested in pushing that today.
The third section is greenfields. We want to cut the maximum duration for an EA from eight years, which the government wants, to six years. That's based on project length evidence. We want to protect workers during those six years by making sure that wage adjustments are based on the percentage increase of the national minimum wage. That's fair. We want to raise the lower limit of projects that are considered large from $250 million to $500 million. We want to remove ministerial discretion to regulate. In future we want the government to provide more opportunities for Australian-owned construction companies. We will be watching to make sure that the government doesn't open up to foreign workers, just like Labor did under the Rudd-Gillard-Shorten years.
The fourth section is enterprise agreements. The government has already agreed to our demand to drop the changes to the BOOT—flat; it did it in the early days. We want to include three months notice before the expiry of zombie agreements. We are making sure that employee protections are preserved, as they are in this section on enterprise agreements. Simplified additional hours agreements, which are common in many awards already, help business recovery. We want to make part-time permanent workers more secure. We want to give them more secure work. We want to make sure there is conversion after 12 months to regular hours. If they have had a simplified additional hours agreement for 12 months then they should be incorporated in regular standard hours. We want safety to be considered in flexible work arrangements. We want a review after 12 months, as I said, and the minister to report to parliament.
This bill is before us. We need to protect small business and honest workers. Governments and the parasitic industrial relations club leeches need to get the hell out of the way so workers can be protected and productive. We need the productive workers in our society to get a fair go. We invite all parties to come together and engage in a bipartisan approach based on principles and workers' needs. Workers have diverse needs: flexibility and options, a fair go, protection and security. Employers have diverse needs: flexibility and options, which will enable them to employ more people. Only investors, employers and workers create jobs.
We need to restore the core workplace relationship between employers and employees. We need to simplify and clarify the industrial relations act—hopeless. We need to do a very good job on this so that it protects and supports workers and gives workers and small businesses flexibility—a system that exposes and holds poor managers accountable and which rewards honest and fair managers and honest and fair workers.
One Nation will work with all parties and the government to support workers and small business in the future, once this bill is out of the way and we can get on with the real job of fixing this. We will continue to work for our three aims in supporting Simon Turner. I'll just mention that if we do nothing then tens of thousands of people will be out of work. (Time expired)
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (10:06): As my colleague and Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt has said in the other place, this Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 does three things. The first is that it lets employers call you casual, even if you're not, and there's nothing you can do about it. The second is that it spells the beginning of the end of full-time work contracts, because it introduces into the system a new kind of contract, where the employer can employ you part time or full time and then put your hours up and down as the employer wants. Guaranteed full-time work will be a thing of the past. And the third thing—and the government doesn't tell us about this—is that it takes an already difficult process of bargaining for better wages and conditions and tilts it even further in the employer's favour. It makes it harder for people to ask for what they're entitled to in their workplace.
All three of those steps are terrible steps, but they're so consistent with this Liberal government's approach to governing. They're attacking workers, they're attacking the environment and they're attacking civil society. They're governing for their mates and not for the rest of us. They're doing everything they can to undermine anything that stands in the way of big corporations and corporate profits. Never mind that we have just been through an unprecedented global pandemic and that we're still going through that global pandemic. Never mind that we're in a climate emergency. Never mind the devastating impacts that these attacks are having on the lives of workers. They're still determined to undermine and attack workers at every turn.
Let's talk about the pandemic and the year that we've just been through—2020, the year that people want to put in the bin. That's particularly the case for people who were already on insecure and casual work, because the pandemic highlighted the inequality that's been allowed to flourish as a result of insecure work in Australia. Casual workers were hit the hardest during the pandemic. They accounted for approximately two-thirds of the people who lost their jobs in early last year. And those casuals who still had a job were amongst the lowest-paid and most insecure workers. They had no access to paid leave entitlements.
Also, we must not forget the role that insecure work played in spreading COVID-19 across the country, as workers without sick leave were forced to choose between their health or losing their income. Workers who are juggling this mix of multiple part-time jobs were of course going to fulfil their multiple part-time jobs because they needed to. They need to do that to put food on the table, and that made just the conditions—particularly if one of those casual part-time jobs was working in hotel quarantine—to spread COVID across the country. It led to the massive upswing in COVID cases early last year.
Many employers have built insecure work in to their business models and, while they turn a profit, workers have not had job or income security. It's notable that many of the richest and most powerful individuals and companies in Australia did very well out of the pandemic. Their profits increased at the same time that there was a huge amount of suffering for people doing it really tough during the pandemic. That was where we were at with our industrial relations system as it was, yet this legislation is going to make it even worse. It's going to make work even more insecure. It's going to mean that people have less security in their lives and in their jobs. The changes in this bill will further entrench insecure work in Australia and exacerbate the existing inequality in our industrial relations system. As I said, this is at a time when profits for those at the big end of town have increased.
We saw an article on the front page of a newspaper this morning about a billionaire, who was happy to be interviewed. They wanted to interview him and they said, 'Let's come and take a photo in front of your indoor pool' and this billionaire said: 'Which indoor pool? I've got three.' That's appalling. That is the reality of the inequality that is in existence in this country. At the same time as billionaires' wealth has increased during the pandemic, people on the most insecure incomes literally have not got the money to put food on the table. They are literally starving, and that is here in Australia, one of the richest countries in the world. That's not the Australia that I want to live in. I thought we had a social contract that said we were committed to moving towards equality, towards everybody having the opportunity of having a secure income, having a secure house and a roof over their head, having the ability to put food on the table to feed their kids, having the opportunity to flourish. The elements of this legislation are undermining that equality in Australia.
I want to go to some of the details of what's in this bill. The changes to definitions of casual labour will be devastating for people across the country. Workers, particularly casual workers, already face a power imbalance with their employers, and this bill will make it worse. I want to outline some of the things that the ACTU said in their submission. In terms of casual workers and more jobs being casualised, they noted that the bill will result in fewer permanent jobs with rights and an increase in the casualisation of the workforce. As I said, the casualisation of the workforce has been absolutely turbocharged in recent years. Rather than giving people more security, more permanence, it will increase the casualisation of the workforce. The ACTU said the casual conversion provisions of the bill are essentially meaningless, because the employer is not bound to offer a regular casual a permanent job if they don't think it would be reasonable to do so. The same employer can veto a worker's right to have the Fair Work Commission consider whether their decision is fair.
The bill allows employers to call a worker casual even if the job isn't casual, stripping them of entitlements such as sick leave. We know that, when people get sick, that's when the inequality in our system actually reveals itself. If you're a casual worker and you get sick then you can't afford to pay the rent and you can't afford to go out and buy food to put on the table. You'll find yourself homeless, being evicted, because you haven't got an income. This is the inequality that's already built in to our system that we should be doing something about, to actually reduce it, rather than considering legislation like this that increases that inequality. The ACTU pointed out that the bill retrospectively strips misclassified casuals of their right to leave entitlements. Even if it were acknowledged that, no, you aren't a casual worker, you're a part-time worker and you should have leave entitlements, you don't get the opportunity to get the leave entitlements. Basically, everything is stacked in the interests of the employer.
And then we have the fact that part-time work is going to be casualised under this bill. It would cut the rights and the take-home pay of part-time workers, effectively turning part-time workers into casuals and putting enormous pressure on them to accept extra hours with little notice and no overtime. Think of the consequences of that for women in particular, and particularly for women who have got kids in child care. You don't have childcare places that say: 'You've got work today? Fine! Bring your children in.' You don't. You have to commit to a number of particular days, particular hours for your child care—and you've got to pay for them.
The mismatch between childcare provisions and casualised work is enormous. If you've got workers who haven't got child care and who are basically told, 'You've got to turn up for work,' or, 'You've got to work an extra few hours,' what do they do? It creates a huge clash between peoples' family responsibilities and their work requirements. If we want to allow women in our country to flourish, to manage and juggle both their family responsibilities and their work responsibilities, then we've got to give them security. We've got to give them the ability to know that here are their hours of work so that they can organise their lives, they can organise their child care around those hours of work so that both they and their children can flourish. These cuts can be imposed upon any part-time worker under any award by regulation.
I think it is also worth reflecting upon whom in our society these provisions are particularly going to affect. Who are the people most likely to be impacted by these provisions? They are migrant workers and they are younger workers. Migrant workers are already much more likely to be part of the underpaid casualised workforce. These provisions reduce their bargaining power immensely. It's basically a racist provision, because we know it is going to be impacting on people of colour much more than people who have had the privilege of being in secure work already.
The provisions are also going to impact on younger people. Younger people were the ones who overwhelmingly lost their jobs during the pandemic. It is younger people who still have skyrocketing rates of unemployment. And even though the economy is kicking back into action now, younger people look at their prospects for work and they think, 'Where are the jobs?' Younger people are juggling studying and working. They are working in jobs in hospitality, for example, and those jobs just aren't there yet. They are the people who are going to be most affected by this. This is happening at a time when young people are finishing their studies and looking for work and, at the same time, looking for some security for their futures. They want to look forward. If they've found a partner and they're thinking about having a family, or they're thinking it would be nice to move out of the household they're sharing with eight other people into a house where they can settle down, but they can't do that if they haven't got secure work. They can't do that if they don't know whether they are going to be able to pay the rent, let alone a mortgage.
For the young people that I know, the friends and colleagues of my two children in their 20s, the idea that they will ever have the security of employment to be able to pay a mortgage, to own a house—they laugh at you. And this is in Australia. This is Australia, one of the richest countries in the world. We can do better than this. We can give people job security. We can give people a sense of hope about the future but not if you have legislation like this that just exacerbates the existing inequalities, exacerbates that huge divide between those with power in our society and those without.
This is just such a backwards bit of legislation. It is so much not in the interests of the future of Australia. We know that how we are going to develop as a country depends upon having people who have that sense of hope for the future. It depends upon people feeling like they are being treated fairly. Having the basics of being able to have a secure roof over their heads, having the basics of being able to know they can put food on the table—that's what gives them the ability to then be able to contribute to the country, to be able to really work together. If you haven't got those basics, if you're struggling to just survive, then life is just really difficult. There is no way that you can get people who are struggling to put food on the table and struggling to not be homeless to engage in the political process, for example. It's just completely out of the question.
We can do better than this, and we must do better than this. There is hope, given the wealth of this country, with a commitment to equality and with a commitment to working in the interests of all in this country, of stopping this rush towards inequality and of building a better future for us all, where everybody is valued, where everybody has the opportunity to flourish, where everybody who wants a job is able to get a job that has secure conditions, that is well paid and that is doing something that's of use for society and that they can feel proud about. We can do this in this country, but not with legislation like this, not with the ideological commitment to increasing the power of the already rich and wealthy against the interests of those who haven't got the power in our society.
I really urge particularly all of the crossbench—and it sounds like we are in a position to defeat this legislation; I hope this legislation will be defeated in the Senate today. It is what's needed. Then we can go back to the drawing board and start building legislation that makes our industrial relations system fairer for all Australians. (Time expired)
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:21): I would like to pick up on what Senator Rice was saying about restoring fairness and balance. If we take a step back, we can remember when the Fair Work Act came into this place to replace Work Choices. Work Choices was twice the size of the previous act that it sought to replace. At the time, even the HR Nicholls Society criticised the then coalition government for providing more regulation, not less, when it came to that government's plan for the industrial relations system in this country. Labor's Fair Work Act put in place a new framework, one that we're very proud of. It was a new framework for workplace relations, with the principle of recognising the government's intention at the time of providing a balanced framework for cooperation and ensuring that there were productive workplaces right across the country, promoting national economic prosperity and ensuring that there was social cohesion. These are core principles that we should think about in this place in debating the changes in the current piece of legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021.
The Fair Work Act encourages employees and employers to bargain together in good faith and reach agreement. Yet what we see today in the changes before the Senate does the opposite, putting workers and employers against each other. We took the view that it was better for the workers and the bosses at each worksite around the country to work together, not just in their interests but also in the interests of our national economy. At the end of the day, productivity will increase. If you look at all the statistics since the introduction of the Fair Work Act, you see that productivity actually increased, but under Work Choices it went the other way. My fear is that we will end up having a situation where productivity will continue to decline, and that is not good for our economy, especially when we're trying to recover from the current pandemic.
As Senator Farrell and others on our side have articulated this week, the ALP is totally and utterly opposed to this bill. Over 12 months, many Australian workers have experienced the most substantial disruption to their working lives in living memory. Let's not forget that it was around this time 12 months ago that the effects of the coronavirus pandemic first began to manifest in our country. Businesses began to close, communities began to lock down, and, most pertinent to this discussion, workers began to suffer. Australians in their millions all over the country faced the prospect of either losing hours at work or losing their jobs entirely. Australians in their millions were being kept awake at night in fear of what may lie ahead for them and their families.
I'm sure we can all recall with sadness the seemingly endless lines of those who stood in the cold and wind at their local Centrelink offices, desperate for support from this government just to get through and put food on the table. This is to say nothing of those who, through the pandemic, have themselves been on the frontline of servicing our community and its needs. Particularly I think of shop assistants at supermarkets all across Australia who managed the crowds and stocked the shelves as desperate Australians swamped their stores for supplies to get them and their families through the lockdowns. These workers, often young but not always, put themselves and their own health at risk to ensure that our communities had whatever they needed to keep on going. They did so, at least at the early stages, as their union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, battled to make sure that they were provided with the bare minimum of protection by their employers, things like sanitiser, masks, gloves and face shields. You would have thought that many of these companies would have thought, 'We've got to look after our own employees.' But, no, it took the union movement to actually highlight these concerns to many of these employers.
For many of these workers, it must have seemed that after 2020 things could hardly get any worse, and yet we have a bill before the Senate that wants to strip away pay and conditions. This bill can only be described as a vindictive attack on the pay and conditions of many of these hardworking workers who are only now getting back to a sense of normality for themselves and their families. This is the biggest thankyou that this government can say to all those retail workers and all the other essential workers who helped ensure that our country kept ticking along over the last 12 months. This bill is nothing short of a kick in the guts for working people and their families everywhere across Australia.
Not so long ago this government was reassuring workers that their conditions were safe and that they would be no worse off under the proposed legislation that was to come. What nonsense. It's encouraging to hear from media reports today that quite a number of the crossbench are reconsidering their position and even considering the amendments that have been put to this chamber. I applaud them for doing so, because, at the end of the day, it is the very people who, as I said earlier, have ensured that we've all been looked after and that we've all able to put food on our tables that deserve protection. It's not us in this place. We in this place have enough protections. We get paid very well. It's the people outside this building and also our cleaners in this building who deserve the most protections—not having their pay and conditions taken away.
Instead of listening to workers and their representatives, instead of protecting these workers and safeguarding their economic future, we have the bill before us. How predictable it is to see this from a coalition government. Certainly the coalition parties have strong form when it comes to letting their ideological obsessions get ahead of what's morally right and economically sensible. Let us never forget that the Work Choices reforms from the Howard government were detested by the Australian community. Not long after they were legislated that government found itself out of a job and Mr Howard found himself without a seat in the other place. Whilst those opposite may talk of the Prime Minister and compare him to Bob Hawke, we know the truth behind this bill. It is nothing like that. It does not do anything for Australian workers. We know about the lack of action it will bring about on wage theft. We know about the lack of action it will bring about on dodgy labour hire firms. We know about the lack of action it will bring about to address the inequities and the injustices that many gig economy workers face each and every day.
Be in no doubt: if passed, this bill will entrench all the bad things our economy does not need. It will make jobs less secure, with workers being more vulnerable to casualisation. It will allow employers to pay workers less than the award. In fact, witnesses to the Senate inquiry on the bill commented that it was something of a big business lobby wish list. It certainly appears that's the case.
What kind of support is this for an Australian worker recovering from the pandemic? What kind of reward is this for those who have risked their own health on the frontline of the pandemic? Instead of turning to these workers and saying, 'We're here for you—we're here to get you back to prosperity,' or, 'Thank you for all you've done; we recognise how important you are to our economy and we're going to pay you appropriately and secure your employment,' what have we got from those opposite? Silence—that's what we have.
Allow me to go through some of the major concerns in detail. This bill strips workers of their rights in the workplace, specifically in relation to awards. It will facilitate award provisions being cut, with these implications encompassing all awards and not just a few. The introduction of simplified additional hours agreements will allow employers and certain part-time employees to enter into arrangements that will permit the working of hours additional to the usual scheduled working hours of those employees without the payment of overtime. I know that overtime is very important to many households. It's probably the only thing that really gets them by, especially with the rising bills, school fees and the like. It's overtime which makes a difference and which keeps people's heads above water. Such a measure undermines the value of awards in the first instance and has the potential to lead to workers being paid an hourly rate far lower than what they would otherwise be entitled to.
In relation to casualisation: the bill will permit workers who may currently be classified as permanent employees to have their employee status converted to casual, reducing their standing in the workplace. If there's one thing that the pandemic has shown us, it is that those workers in our community who are genuinely essential are highly underpaid, undervalued and subject to significantly higher rates of casualisation. And I bet they're predominantly female workers too. I can't think of any other group like that, other than shop assistants, who I had the pleasure of representing for six years.
I've mentioned shop assistants and I'll also mention hospitality workers and gig economy workers. They facilitated food and other essential items being delivered to our doorsteps, showing their immense value over the last 12 months. Quite frankly, it's a disgrace not only that so few of them can say they have secure, reliable work but also that this government would be seeking to make the situation even worse for them. This casualisation is not a product of nor an unintended consequence of some law from long ago. It's deliberately caused by policy decisions made consciously by government—those opposite—to make sure that our most vulnerable workers are more beholden to the whims of bosses. We should be under no illusion: if this bill is made law it will serve to make more jobs which ought to be reliable and permanent less so.
And that's not where this bill ends. On top of the measures that would see workers' wages reduced and their security at work undermined, this bill will wind back protections that workers have fought for for a very long time, and workers will continue to suffer wage theft. Wage theft is a crime. It is a criminal act to deny workers what they are rightly entitled to. I'm appalled that it's taken as long as it has to recognise this fact and to legislate it. It is owing to this government's record on matters that, whilst they have stood around twiddling their thumbs and looking the other way, state governments right around Australia have had to push ahead with progressive legislation on this very issue to protect workers.
In my home state of Victoria, the Labor government has put in place robust protections for workers. But this bill will override those measures. It will replace laws at the state level with flimsy laws at the Commonwealth level. It will leave workers worse off. I'm disappointed that this is what it has come to.
As has been mentioned by others in this place, the government undertook 32 working group meetings with stakeholders over a period of 10 weeks regarding potential industrial relations reforms. Together these account for around 150 hours of discussion. Many appeared before these working group meetings in good faith in the hope that the government would come to the table in the same manner, but they have not. (Time expired)
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:36): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, which, once again, is a very poorly titled bill. It should really be called 'supporting our big business political donor mates at the expense of ordinary Australians and workers', but honesty is not a big feature of this government. Those same big businesses have already benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts this government legislated, which are now under debate. Frankly, they already dodge paying their legal tax obligations much of the time.
Meanwhile, ordinary Australians are facing unprecedented health, housing and employment crises. Wages have stagnated for decades, and the cost of living keeps rising. We've got 40 per cent of Australians in insecure work. The thing I find most sobering is that one in four people working full-time live in poverty. The COVID pandemic has made that worse. It has further exposed the impact of insecure work on individuals and families. We all remember that people were put in the invidious position of having to decide whether to go to work when they had the sniffles because they needed money to buy dinner or whether to do the right thing, get a COVID test and isolate until they got their result but not be paid during that entire period. That was a very difficult decision for so many workers in this nation.
Casual, contract and gig economy workers have always been our most vulnerable workers. These proposed reforms will make that worse. They will entrench insecure work at a time when people can't even afford the basics, like rent and groceries. This bill will allow employers to wrongly classify permanent employees as casuals. Full-time work will become a thing of the past, because there's a new category of worker—low-hours contracts—which guarantees workers only 16 hours a week, with everything else after that completely at the whim of the employer. Workers won't be able to plan their lives or their work, and that puts them at a massive disadvantage when they're seeking to negotiate pay rises. That will lead to even further wage stagnation.
Unions will be written out of the bargaining process, which suits this government nicely, and inflexible agreements will be locked in for years. An insecure casualised workforce is also far less likely to unionise in the first place. We all know there's no better way for a worker to improve their pay and conditions than joining their union and organising collectively. This government has been trying to attack that for decades, and this bill is just the next instalment in that.
The controversy over the better off overall test shouldn't distract from the core of this bill. The dumping of the BOOT was a good step, but it doesn't change the fact that this bill, in the main, is a terrible bill. We will fight this bill every step of the way, and I'm very pleased to see that indeed some of the pivotal crossbenchers came out just an hour or so ago saying that they too will oppose the awful parts of this bill that will entrench casualisation and make insecure work and conditions even worse in this country. So, we're all watching with great attention to see whether those comments in fact hold, because, sadly, One Nation of course have done a deal with the government—as they always do. I don't know why they don't just merge and get it over and done with. But we will fight this bill every step of the way.
And the audacity of the timing of this bill: right when JobKeeper is about to be axed, right when the increased rate of JobSeeker is about to be removed entirely and when this government has come back with an absolutely pitiful increase on that—an insult of, what, $3.57 a day?—and right when insecure work is at an all-time high, they choose now to bring in a bill that will entrench and worsen insecure work. The audacity of this government knows no bounds. They have used the pandemic as a cover to bring in all the nefarious things they've been wanting to bring in for years. They've tried to get away with it, and it's up to this chamber, as the last backstop against the nastiness and the greediness of this government, to stop that and to stand up for the rights of workers in this country. I hope that when the vote occurs that is what the result will be today. Certainly the Greens will be blocking this bill.
We want to raise the minimum wage. Rather than trying to protect against further worsening, we actually want to see conditions increased and improved for all workers in this nation. We think the minimum wage should be raised, we think workers' rights and conditions should be bolstered and we think every Australian should have an opportunity for secure employment and meaningful employment, to earn what they need in order to live a good life. We are such a wealthy nation. It should be our first obligation to ensure that all our citizens can live a good life and have basic universal services provided to them and that they have the opportunity, if they wish, for secure and meaningful employment. We think we can in fact protect workers and also support small business and create the jobs of the future while investing in research and new industry. You can actually do all those things at once; they are complementary. That would of course ensure that our essential services are supported and are truly universal and that our social safety net is there for all who need it—which, sadly, is far too many.
So, we will fight this bill with everything we've got. It's kind of ironic that the government's attempt to sell this bill as 'fair and reasonable' has failed, because this is the biggest attack on workers' rights since John Howard's Work Choices. I'm proud that our party stands with workers and that many of the other parties in this place have done the same, and I want to put on record our praise for the efforts of the ACTU in fighting these latest attacks on workers' rights. Again, the proof will be in the pudding. But it's no surprise that this government is once again trying to take decisions and pass legislation that benefits big business, because big business then make generous donations to their re-election funds. It's all very lovely for the one per cent. Meanwhile ordinary Australians get worse and worse off as the gap between the haves and the have-nots—wealth inequality—continues to worsen in this nation.
Over two million Australians are either unemployed or underemployed. That is such a shameful figure. And we know that women, young people and migrant workers are bearing the brunt of that. What are you doing to fix that? Absolutely nothing. Instead of improving job security and lifting people out of poverty by lifting wages, you're pushing through a bill that will further entrench insecure work, will suppress wages, gives more power to businesses at workers' expense and, conveniently for you, further undermines the power of unions. This bill will particularly hurt women. We know that women suffered the most when COVID hit. We also know that the government tried to crow about job creation post the first wave of COVID. But it's very interesting that casual work dominated the post-COVID job increase. In fact, the figure I have here is that 62 per cent of all jobs that were created between May and November last year, post the first wave, were casual. So I'm afraid you can't really claim that you're creating jobs. You're trying to claim credit for employing more women when you're employing them on insecure, temporary, tenuous contracts with poor conditions, which this bill is going to lock in and entrench. The absolute cheek of you!
The pandemic highlighted that inequality has been flourishing for decades as a result of insecure work, and it's very interesting to contrast that with how well billionaires did in the pandemic. Just last year, in 2020, Australia's billionaires increased their wealth by 20 per cent. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs at the outset of the pandemic. I am pleased the government ultimately accepted the Greens' suggestion, which many others came on board with too, to increase JobKeeper and JobSeeker for a period, but they're dropping that now and they're dumping people back into poverty and back into insecure work; they're doubling down. Meanwhile, the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank.
Casual workers were hit hardest during the pandemic and two-thirds of people who lost their jobs in early 2020 were casual workers. Of course, those who still had a job were amongst the lowest paid, with no access to paid leave entitlements, and the role that insecure work played in spreading COVID cannot be forgotten. Workers without paid sick leave, as I said before, had to choose between going and getting a test and isolating until they had a result, but not getting paid, or going to work. We, of course, moved for paid sick leave to be made available for casual workers, given that we were in an unprecedented global pandemic, but we got absolutely nowhere. In fact, many employers have built insecure work into their business models and, while they turn a profit, workers have had no job security and no income security. This bill will make it worse. Instead of passing a bill that will entrench insecure work, reduce wages and increase the power of employers, we need to outlaw insecure work and ensure that the rights of all workers are protected in law and that they have a right to safe, meaningful, secure work with good wages and conditions.
The leader of our party, who sits in the House, is, of course, an industrial relations lawyer, so I bow to his superior expertise in examining this bill. He has identified that there are three particularly offensive impacts of this bill. The first is that it lets employers call you casual, even if you're not, and there's absolutely nothing that you can do about it. The second is that it is actually the start of a real threat to full-time working contracts, because it introduces this new form of contract where the employer can, in fact, employ you part-time but then put your hours up and down as they so wish and, again, you can't actually do anything about it. It's just unfathomable that this government is trying to ram through a bill that does such huge things to the employment contract as we understand it more broadly—and thinks it is going to get away with it under the cover of a pandemic and the recovery from same. The last thing that this bill does that the government doesn't want you to know about is that it takes an already difficult bargaining process for wages and conditions and tilts it even more in the employers' favour, making it harder for workers to ask in their workplace what they're actually entitled to.
I've talked already about the pernicious decisions that people were forced to make in the throes of the pandemic between actually being paid as casuals or isolating and getting tested, but we know that casual work has been a challenge for people the whole time, pre the pandemic, because it makes it impossible to plan your life, it makes it impossible to plan your income flow and it's a genuine threat to being able to pay the rent, pay for the groceries or manage your childcare responsibilities. The bill seeks to double down on this. It essentially says that the definition of a casual employee is that, if the employer says you're a casual, well, you are, and that's basically it. Again, this is all stacked in favour of employers and it just rides roughshod over what little rights casual workers had; they're basically going to have none if this bill passes.
The threat to full-time working contracts is an important one to note because, if at the moment you work more than 16 hours a week and you respond to a job ad that's for a job for 20 or 30 hours a week, you get all your pay and conditions on that basis, but, if you work more than that, you get overtime. Not so under this bill. There's a new form of employment contract that says that you can be employed on a minimum of 16 hours a week, but the employer can then lift you up or down unilaterally, according to their desires. You can't actually get any additional entitlements. You don't get any pay for working overtime, even though it technically should be overtime, and before this bill passes it would be considered overtime. So all of a sudden an employer doesn't have to offer a full-time contract. They can just offer a 16-hour-a-week contract and they have this massive flexibility—they might call it flexibility but it's actually just deep unfairness—to pump people up or down according to their needs, with no thought for the difficulty that that will cause for people who need to pay their rent or pay their mortgage. People won't be able to get loans, if they can even afford to buy a house with prices the way they are, because there is no certainty of income there. The banks won't loan to them.
The Reserve Bank has been saying that we want wages increased, to help get the economy moving, but this bill will further decrease wages. People are going to feel less confident about coming forward and asking for a pay rise, because the employer holds all the cards. I don't have time to go into the third aspect, but this bill is Work Choices all over again, and I beg the crossbench to stand firm on their suggestions that they will block this bill. I proudly say that the Greens will strongly oppose this bill.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (10:51): Workplace relations policy is a unique coming together of economic and social policy. There needs to be a nuanced approach which acknowledges the need for viable employers, because, without viable employers, there are no jobs and, without jobs, there are no employees. It is an inherent need for humankind to be gainfully employed. That is why the social data overwhelmingly advises us that a person's mental health, physical health, self-esteem and social interaction are all enhanced if they have the benefit of gainful employment. So at the forefront of our minds as legislators should be the enhancement of job creation, growing the jobs pool as much as possible, to enable as many of our fellow Australians as possible to gain from those benefits that I've just outlined. So, in setting our policies, it's about job creation, job sustainment, the remuneration of those jobs and pathways for progress without stifling job creation.
It is known that, in general terms, if people start on the lowest rung of the employment ladder, 80 per cent or so move up a rung or more within the first 12 months, and within two years the vast bulk have moved up that ladder of the employment opportunities that are available. Therefore it's important that, in setting the parameters for employment, we ensure that the first rung on that employment ladder is not set too low so people live in poverty—we don't want that but nor do we want that first rung to be set so high that too many of our fellow Australians are denied the opportunity of employment, because that would deny them all the benefits that I previously outlined. And it's not only for them; the social data tells us that people in the household of a person gainfully employed also benefit from those four factors that I indicated earlier.
We in the Liberal Party believe that the employer-employee relationship is in fact a symbiotic relationship. They rely on each other. An enterprise needs workers just as much as workers need an enterprise in which to work. That is why we on this side absolutely and categorically reject the assertion that somehow employment law is about this old-fashioned, discredited concept of class warfare. Instead of seeking to set worker against employer and employer against worker, we seek to ensure that there is as good a relationship as possible, where workers and employers can cooperate to the very best of their ability to ensure that the enterprise remains viable.
We know what human nature is like. There will be those employers who seek to rip off the workforce. That is why we have a Fair Work Ombudsman, that is why we have the Fair Work Commission and that is why we have authorities in place to protect workers' fundamental rights. That is why, as part of this bill—something which I argued before it was in fact adopted by the coalition—is the concept of wage theft being seen as a criminal offence. Guess who is seeking to introduce that into Australian law for the very first time? It is a Liberal-National Party government. When the Australian Labor Party had the levers of government in their hands and introduced the celebrated Fair Work Act, did they introduce the concept of wage theft and criminality? No, they did not. It was not on their radar. It is on our radar, that is why we are seeking to introduce such a concept in this bill.
And what do the so-called champions of the workers do in this place? They're telling us that they're going to vote against it! They are going to vote against the criminalisation of deliberate wage theft. These are the people who allegedly are on the side of workers. I would have thought they would have had the decency to say that this was a huge omission in the Fair Work Act originally, that it should have been there and that they congratulate the Liberal-National Party government on its introduction. But the relentless negativity of the Labor Party is such that no matter what the government does they will be against it or put a negative spin on it.
We on this side reject the class warfare notion that seems to permeate everything that the Australian Labor Party, and especially the Greens, talk about in this place. We see the need for there to be constraints to ensure that employers don't rip off their workers. Similarly, we seek to ensure that the trade unions cannot rip off their members. It's interesting, isn't it? The Labor Party are against both measures. They don't support the criminalisation of wage theft in this bill, nor do they support having unions brought to account if they steal or misappropriate their members' funds. One really wonders what motivates the Australian Labor Party in this space.
The stifling, negative hand of class warfare is something which we on this side repudiate. Indeed, from the very beginning of the foundation of the party that I have the honour of representing, it said in its foundational document, which Sir Robert Menzies penned:
We believe that improved living standards depend upon high productivity and efficient service and that these vital elements can be achieved only by free and competitive enterprise.
We believe that national financial and economic power and policy are to be designed to create a climate in which people may be enabled to work out their own solution in their own way and not to control other people's lives.
These are words which have withstood the test of time. These are principles that are very apt for this particular discussion. This is what we, as a government, are seeking to implement in this legislation.
Some of the contributions that I've had the misfortune of having to listen to in this debate tell me about a government wanting to cut wages. If that were genuinely true, do they think that the workers of Australia would have voted to re-elect us at the last election?
Let's be exceptionally clear here. There is an overwhelming number of workers in comparison to the few people who run the big businesses in this country, so this nonsense that somehow all we do is the bidding of big business makes one wonder why on earth the bulk of workers in fact do vote for the Liberal and National parties come election time. They see through the nonsense. They see through the rhetoric of the Australian Labor Party and they know that the security of their job is determined by the security of the business enterprise in which they work.
Senator Waters, the previous speaker, told us that workers' wages should be raised. Of course we all agree with that, but you have to have the overlay of: is it affordable? In tough times, wages will not be increased as one would like them to be increased. You can increase them if you like, but the Fair Work Commission itself has acknowledged that, in some areas, the pay rates are such that they militate against job creation and job sustainment. You can have one person on a very high wage or two people on a decent wage. I would go for two people on a decent wage as being the better economic and, most importantly, social outcome.
Indeed, that is why we have the Fair Work Commission in this country that actually approves the rates of pay. We have an independent umpire making these determinations, so the assertion that somehow the government is trying to legislate lower wages suggests that the Fair Work Commission is not doing its job. The Labor Party by implication are saying that the Fair Work Commission, which they appointed, is an organisation in which they have no confidence.
We all know that the higher the cost of the product the less likely it is to be bought. It's the same with services. If you artificially inflate wages and that is not sustainable by the business, jobs will be shed and lost. A good example in recent times of the best way to run the economy was the Howard government, which had low inflation, real wages increasing by 19 per cent and, just as we left government, the unemployment rate finally having a three in front of it. It is good economic management when real wages can increase in a good, healthy, sound economy.
In the few moments remaining let's turn to the specific matters in this bill. I've already dealt with the issue of wage theft. For a long time I have supported addressing this issue. I'm delighted this is now before the parliament. I'm shattered, might I say, that the Labor Party and the Greens cannot even bring themselves to vote for that particular part of the legislation.
This bill provides certainty to businesses and employees by clearly defining what it means to be a casual employee and giving eligible casual employees a statutory pathway to permanent full-time or part-time jobs if they wish. Why would Labor and the Greens be opposed to such a sensible, clarifying provision in this legislation? Indeed, Labor had no such definition in their Fair Work Act. We are bringing clarity and certainty for both the worker and the employer. But, no, Labor likes to have this not so well clarified because it then provides greater grounds and opportunities for disputes. We want clarity and certainty. That's what the Australian worker wants. That's what Australian businesses want as well.
We want to extend our successful JobKeeper flexibilities around duties and location of work for businesses in retail and hospitality so that those two hard-hit sectors can continue to work together to navigate the pandemic. Surely that is something that should be embraced and accepted. Indeed, I think at one stage the Labor leader actually supported it. Of course, as is his wont, he has now recanted. In fact, it's in relation to greenfields agreements where he's recanted his position. Why, when this is an opportunity for new jobs; for global investment coming into Australia, providing certainty? No, we want to close the door on that and thus deny our fellow Australians the opportunity of more jobs! We know the social consequences of such a denial. Why, therefore, would Labor and the Greens oppose our measures to ensure that greenfields agreements will be more certain and, as a result, allow more international capital into Australia, creating investment which, in turn, creates jobs?
As part of our measures we will include a free advisory service for small business, to ensure that employees can recover their correct entitlements faster. We have all sorts of provisions in this which are fair, which are equitable, which are reasonable but which do not fit the century-old mantra of worker class warfare, which the Labor Party, unable to bring itself into the 21st century, still wallows in. I support the bill and commend the bill to the Senate, especially to the crossbench.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (11:06): I'm very happy to stand to address this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. I'd particularly like to address some of the comments that have been made about the coalition being on the side of big business and not on the side of workers. Certainly the coalition, as per the Liberal Party's statement of beliefs, believe in small government, in letting people in the private sector get on with the job of creating wealth and creating jobs, which is what they do. The only sustainable way for a country to move ahead is for the private sector to be able to create jobs. But we recognise, as coalition speakers have mentioned in various contributions to this debate, that there does need to be a framework that ensures fair outcomes for workers, as well as opportunities and business conditions that encourage employers and investors to create businesses and create opportunities to employ. They need to be given the certainty around the conditions that they operate under so that they will employ, in particular as we come out of this COVID environment.
I do wish to come to the content of this bill in the context of a number of news reports highlighting that sometimes things don't go well. If you look through news reports over the last year or so, you'll see that a number of companies have been accused of underpaying staff by various amounts. Some names are very familiar: Grill'd. Some institutions are very trusted. The ABC, Qantas, Super Retail Group, Commonwealth Bank, Michael Hill, Sunglass Hut, Bunnings, Rockpool Dining Group, Woolworths, 7-Eleven, Subway—there's a whole range of companies, as well as entities that are essentially part of government, that have been found guilty of underpaying workers. This legislation goes directly to that issue, particularly in schedule 5. It looks to strengthen the compliance and enforcement framework in the Fair Work Act to protect workers from wage underpayment, while supporting businesses to comply with their obligations, including through the introduction of a free advisory service for small business to ensure that employees can recover their correct entitlements more quickly.
I'm going to go into more of the detail of that in a minute, but I want to highlight that we recognise there are times when the government does need to put in place a framework. Concerns around the conduct of everyone from the ABC and Qantas through to small businesses have been raised in the media and raised by members opposite. This bill addresses them. I'm somewhat perplexed by the fact that those opposite and those on the crossbench are choosing not to support these measures which directly address some of the key concerns that have been raised in our community in recent years.
More broadly, the bill also goes on to provide certainty to businesses and employees by clearly defining what it means to be a casual employee and giving eligible casual employees certainty and a statutory pathway to permanent, full-time or part-time jobs if they wish. It extends the JobKeeper flexibilities around the duties and locations of work to businesses in the retail and hospitality sectors so that those businesses that have been doing it hard and their employees can continue to work together to find the best combination of conditions that will ensure the businesses survive and that those people continue to have a job. It gives employers greater confidence to offer secure part-time employment to employees and facilitate additional hours of work for part-time employees in retail and hospitality, people who often want more hours but aren't getting them at the moment. We've heard comments from people in the media and those opposite about underemployment. Here is legislation that seeks to directly address the barriers that prevent employers having the confidence to provide those extra hours and yet it's not being supported.
The bill also streamlines and improves the making of enterprise agreements, which will drive wage growth and increase productivity as a result of the increase in agreements. It also encourages investment in large projects by allowing for greenfields agreements which give certainty to all parties—employers, investors and employees—as to what those conditions will be for up to eight years.
Lastly, as I started with, it addresses the enforcement framework. That is where I would like to go, because the narrative which has been run by many in this chamber during the debate is that the government are on the side of big business and we're pushing these reforms through at the request of big business and we're just trying to support big business. That theme has come through repetitively, again and again. If we have a look at the compliance and enforcement section and particularly if we go through the Bills Digest, which very helpfully picks out some of the key measures but also looks at the stakeholder engagement and has the views of the various stakeholders who were consulted on this (it's largely broken down into academia, the union movement and employer groups) what we find is that there's actually a remarkable deal of support from unions for measures—for example, in the wage theft area—which are actually opposed by industry groups. In black and white, the Bills Digest—and that's not a product of the government or the coalition; that's a function of the independent parliamentary process—highlights very clearly that this legislation is actually seeking to put in the appropriate framework to protect workers, guarantee their entitlements and make sure that employers, whether they are the ABC, Qantas or a small business, who do the wrong thing face appropriate penalties and that workers get their entitlements. The fact that it is supported—in some particular clauses, which I will go to, there are some reservations about wording or who particular penalties are paid to, for example—in broad by the unions and opposed by business highlights that the opposition is playing politics with this as opposed to seeking real outcomes for workers.
Here is a case demonstrated in the Bills Digest where the government are not lining up with big business; we're actually saying those who behave poorly should be held to account and those who behave poorly should pay a penalty and workers should get their entitlements. The amendments proposed in this legislation are opposed by business and supported by unions in general. So that highlights that what's occurring here is political in nature. In the broad, this bill will better protect employees from wage theft; deter, by introducing tougher penalties, dishonest employers from undercutting their competitors; facilitate a more efficient recovery of wage underpayments; and encourage businesses to identify and address underpayments more quickly.
The better and stronger protections for employees will include tougher penalties and orders to deter noncompliance. These measures include a new Criminal Code offence for dishonest and systemic underpayments of one or more employees, with a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment, an automatic director disqualification for five years and/or a fine of over a million dollars, or over $5 million for a body corporate. Those are significant penalties. It's not surprising in some ways that they were opposed by industry, but what they demonstrate is that the government are serious about saying that, whilst our philosophical position is that we should remove barriers and encourage business to take risks and invest and work to create wealth and jobs, when they get it wrong and it's systemic and intentional then they should face penalties. Yet the Labor Party is opposing this measure.
The bill also increases maximum civil penalties for underpayments, sham contracting and failing to comply with regulator compliance notices, and increases penalties available under infringement notices. It prohibits employers from advertising jobs with pay rates below the relevant minimum wage and it clarifies that courts can make adverse publicity orders where appropriate. It goes on to expand and improve the small claims wage recovery process by increasing the small claims cap from $20,000 to $50,000, which allows courts to refer appropriate claims to the Fair Work Commission for faster resolution through conciliation or consent arbitration. It'll encourage businesses to proactively identify and self-disclose where there have been underpayments and to rectify those more quickly and efficiently, which ensures not only that existing employees are recompensed but also that, going forward, employees get what they are entitled to under their conditions. It codifies factors that can be taken into account when deciding whether to accept an enforceable undertaking for wage underpayments, which will provide greater certainty for employers and employees.
Mr Burke, in the other place, said, on ABC radio in December 2020 that vulnerable workers getting their money back quickly has to be the highest priority. That is one of the key outcomes of schedule 5 to this legislation, and yet it's being opposed by the Labor Party and the Greens. I'll now go through some sections from the Bills Digest to highlight the consultation that occurred and the submissions and statements that were made publicly by unions and employer groups. What it highlights is that the rhetoric which is being put by those opposite that they're opposing this because the government's on the side of business and not workers does not stack up with the evidence. Schedule 5 deals with compliance and enforcement measures. The Bills Digest goes through, as per normal, outlining the broad areas. It outlines proposed amendments, which I've run through, being remuneration of employees, sham contracting, noncompliance, introducing a new penalty for remuneration related contraventions by bodies corporate and a new civil contravention that prohibits employers from publishing job advertisements with pay rates specified at less than the relevant national minimum wage. What I'd like to go to particularly is looking at some of the consultation in stakeholders' views. The Bills Digest highlights that trade unions were generally supportive of the increased penalties. They did express some concern about subclause 546(3A), which goes to who penalties can be paid to. But they were generally supportive, whereas employer and industry groups generally opposed the changes. For example, the Australian Industry Group said, 'As currently drafted many of the provisions in the bill are highly punitive.' They put forward it 'would operate as a barrier to jobs growth'. As I said, our philosophical position is to be small government and encourage the private sector because they're the ones who generate wealth, they're the ones who generate the opportunity for people to work and, generally speaking, the vast majority do the right thing.
But here in black and white is the evidence that the unions support the measure, with a couple of reservations, whereas industry have said they oppose it. Yet the government is putting forward this measure. We're putting forward this measure in the interests of ensuring that that small group of people who inappropriately do things that disadvantage workers are held to account and that workers get their money back. That means that the opposition to this bill from those opposite is politically motivated, not in the interests of workers.
The same thing can be said about other areas, such as increasing the penalties for sham contracting. Again, the Bills Digest is very clear:
Trade unions support the increase to the penalties applicable for sham contracting …
Again, the trade unions have some suggestions around particular wording, with 'not reckless' being replaced with a 'reasonableness' test, but they generally supported this measure. But the Australian Industry Group opposed these amendments, saying that, at this time, they're not justified. It is yet another example, in black and white, that, while these measures are consistent with our overall philosophy of small government, encouraging the private sector to create wealth and create jobs, for those who are doing the wrong thing, we will put in place a framework that holds employers to account, whether they be the ABC, Qantas or a small business, and we will look out for the worker.
I encourage those who are looking to oppose this bill not to play politics with the recovery of Australia's economy and with secure jobs and pay for Australians and to support this legislation, which is in the interests of Australia and its workers.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:21): The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 is a complex bill. It is an important bill to many people, for many different reasons. Unions see it as an assault on workers. Employers are looking to protect themselves from a potential back pay liability, first and foremost. Some want to seize an opportunity to push for significant changes to employee conditions and what they call reform of the Fair Work Commission's procedures. It is not so much a compromise bill as a mess of a bill.
The principal reason for this bill was the court cases that potentially brought about a back pay liability for employers. That sent a shudder through every small-business person, in particular. Along the way, government decided to add in components that simply wouldn't cut it for many employees and the unions that represent them. The BOOT test is a very good example of a component that ultimately was in fact dropped. Here we are today debating an omnibus bill that deals with a raft of issues, not just the principal reason for the bill. This is not acceptable to me, nor to many others in this place.
So what is Centre Alliance doing? We're paring back our support to the most important elements of this bill, with appropriate amendments. Of course, this includes supporting enhanced protections against wage theft. We are dealing with the matters that matter the most, starting with schedule 1, which will give employers, and particularly small business, vital certainty about casual employment, and schedule 5, which will enact civil and criminal penalties against wage underpayment. The bill will also retrospectively prevent the so-called double dipping of entitlements. While this will draw a line under the massive outstanding liability, we will move an amendment to ensure that any casual employee who currently has a claim for unpaid entitlements before the courts can still finalise their case under existing laws. This respects the basic principle that people be able to operate under the laws that existed at the time they took action.
A right to casual conversion also forms part of this bill, but the current drafting means almost all power lies with the employer. This isn't necessarily a problem, as employers do need to be able to decide who they hire and in what capacity. We also don't expect that many employees who will seek to convert from casual to permanent would elect to challenge their employer on this. However, we do consider it is important that employees have some means of pursuing an application if they feel they have been hard done by. The government has proposed using the small claims court and conciliation process outlined in schedule 5, which we think is a good option, should employees wish to pursue it.
We will not support the remainder of the bill. It goes well beyond what's needed. It is at times heavy-handed in the way it attempts to address problems in the Fair Work Commission. In other instances, it seeks to legislate matters that are already being dealt with in the courts. By supporting just schedules 1 and 5 we will address the most important and urgent issues which need dealing with right now to provide certainty for employees and, particularly, for small business.
Incredibly, I'm somewhat gobsmacked that I have just received—and everyone in this chamber has just received—the government amendments. These show they're dropping schedule 5—dropping the very same schedule that relates to wage theft. They're dropping it, despite almost every speaker, including the speaker who was just before me, Senator Fawcett, speaking very positively about it. How can they do this? Shame on you all for trashing such an important amendment!
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (11:26): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, and it's great to be here today, because I'm pumped. I'm usually pumped up at the best of times, but I feel like I'm a hot air balloon floating along the skies. I'll tell you why that is: it's because all work is 100 per cent insecure if businesses do not survive: all work is insecure if businesses do not survive, and it will be the taxpayer who picks up the cost of redundancies or unemployment benefits. Never forget: it is the employer who pays the employee; it is not the unions. Without the employer there is no employee. Do the unions pay the employee? Does the Labor Party pay the employee? No, they do not. Not only do they not pay the employee but they take from the employee. They take union fees, they take superannuation fees and, most importantly, they take jobs.
There is no greater threat to the prosperity of this nation and jobs for working Australians than the Labor Party and the union movement: union bred, union fed and union led. With their bullying, their complexities and their gouging, unions steal the jobs of Australian workers and the livelihoods of working families. Now, unbelievably, they've come out and said that they want to steal casual workers' loading. Sally McManus of the ACTU has told the ABCs Insiders that casual workers would lose their casual loading in return for portable sick leave, annual leave and long service leave. Who would manage this? Some union would, of course, no doubt clipping the ticket on the money being held on behalf of the worker.
Why are unions and Labor always stealing money from the workers? Let the workers manage their own hard earned income, for Pete's sake! Get your grubby hands off their money. It's not rocket science; casual workers get a 25 per cent loading and a permanent employee gets four weeks annual leave, two weeks of public holidays and two weeks of sick leave which, more often than not, they don't take and which in many cases doesn't accumulate. Let's do the sums here. Six weeks over 52 weeks is an 11½ per cent loading and eight weeks over 52 weeks is a 15.4 per cent loading. And if we want to add in another week for long service leave loading—make it nine weeks a year—then it's a 17.3 per cent loading. That's a long, long way short of the 25 per cent loading that casuals get.
The Morrison government isn't going to allow Australian workers to be exploited by the Labor Party and their union mates. Under this bill which is before the parliament we will better protect employee entitlements and deter unscrupulous employers from undercutting their competitors by introducing tougher penalties, facilitating a more efficient recovery of wage underpayments and encouraging businesses to identify and address underpayments more quickly. We will introduce stronger protections for employees through measures, including tougher penalties and orders, to deter noncompliance.
Senator Griff has just said that, apparently, schedule 5 has been pulled out of the bill. That's news to me. I'm happy to take advice to the contrary here, but, until I've been told otherwise, I'm going to talk about it. There is a new criminal offence for dishonest and systemic underpayments of one or more employees, with a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment, automatic director disqualification for five years and/or a $1.1 million fine for employers. This bill will increase maximum civil penalties for underpayments, sham contracting and failing to comply with a regulator compliance notice, and it will increase penalties under infringement notices. There's also going to be a new prohibition to stop employers from advertising jobs with pay rates below the national minimum wage and clarification that the courts can make adverse publicity orders where appropriate. This bill will also expand and improve the current small claims wage recovery process by increasing the small claims cap from $20,000 to $50,000, and it will allow courts to refer appropriate claims to the Fair Work Commission for expedited resolution through conciliation or consent arbitration.
You have to ask yourself why Anthony Albanese and the unions are opposing criminal penalties for wage theft. Is it to protect their mates at Maurice Blackburn who got busted for underpaying staff? Let's not forget this IR firm has strong ties with the Labor Party, especially in Queensland. Senator Murray Watt; Senator Nita Green; the member for Griffith, Terri Butler—they're all ex-employees of Maurice Blackburn. Is that what Labor are doing here? Are they running a protection racket for their rich lawyer mates? We know they run a protection racket for their rich union mates and their rich white-collar fund managers in the inner-city ivory castles, and now they've been busted looking after their rich lawyer mates. With 122 awards, some of which have over 60 pay points, the IR system is nothing but rivers of gold for the unions, the Labor party and their IR lawyer mates—what we like to call the 'limousine left'.
So, you see, this bill protects the workers. You have to ask yourself why Labor and the unions are running around fearmongering about this bill. I'll tell you why. It's because Labor and the unions have no idea about running a business and creating jobs. You do, Senator Sterle; I'll make an exception for you. And you, too, Senator Gallacher. You two guys are good old blue-collar Labor guys, right? Their only goal is to keep their jobs, and to hell with anyone else, and the only way they know how to do that is to use fear as a means of distracting people from the truth. And the truth is that only the coalition knows how to protect workers and small business. As we've shown throughout the pandemic, the federal Liberal-National government is determined to implement measures that will regrow jobs, boost wages, enhance productivity and benefit both the employer and the employee.
Now, let's address another aspect of this fearmongering from the charlatans on the other side of the chamber: that the rate of casualisation has increased. This is not the case in the 21st century. Yes, it did increase once upon a time, and let me tell you when that was. That was in the late eighties and early nineties, and do you know what that was a result of? It was the income and prices accord introduced by the Hawke-Keating government. I can remember it. I was a teenager and Hawke came out after an overnight meeting. They had had a discussion about this and everyone was praising Bob Hawke. If you guys want to talk about the increasing rate of casualisation, I suggest you look at history and see where it started to take off, because it was a direct result of the Hawke-Keating industrial relations reforms, which were widely praised at the time by the unions and by industry as being good measures to deal with inflation and stagflation.
But you don't have to take my word for it; you can look at the ABC Fact Check. It agreed with comments by the former Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister Craig Laundy, who said the rate of casuals in the Australian workforce had been steady at 25 per cent for the last 20 years. For a very long time, the rate of casualisation in this country has not changed, so the fearmongering on the other side of the chamber needs to stop. I can tell you, no-one protects small and family business and no-one protects the workers like the Morrison coalition government does. Australia's 3.5 million small businesses are the lifeblood of the Australian economy. They employ over six million Australians and contribute approximately $418 billion to our national economy. When small and family business grows in Australia, the whole economy thrives and every Australian benefits.
To keep Australians in work, the Liberal-National government has provided over $260 billion in combined health and economic support to protect Australians from COVID-19 and to put the economy on the road to recovery. This bill is an important part of that. This bill is a very important part of getting the economy back on the road to recovery so we can repay the debt as quickly as possible and not leave our children with a burden that they didn't incur. Our billions of dollars in direct economic support has provided a crucial lifeline to help small businesses around the country to retain their staff and apprentices, to maintain their cash flow and to reinvest in their businesses. We are cushioning the impact of this virus and helping build a bridge to recovery so that small businesses can look forward to a brighter future and get to doing what they do best: creating jobs and supporting their communities.
The changes made by this bill are essential to ensure that our economic recovery continues. This bill will provide certainty to businesses and employees by clearly defining what a casual employee is and giving eligible casual employees a statutory pathway to permanent full-time or part-time jobs if—and this is the key bit—they wish. This bill will extend our successful JobKeeper flexibilities around duties and location of work to businesses in retail and hospitality so that hard-hit employers and employees can continue to work together to navigate the pandemic. It will give employers greater confidence—there's that word again; I mentioned it yesterday afternoon: confidence and optimism; that's what drives prosperity—to offer those people who work in secure part-time employment and facilitate additional hours of work for part-time employees in retail and hospitality who want more hours but aren't getting them at the moment.
This bill will streamline and improve enterprise agreement-making, which will drive wage growth and increase productivity as a result of the increase in these agreements. It will also encourage investment in job-creating megaprojects—great word, that one!—by providing greater certainty for employers and employees by allowing the construction of major projects to be covered by a greenfields agreement for a maximum of eight years. That's going to help a lot in infrastructure projects that we want to push. We just need the state Labor governments to come on board, because the only two state governments that are really driving infrastructure in this country are Tasmania and New South Wales. We were just discussing it this morning in another meeting—how Queensland tourism has fallen by the wayside over the last 30 years, since the state Labor government has been in power. They've destroyed tourism in Queensland, just like they're trying to destroy mining, destroy agriculture, destroy forestry and destroy fishing. It's shocking, just shocking.
We should never forget, when we talk about retail and hospitality, which party it was that increased penalty rates for retail workers. I'll tell you which party it was. It was the coalition government that increased penalty rates, from 130 per cent to 150 per cent for weekdays between six o'clock and nine o'clock at night, and from 140 per cent to 150 per cent for Saturdays. For six days of the week, we increased penalty rates, because we know that there are times when people need to be rewarded for going that extra mile.
I want to talk about a little bit more of the detail here. This bill will give employers greater certainty about their obligations, meaning more confidence to hire and more confidence to invest, and casual workers will get stronger rights to convert to permanent employment if they wish to. But I'll tell you what we're not going to do: we're not going to take away casual workers' loading. That's what the ACTU want to do. They want to take away workers' 25 per cent loading and make it 15 per cent—so workers would lose 10 per cent in loading—and then take that 15 per cent and put it into a fund so it can be portable. The best place to put workers' loading is their pockets, because they've worked hard for it. If they wanted annual leave, if they wanted the other features, they would take it. The reason they don't is a lot of young people just don't get sick. They'd rather take the 25 per cent upfront and get a roof over their head as quickly as possible, or it might be that they're working part time while they're studying. When I was a student I'd take on a bit of extra work throughout the Christmas holidays, and then cut back when I went back to uni and just work in a pub at night-time.
This bill is all about increasing flexibility, increasing employment, increasing wages and improving the livelihoods of Australian working families. It is not about fearmongering. It is not about protecting the rivers of gold for the union movement and the Labor Party. It is about strengthening Australian families. If we are ever going to move ahead in this country, it's about time the Labor Party got on board. Back in the eighties we got on board with the Hawke-Keating government, so it's about time the Labor Party cooperated with the coalition in order to improve the lives of working Australians.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:41): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. In the few minutes left before the hard marker, I'd like to make a couple of points. We've spent almost all week on this bill, and we're in the position now, pushing up against a hard marker, where the government has lost control of the program. We don't know what's going to happen next. We're hearing rumours of guillotines and hours motions happening. We understand that the government is perhaps going to have to significantly amend this bill in order to get some remnants of it through the chamber today.
The point I would make now, because I'm not sure we will be given time if the guillotine comes in, is that the government needs to be very clear about what it is going to ask the Senate to vote on today in relation to this bill. If the government has amendments that significantly wipe out schedules of this bill, it needs to move early to put them before the chamber so that, in a constrained debate—which I understand is what we're about to have—senators in this place understand exactly what it is they are being asked to vote on. If the majority of schedules are going to disappear from this bill, the government should let the Senate know early that that is what's happening. Senators have a whole series of amendments seeking to amend certain schedules, and there's no point moving those amendments if the government has given up on those schedules. We have no idea what the bill we're going to be asked to vote on will look like once the government has finished its negotiations with the crossbench; we have absolutely no idea. I say to the government: once the guillotine is moved, please be clear early about exactly what is left in this bill for senators to vote on.
This is unreasonable, and it shows the lack of ability the government has to manage the business of this chamber that we are in a position where we will have a guillotine, an hours motion and significant amendments put to one of the government's flagship bills. We've been debating this for three days. The government has put on a filibuster this morning to keep the bill going, because it still doesn't know what it's doing, yet we're going to be given a matter of minutes to vote yes or no on legislation that significantly affects working people's lives, perhaps without any idea of how those amendments work together.
To the government: if you are gutting your own bill, please move those amendments early so that the other amendments that crossbenchers and others, including ourselves, might have, which might become irrelevant if those schedules disappear, can be dealt with in an appropriate matter. It is going to be a constrained debate. The least the government can do in this mess that has been created over the past three days is to be upfront about what the bill as amended is going to look like and what senators will be asked to vote on. It is a complete shemozzle, frankly. We have had hours on this bill. All week the government's been scrambling to get this through. It looks like there will be significant amendments. We say to the government: please let us know what they are, and let us know early in the debate.
Debate interrupted.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (11:45): Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting, proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Credit (Electronic Precontractual Disclosure) Instrument 2020/835 and the ASIC Credit (Notice Requirements for Unlicensed Carried Over Instrument Lenders) Instrument 2020/834.
Presentation
Senator Bilyk to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that in 2009, the then Labor Government introduced responsible lending obligations (RLOs), legislation protecting the interests of consumers by placing an obligation on lenders that they not enter into a credit contract or lease that is unsuitable for the consumer;
(b) recognises that some small amount credit contracts (SACCs) lenders are preying on vulnerable low income Australians by entering into payday loans and consumer leases with crippling interest rates; the Stop the Debt Trap Alliance's The Debt Trap report found that many SACCs were going to financially stressed and distressed households, leading to an ongoing cycle of debt from which it was difficult to escape;
(c) expresses its support for laws which protect consumers from unsafe lending practices;
(d) condemns the Federal Government for:
(i) introducing legislation which scraps RLOs,
(ii) taking more than four years to introduce the SACC reforms they promised, and
(iii) introducing weak protections for SACC consumers; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to make a genuine commitment to protecting consumers from unsafe and predatory lending practices.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on International Women's Day 2021, more than 30 prominent women wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the upcoming Federal Budget to 'make the lives of Australian women easier, not harder',
(ii) the Workplace Gender Equality Agency data shows the gender pay gap in Australia is currently 13.4%,
(iii) KPMG estimates that halving the gender pay gap would increase annual GDP by $60 billion over the next two decades,
(iv) the cost, quality and availability of early childhood education and childcare remains a significant barrier to women's workforce participation, and
(v) domestic, family, and sexual violence disproportionately impacts women and children; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) reintroduce the Women's Budget Impact Statement to assess the gendered impacts of budget decisions and inform the Government's reform agenda,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic, family and sexual violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women and children can access services when and where they need them,
(iii) deliver affordable, accessible early childhood education and childcare,
(iv) introduce more equitable parental leave arrangements to encourage shared care, and
(v) properly fund measures to address the gender pay gap, value the care economy, and support women's workforce participation.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that
(i) Australia's scientists, technologists and engineers have made vital contributions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic,
(ii) the Australian Academy of Science's Rapid Research Information Forum has provided independent, expert advice by bringing together relevant multidisciplinary research expertise to address pressing questions about Australia's response to COVID-19, and
(iii) the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic by a member of the Australian Parliament has been described as 'disappointing' by the Australian Medical Association, and has resulted in a suspension from social media platforms; and
(b) recognises the importance of ensuring that independent, expert scientific advice on complex policy questions is readily available to all members of Parliament.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia's native forests are under threat; more than 12.6 million hectares were burnt and over 3 billion animals killed during the 2019-20 summer; and, logging has restarted in and near forests burnt in the fires,
(ii) the Independent review of the EPBC Act by Professor Samuel AC, noted that 'environmental considerations under the RFA Act are weaker than those imposed elsewhere... and do not align with the assessment of significant impacts on MNES required by the EPBC Act...', and that 'Commonwealth oversight of environmental protections under RFAs is insufficient...', and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to end native forest logging, and provide a just transition for forestry workers to the plantation timber industry.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) electric vehicles are an important technology that will be crucial in reducing emissions and taking action on climate change, with transport comprising 19% of Australia's emissions before the pandemic,
(ii) the Government of the United Kingdom has committed to investing more than £2.8 billion in electric vehicles,
(iii) the Federal Government has failed for years to deliver its promised National Electric Vehicle Strategy, and
(iv) that in the absence of Commonwealth leadership, state and territory governments are imposing taxes that will undermine electric vehicle taxes; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to take urgent action to remove unnecessary taxes on electric vehicles, and support their rapid uptake.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the violence against demonstrators and attacks on human rights committed by military leaders in Myanmar, and
(ii) that the United States of America and New Zealand have taken clear steps in response to the military coup in Myanmar; and
(b) recognises the statement by the Foreign Minister, on 7 March 2021, announcing the suspension of Australia's Defence Cooperation Program with the Myanmar military; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to take further steps to respond to the coup in Myanmar, including imposing targeted sanctions on the military leaders responsible.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate:
(a) notes that on 8 December 2020 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled its report titled Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement?, and recommended that the 'Australian Government enact stand alone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption, similar to the United States' Magnitsky Act 2012'; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to respond to that report's recommendations as soon as possible, and introduce an Australian Magnitsky Act.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Foreign Minister, by no later than 2 pm on 13 May 2021, a response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Assistant Treasurer has blocked inclusive questions in the upcoming census which would have provided much needed data on the existence and identities of LGBTIQ+ Australians,
(ii) the Liberal Party supported a One Nation motion that sought to deny the identity of trans and non-binary people, and
(iii) the Australian Government Guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender commenced on 1 July 2013, but evidence provided to the Senate indicates that Services Australia has still not updated its systems to enable Australians to easily and accurately reflect their sex and gender identity; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to abandon One Nation's transphobia and support all Australians, regardless of their sex or gender.
Senator McKim to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, during 2020:
(i) gross domestic product fell by 1.1%,
(ii) household spending fell by 2.7%,
(iii) business investment fell by 5.0%, and
(iv) hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and many remain unemployed and underemployed, yet, the Australian Financial Review's rich list shows that, on average, Australian billionaires increased their wealth by an obscene 34%; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to restructure the Australian tax system to ensure that:
(i) billionaires are not able to accumulate such extreme wealth, and
(ii) billionaires are required to pay their fair share of tax to fund the provision of high-quality public services for the benefit of all Australia.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:45): I present the fourth report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 4 OF 2021
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 7.10pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 May 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(b) the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 July 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021
Fair Work Amendment (Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2015
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021
Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021
Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Air Services Amendment Bill 2018
Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021
COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019
Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020
Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018
Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019
Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021
Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020
Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021
Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021
Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021.
(Dean Smith)
Chair
18 March 2021
Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:46): Thank you, Mr President. Before we move to vote on the report of the selection of bills committee—
The PRESIDENT: Sorry. I actually just put that. With leave of the chamber, I'll go back one step and re-put the vote. I wasn't aware that Senator Ruston was seeking the call to speak on the matter.
Senator RUSTON: Thank you, Mr President, and I thank the chamber for their indulgence in allowing me to speak to this today. What I particularly want to do is to acknowledge the importance of a couple of the bills that we are referring to today—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator RUSTON: and to thank the chamber for their indulgence in allowing me to do this today.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Siewert! Senator Gallagher!
Senator RUSTON: This is a particularly important component of the agenda. I want to acknowledge that there are a number of bills that are being referred today that are particularly important going forward. As I said, I thank the indulgence of the chamber to be able to do this.
There are a number of bills that we've chosen not to refer on—
Senator Urquhart interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to be at the meeting last night, Senator Urquhart. I would have liked particularly to have been there last night to actually have the conversation and to discuss some of these bills, but particularly the importance of being able to have the process by which we refer these bills to committee. We often come into this place and we have conversations around the fact that the committee process in the Senate—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I've got Senator Patrick on a point of order. Senator Patrick.
Senator Patrick: I don't think that qualifies properly as a filibuster. We need better from them.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, what is your point of order, or do you not have a point of order?
Senator Patrick: It's just that she's not filibustering properly.
The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Senator Ruston to continue, to be heard in silence please.
Senator RUSTON: I will take the interjection, or the attempt to pull me up on the manner in which I'm addressing this particular section, from Senator Patrick.
Senator Gallagher interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: Yes, you can if you like. I know Senator Patrick takes the referral of bills to committees very seriously, because I know that he understands that the committee process is what makes this chamber operate the way that it does. It is a very, very important component of it. I probably would point out to the chamber that everybody in this place should take our committee processes very, very seriously to ensure that we do scrutinise our bills in the appropriate processes, in a manner in which we can make sure that we do our job in this chamber.
I'll tell you a great anecdote, Senator Patrick. When I first came into this place, I remember somebody who was very well regarded in this place, Senator Amanda Vanstone. I'm sure even if you weren't in the chamber when Amanda Vanstone held her role in this place, you would have heard of her, because she was a great South Australian senator. Senator Vanstone said to me on the day that I was chosen to be the person to come into the Senate, 'The one thing you must always remember is that committee work is not optional.' She said, 'The most important role of this chamber, of this Senate, is to make sure that committees are run appropriately,' and that's why I thought I would take the opportunity this morning to stand up and, as part of the Selection of Bills Committee reporting, refer to the importance of the fact that the referrals to committees, the scrutiny of bills by committees, is tremendously important. And I certainly thank the chamber for the opportunity to do that.
There are a number of bills where scrutiny through the legislative standing committees provides so much additional information. Senator Patrick, I know you are one of the people in this chamber who believes, more than anything else, in the importance of the scrutiny of bills through the committee process. You are one of those people who always, when you refer bills to a committee, turns up to the committee hearings, and I commend you for the fact that you are always one who takes your role as a member of committees very seriously. You take the scrutiny of bills very seriously—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: as does Senator Siewert. I will commend Senator Siewert for the number of times—she is always prepared to be the person who will stand up and defend the committee process for the additional scrutiny it affords bills, to make sure that we have got the most information, that we allow the consultation and the community engagement into the legislation that we put through this place.
This place truly is the place of review, and the best way that we can review legislation is by enabling a broader scrutiny, by being able to take submissions, to consult with the public, to have hearings and to hear firsthand from people who are impacted by the legislation that we're putting through this place about how that legislation is likely to impact them so that we can make sure that decisions that are made in this place in relation to bills are as informed as they possibly can be. I just would like to take this opportunity to commend the committee process, and thank you for the indulgence to speak on this matter.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:52): I, too, rise to take this unusual opportunity of being able to talk about the Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills. I understand the Selection of Bills Committee report was in unanimous agreement. Usually it does—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator GALLAGHER: Senator Siewert, the point I'd like to make is to draw attention to what is going on here. What is going on here, by using this part of the program, is that the government are in a complete mess and they have lost all control of the business of this chamber—all control of it. I have no doubt that what is happening out there, outside of this chamber, is that a number of people are busily trying to write an amendment or a guillotine or an hours motion—or all three—to deal with the rest of the business of this week. After spending three days on one bill, we're up against time now and the government haven't even got the ability to draft an hours motion or a guillotine motion in time to have it dealt with by this chamber. That's what is happening now.
Poor Senator Ruston, and I feel for her, has been sent in to waste time in this chamber, to waste time when we have important bills that need to be dealt with today—the industrial relations bill, which we don't support; JobSeeker. There are motions. There is a whole program that the government are disrupting through their own inability to deliver anything. I can't imagine a situation where this would have occurred under previous leadership, I honestly can't. There is absolutely no way that then Minister Cormann wouldn't have been sitting in that chair with everything zipped up. What we're faced with today is this ridiculous waste of time because they haven't got their house in order—not just one house, they haven't got any house in order! The amendments aren't in order, the guillotine that's coming our way is not in order and the hours motion is not in order.
The lives of all those people relying on JobSeeker hang in the balance while those opposite mess around trying to get their ideological war against workers through this parliament. There are millions of people relying on JobSeeker, an extension or a permanent increase to that payment, and their incomes hang in the air because of the inability of this team to get anything through this chamber. It's an outrageous waste of this chamber's time.
Senator Rennick: Why are you blocking great work—
Senator GALLAGHER: It's outrageous, Senator Rennick. Do you actually have any idea about what's going on right at the moment?
Senator Rennick: Why are you blocking—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator GALLAGHER: Do you have any idea—I don't think you do. I don't think you have any idea what's going on and how you would defend the fact that your leadership team can't line matters up. This program has been known forever—this is the program: at 11.45 we move to formal business. You've known all week that you need to get this legislation dealt with. You know all that. There are rumours of a guillotine, rumours of an hours motion and rumours of a bill that's about to be gutted, but we don't know if that's actually going to be the case, because we haven't seen any of the amendments that are going to be moved. And here we are, wasting time on a debate about a Selection of Bills Committee report because you have nothing else—no other way of dealing with the business of this chamber. It's an absolute mess that this is what the government of Australia is presenting to this chamber.
Senator Rennick: It's better than the unions—
Senator GALLAGHER: It's an absolute mess. You can't get your program through, you can't get your legislation through, you can't draft an amendment, you can't draft a guillotine and you can't draft an hours motion. You can't do anything! You know what I'm saying is true; that's why it's so difficult for you.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right!
Senator GALLAGHER: You know what I'm saying is true because that's what's happening on the floor of this chamber, and we should call it out. We should call out that you cannot organise yourselves to deal with the legislation before this chamber. You're incapable of dealing with it, and then we're going to be given something with no time to consider it and you'll crunch it through.
We can see the busy shuffling of papers going on around here, so I think we're about to find out how long we're going to be here and what bills we're going to be dealing with. Maybe we'll find out exactly what your industrial relations bill looks like once you've finished your negotiations. We'll see whether what we hear is true: that schedules are being ripped out, including the one on wage theft. We'll see if that's actually true. Gutting your own bill—how embarrassing for all of you! How embarrassing! It's absolutely embarrassing, I'm never seen anything like it— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, are you still seeking the call?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:57): No, as long as we're going to hear what's going on. But if we're continuing this debate then I move:
That the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: I have a motion before the chair, that the question be now put. I know Senator Hanson is seeking the call, but I have to put that procedural motion. The question is that the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be now put.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brockman for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
Consideration of Legislation
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:58): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.
Leave not granted.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Pursuant to continent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Birmingham moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
This motion provides for finalisation of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, which the chamber has been debating for some number of days. It also provides for consideration of the Social Services Legislation (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 and non-controversial matters for today. It preserves the Senate's opportunity to consider formal motions and have them voted upon today, as well as other ordinary business, including question time. I would also flag the government's intention to bring to the chamber later today legislation in relation to the parliamentary workplaces inquiry and the protection of information provided to the parliamentary workplaces inquiry. And I move:
That the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be now put.
The Senate divided. [12:03]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (12:06): The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:09): I move:
That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
And I move:
That the question be now put.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:09): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WONG: I thank the Senate. Here is a government in crisis. A government that has had months on this industrial relations bill is now guillotining it after being so taken by other crises that they can't negotiate with the crossbench. They are now guillotining this bill, guillotining the next bill and guillotining the bill after that, including JobSeeker legislation.
Government senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: Yes, come on, shout at me, because that's all you've got, isn't it?
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right!
Senator WONG: All you've got is bluster. You've got a part-time industrial relations minister who hasn't been able to pay attention, and so now the Senate is seeing the consequences of a government in crisis, trying to ram this legislation through in 20 minutes, and trying to ram the Jobseeker legislation through in that time. The government is trying to salvage some pride by passing a bill that, on your own admission, you're going to gut because you haven't got the numbers.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong, time for the contribution has expired.
Senator WONG: When are we going to have a government that actually does the job for Australians?
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong!
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right!
Senator Rennick interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, when I call senators by name, I expect them to at least temporarily obey the standing orders and remain silent.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:11): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WATERS: This government couldn't arrange a chook raffle. We have a late-hours motion which has some very tricksy additional consequences. There is a little rule in there that says you can't circulate any more amendments on the IR bill with less than one hour's notice. But, hey presto, there's less than one hour to go. So they've effectively silenced everybody else from circulating any amendments, in response to their last-minute amendments, in relation to protecting workers' rights.
The other thing this motion successfully does is says that we can't vote on the sports rorts report that was due to be tabled this afternoon, that we can't speak on that. My colleague Senator Rice was going to seek to speak on that, because this government is up to its neck in corrupt activity, and it's conveniently ensured that that can't occur either. This government is in an absolute mess, but it's still managed to cover its own rear end on inconvenient matters.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (12:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: Again, from the Labor Party and Penny Wong, what a theatrical experience that was to watch on the floor of parliament. The whole fact is that, if you're so worried about the workers of this nation, if you're so worried about small business, with Senator Gallagher saying, 'We need to pass this for JobSeeker,' then start working to get it passed. If not, where's your notice of motion to continue it tonight? 'Let's stay back tonight. Let's work tonight. Let's stay till tomorrow.' Where's your notice of motion for that? If you're really worried about the workers of this nation and small business and JobSeeker, where's your notice of motion? The filibustering and the lies that have gone on in this parliament are absolutely disgusting. You've actually dragged this out, because now we've got a six- to seven-week break in this parliament. If you really care about the workers, if you really care about JobSeeker, then work to get these bills passed. As far as I'm concerned, you don't give a damn— (Time expired)
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! With my microphone, when people can't hear me yell that means there's way too much noise in the chamber.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:13): I seek leave to respond very briefly—less than 30 seconds.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted.
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I have a question before the chair.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: (In division) Senators, I'm going to insist upon quiet, otherwise the tellers and the Clerk cannot do their jobs. I don't think anyone would like me to name anyone now, but I'm going to insist on quiet for the tellers because, with noise, they cannot conduct the count fairly. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [12:18]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:20): I move:
That today:
(a) consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 be immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined;
(b) if by 1 pm consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 has not been finally considered, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(d) for the purposes of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, the references to 2 hours in standing order 142(4) shall be read as 1 hour;
(e) following consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, the routine of business shall be consideration of the following bills:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021
Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020 Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021
Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021 (subject to introduction)
Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020 (subject to introduction)
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 (subject to introduction)
(f) if by 1.45 pm consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (e) has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate;
(g) paragraph (f) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(h) at 2 pm or following consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (e), whichever is later, the routine of business be questions and motions to take note of answers;
(i) following motions to take note of answers, the routine of business be as follows:
(i) notices of motion,
(ii) tabling and consideration of a report of the Selection of Bills Committee,
(iii) placing of business,
(iv) formal motions, and
(v) tabling (only) of committee reports;
(j) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of formal motions only; and
(k) following the tabling of committee reports, the Senate return to its routine of business.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:24): I rise to close the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. I would like to say thank you to those crossbenchers who constructively engaged with the government in order to come to a resolution today—a resolution that will not only provide greater certainty for those in casual employment and offer them a pathway to permanent employment but also provide greater certainty to all those small businesses across Australia. And I say to the Labor Party and the Greens: shame on you!
In 2020 Australia and the world faced a challenge like no other. COVID-19 caused a health crisis that triggered an economic crisis. It is a fact that, at the height of the pandemic, 1.3 million people lost their job or were stood down to zero hours. The Morrison government made it clear from day one that we were committed to backing the Australian people—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt!
Senator Pratt interjecting —
The PRESIDENT: At the end of a sitting period, on very contentious issues, I am going to insist that, when I call senators by name, they be quiet for at least a period of time, as a courtesy to their colleagues, if not to me.
Senator CASH: As I was saying, the Morrison government made it clear that we would back the Australian people, we would back the employers that give them a job on a daily basis. The Morrison government made it clear that we were committed to putting Australia on the road to economic recovery and prosperity. That is why we brought forward the package of what are modest changes to Labor's failed Fair Work Act.
What I say to the Australian people is this. You have shown tremendous resilience and spirit during these testing times, but, as we know, we are at a critical point in our recovery and, as we navigate ourselves out of the COVID-19 economic crisis, it is our ability to work together to solve complex problems, working in partnership, that is how we will move forward, create jobs and get Australians back to work. In that regard, I note today that the labour force figures for February have come out, and again we saw job creation in Australia. That is a good thing for the Australian people. That is because of the economic framework that the Morrison government has put in place. We also saw the unemployment rate drop by 0.5 per cent. That should not be underestimated. That is a sign that our economic policies are working.
Today as a government we recognise that we do not have the numbers in the Senate. In order to pass legislation, we must negotiate. Again, I thank those on the crossbench who have negotiated openly and constructively with the government. The government today will be proceeding with the passage of schedule 1 of these amendments to the Fair Work Act. Without a doubt, the passage of schedule 1 will provide greater certainty for casuals and greater certainty for small business. Casual workers will be given a greater opportunity to convert to permanent work. That is a good thing for them. I would have thought those on the other side, who always demonise casual work and say it should be permanent, would actually support this change—a clear pathway for casuals to move into a permanent form of work.
But perhaps the most crucial part of what I hope will pass the Senate today is that small and family businesses—and as the minister for small and family business I want to say to the small and family businesses across Australia: the Morrison government backs you every step of the way, and I thank those on the crossbench for joining with us to back small and family businesses every step of the way—if the bill passes, you will be saved from a potential liability of up to $39 billion thanks to the government's removal of the double-dipping loophole. That is a $39 billion potential liability that is faced by small and family businesses across Australia if schedule 1 of these amendments to the Fair Work Act does not pass today. In the event that schedule 1 passes, it will be a significant win for casual workers who perform regular patterns of work and deserve the benefits that flow from permanency—if that is what they wish. It is about providing choice.
But, as I've said, the significant part today is the protection of businesses from the double-dipping back pay claims arising from the Rossato case. This will protect jobs into the future, and that is a critical move as Australia's economy strongly moves out of the economic impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At a time when the economy is recovering, at a time when businesses are hiring more employees—and, again, we look to the employment figures that were released today—yet again we thank the employers across the country. They are the job creators. We put in place the policy framework; they are creating jobs based on that policy framework. But at a time when it is still tough, Labor and the ACTU were willing to let small and family businesses across the country, which we rely on as the backbone of the economy, to be hit by up to $39 billion in a double-dipping wage bill. All that does is say to those businesses, 'You will be forced to close down.'
We will be introducing a clear definition of what it means to be a casual employee. That is because there is so much uncertainty—and there has been for so long now—around the definition. We will provide certainty to that definition. As I've said, we will also give eligible employees a new statutory pathway to permanent employment on a full-time or part-time basis, through a legislated universal casual entitlement. That is a very positive step—casual employment moving through to permanent employment. That is a good thing. And I have to say, last week I was contacted by the Australian Restructuring and Insolvency and Turnaround Association, as I know so many colleagues were. They wrote to me and said this: 'Without the provisions in the bill, we remain very concerned that the failure to address these issues'—the double-dipping issue—'will force a significant number of at-risk businesses into insolvency, especially in the current environment, and at the cost of a massive number of jobs that could otherwise be saved.'
What the government is pursuing today in schedule 1 are changes that will help save jobs. They are changes that will help save businesses. And they will provide, as has been called for for so long now, much-needed certainty. The government will also be moving to allow a new small-claims process, including the ability for the Fair Work Commission referral to be used to settle disputes about casual conversion rights. That is a good thing, and it allows for disputes to be settled efficiently and effectively as small-claims proceedings. Today is all about small business. Today is all about ensuring greater certainty for casual employees across Australia. Today the government will continue to deliver on its job-creating agenda. Again, the government has listened to small business. The government has listened to employees. The government has negotiated with the crossbench. Again, I would like to thank those crossbenchers, who today are putting small business and casual employees in Australia first. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:41): On behalf of Senator Patrick, I seek leave to move items (6) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.
Leave not granted.
Senator WONG: Okay, I'll move them one by one. This is the deletion of the schedules. The government is now in a fit of pique because they want to move their own amendments to gut their bill, rather than Senator Patrick's amendments to gut their bill, now requiring that they not be moved together. Is the government really going to be that petty? In which case, on behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:
(6) Schedule 2, page 20 (line 1) to page 36 (line 6), to be opposed.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:42): If Senator Wong wants to play these games, that is fine. But, Senator Wong, you would be aware that the government has an amendment that effectively removes schedules 2 to 6 and divisions 3 to 7 in item (1) and items (2) and (3). You are aware of that, so, if you would like to play these games, you are more than welcome to; however, the government's amendment is to remove schedules 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and parts of schedule 7.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:42): On behalf of Senator Patrick, I again seek leave to move items (7) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.
Leave not granted.
Senator WONG: On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:
(7) Schedule 3, page 37 (line 1) to page 62 (line 7), to be opposed.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:43): I seek leave to move items (8) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.
Leave not granted.
Senator WONG: On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 4 in the following terms:
(8) Schedule 4, page 63 (line 1) to page 65 (line 16), to be opposed.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:44): On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 6 in the following terms:
(9) Schedule 6, page 90 (line 1) to page 92 (line 17), to be opposed.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 6 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:44): I seek leave to move items (10) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.
A government senator: I missed that, sorry.
Senator WONG: I'm just keeping on seeking leave so that the chamber can actually try to deal with this quickly in a guillotine. I'm seeking leave to move Senator Patrick's items (10) to (14) on sheet 1214 together.
Leave not granted.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: On behalf of Senator Patrick, I oppose schedule 7 in the following terms:
(10) Schedule 7, item 1, page 93 (line 19) to page 98 (line 18), Division 2 to be opposed.
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (12:45): I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the discussion that we've been having for a number of days, and that is that the Morrison government has introduced some non-ideological incremental and measured reforms that are aimed at empowering Australian workers in the workplace to have the right to convert casual employment to permanent employment for the very first time. Instead, we see those on the opposition benches voting against that very important and fundamental right.
We have sought to improve the agreement-making process to deliver higher wages into the pockets of Australian workers faster. Those on the Labor benches are voting against that. We have sought to improve the enterprise agreement process, which Paul Keating has said is broken. It has fallen to the Liberal Party and the Morrison government to improve that. But what do we see from Labor and the Greens? We see unfounded claims that somehow this is racist and sexist. We have sought to deliver the 69 per cent increase in average earnings, compared to awards, under an enterprise agreement into the pockets of Australian workers. But, no, there's nothing from those opposite but unfounded rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.
In all of the contributions that we've heard from around this chamber this week there has been nothing—no constructive opportunity or comment—from those opposite on how these reforms might be improved. Instead, this has fallen to our crossbench colleagues—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order!
Senator SMALL: to offer that really carefully, on the basis of private consultations that they've been having around Australia with employees, employer associations and unions. This has fallen to those crossbench colleagues who come to this place with an open mind and a motivation to see Australians earn more money and keep more of the money they earn for themselves and for their families. For that, I commend Minister Cash, Minister Birmingham and those other colleagues on the government benches who have recognised those contributions from our crossbench colleagues.
Let's turn to some of the detail that seems to be lost in translation here today. The double dipping of $39 billion in entitlements is an affront to any fair-minded assessment of what it means to do business in Australia today. This is not a liability that is just levelled at big corporations and labour hire firms—and that's certainly what we hear from over there. Instead, it falls to those small businesses, which Minister Cash advocates for so fearlessly on a daily basis. They're the ones who stand to lose their homes with this egregious double dipping on entitlements. You only needed to read the Financial Review just yesterday to hear stories relating to a drycleaner in Melbourne, where a small business owner stands to lose their house with the entitlements that have been rightfully paid to those casual employees who got a 25 per cent loading on the wages that they were paid. These are the sorts of people who the Morrison government stands up for. These are the people who those honourable colleagues sitting on the crossbench are prepared to fight for.
Instead, what do we get from over there? We get what the unions tell them to do, because it's the unions who stand to lose by empowering Australian workers to make their own choices. They put forward this idea of permanent casualisation somehow being illegitimate where a worker so chooses; frankly, we believe in the capacity of Australians to make that choice for themselves, and, in fact, they make that choice for themselves on a daily basis. Nine per cent of private sector employees choose to pay their hard earned money to the union movement. How else could they do it? They go around to industry super funds, as my colleague Senator Bragg pointed out. In fact, by 2030, $30 million a year in donations is likely to flow from the union super funds through to those unions. We're not interested in that; we're interested in ensuring that Australians get the opportunities they deserve, they get rewarded for their effort, and they're incentivised to strive. So far, the track record of the Morrison government speaks very strongly for this.
Our employment numbers show a 5.8 per cent unemployment rate in the Australian economy. But we're not done yet, Senator Rennick. These reforms offer those permanent part-time employees who work in the hospitality, accommodation and food services sectors and the retail sector the opportunity to work more hours, for the very first time, under the protections that permanent employment offers them. Those extra hours would be worked with leave entitlements accruing, with protections from unfair dismissal and with the sorts of protections that we are affording those workers. Instead, with the Labor Party voting against such a sensible, measured, incremental, non-ideological change, the Labor Party seeks to entrench casual employment in the Australian economy. Well, we won't stand for that. That is why this government has sought to expand the flexibility in the Australian workplace relations system that those opposite so fiercely oppose.
We're not solely focused on flexibility and, indeed, offering those casual employees in Australia the ability to convert their employment status for the very first time. We've also focused on the, frankly, broken agreement-making process in this country. With just nine per cent of Australian workers in the private sector choosing to fork out for union membership, as I mentioned, that means that 91 per cent of Australians see no role for the Australian union movement in their workplace. So why is it that the union movement continues to obstruct non-union agreements being moved through the Fair Work Commission? Those very same agreements have put 69 per cent more earnings in the pockets of hardworking Australians. Well, this government is seeking to make changes that expedite that agreement-making process, with 21-day approvals. We've heard the criticism that that is a tick-and-flick exercise. But that fundamentally ignores the fact that the Fair Work Commission, under these sensible reforms, has the capacity to extend the period of approval, where the merits of the case so confirm. However, have we heard a single evidence based, factual reflection on that provision from those opposite? No, we have not.
When we come to wage theft, wage exploitation and underpayment in Australia, we have been clear that the Morrison government will not stand for it—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
The CHAIR: Order, Senator Pratt!
Senator SMALL: so we have sought to increase the provisions relating to criminal and civil penalties on those employers that do the right thing. I'm sure that's something Senator Pratt would be so proud of, if she could bring herself to support those workers with the Morrison government. For the very first time there would be a criminal penalty, but you have decided to vote against it.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator SMALL: So, at the end of the day, we've got a government that is on the side of those employees who have been exploited, who have been underpaid.
Senator Rennick: Point of order, Chair: could you please ask the other side of the chamber to be quiet. Senator Small has employed more people than the entire other side of the chamber has ever employed.
The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, resume your seat. I would ask everyone to please allow Senator Small to finish his contribution in silence.
Senator SMALL: Finally, if we're not interested in the right of Australians to convert that employment for the first time, if we're against putting more money in the pockets of Australians through improved agreement-making, if we're somehow against increases in the criminal and civil penalties that apply in instances of wage theft or underpayment—somehow those opposite also find themselves against greenfields projects that mandate annual pay rises for the employees covered by them. Frankly, I find it staggering that the Labor Party are voting against mandated annual pay rises for employees involved in the construction of mega projects—those same mega projects that drive jobs, that drive taxation revenue, that help pay for the services that support those most vulnerable in the Australian community. The Morrison government is for that. The crossbench is prepared to vote for that. But it is the Labor Party and the Greens who time and time again find themselves unable to support hardworking Australians who deserve to be rewarded for their efforts, who deserve more of their—
The CHAIR: Order, Senator Small!
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:56): What is so humiliating about this is this bloke, Senator Small, is sent out to argue for a bill, but he doesn't even know that the government have ditched most of what he is speaking about. They've ditched most of what he's having a go about. How humiliating! The government are in such crisis that they can't even tell a member of their own team, 'By the way, we've ditched that bit, and that bit, and that bit, and that bit.' So Senator Small comes in here and starts to proselytise about bill provisions that the minister is going to ditch. What a joke! If you ever wanted a demonstration of a government in crisis, it was that pathetic contribution. What a humiliation for Senator Small! The government don't even tell him what they're doing.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:57): COVID-19 has changed the dynamic of the Australian economy. It has made us focus as a society on what we need to do to ensure that businesses stay in business and to ensure that employees stay in work. What we are seeing on display by the Australian Labor Party today is nothing more and nothing less than absolute contempt for small businesses in Australia, who need to be protected from the $39 billion hit they are facing because of the double dipping back pay claims arising from the Rossato case.
We're also putting forward today long-awaited certainty in relation to the definition of 'casual employment'. This is something that Australian businesses and Australian employees have been asking for now for a very long time.
Senator Scarr: A lot was uncertain!
Senator CASH: It was uncertain—I will take that interjection, Senator Scarr—because Labor failed to do anything about this in their Fair Work Act. Labor's Fair Work Act has unfortunately created the confusion we are seeing today. Casual employees and the businesses that support them deserve certainty. They deserve certainty in their employment relationship, both employers and employees alike. But casual employees also deserve to have a pathway to permanent employment set out for them. When you listen to how the Labor Party talk about casuals and the nature of casual employment, you have to ask why it is that, today in the chamber, the Labor Party are not prepared to support a measure that will provide that pathway to permanency for casual employees who work a regular pattern of work.
The CHAIR: Minister, please resume your seat. It is now 1 pm. The time for this debate has expired. The question is that division 2 in item 1 of schedule 7 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [13:04]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:07): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (4) to (7) on sheet 1254 together:
(1) Schedule 5, item 4, page 68 (line 4), omit "Subject to subsection (3A), the", substitute "The".
(4) Schedule 5, page 75 (after line 15), after item 10, insert:
10A At the end of section 557C
Add:
(4) To avoid doubt, a reference to proceedings relating to a contravention by an employer of a civil remedy provision in paragraph (1) (a) includes proceedings dealt with as small claims proceedings under section 548.
(5) Schedule 5, page 82 (before line 3), before item 36, insert:
36A Subsection 357(1)
Omit "(1)".
36B Subsection 357(1) (note)
Omit "subsection", substitute "section".
36C Subsection 357(2)
Repeal the subsection.
(6) Schedule 5, item 39, page 82 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item, substitute:
39 Subsection 539(2) (before table item 12)
Insert:
11B |
357 358 359 |
(a) a person affected by the contravention; (b) an industrial association; (c) an inspector |
(a) the Federal Court; (b) the Federal Circuit Court |
for a serious contravention—600 penalty units; or otherwise—90 penalty units |
(7) Schedule 5, items 43 and 44, page 84 (lines 15 to 29), omit the items, substitute:
43 After subsection 27(1A)
Insert:
(1B) Section 26 does not apply to:
(a) a law of a State or Territory providing for an employer, or an officer, employee or agent of an employer, to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence relating to underpaying an employee an amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work; or
(b) a law of a State or Territory providing for an employer, or an officer, employee or agent of an employer, to be liable to be prosecuted for an offence relating to an employee record that is required to be made or kept by the employer under this Act (such as an offence for failing to make or keep such a record or making or keeping a false or misleading record).
The opposition also opposes schedule 5 in the following terms:
(2) Schedule 5, item 4, page 68 (lines 9 to 12), subsection 546(3A) to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 5, item 10, page 74 (lines 22 to 26), subsection 548D(7) to be opposed.
The CHAIR: As indicated to the committee, I'll put these two questions separately. The first question is that opposition amendments (1) and (4) to (7) on sheet 1254, moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:13]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (13:20): The question now is that subsection 546(3A) in item 4 and subsection 548D(7) in item 10 of schedule 5 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [13:20]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (13:23): For clarity, that means that subsection 546(3A) in item 4 and subsection 548D(7) in item 10 of schedule 5 will be removed from the bill. I will now deal with the circulated amendments to the bill, starting with the remaining government amendments on sheet PX114. The question is that schedule 5 and divisions 3 to 7 of schedule 7 and items 2 and 3 of schedule 7 stand as printed.
The government opposed schedule 5 and schedule 7 in the following terms—
(12) Schedule 5, page 66 (line 1) to page 89 (line 16), to be opposed.
(14) Schedule 7, item 1, page 98 (lines 19 to 29), Division 3 to be opposed.
(15) Schedule 7, item 1, page 99 (line 1) to page 100 (line 4), Division 4 to be opposed.
(16) Schedule 7, item 1, page 100 (lines 5 to 10), Division 5 to be opposed.
(17) Schedule 7, item 1, page 100 (line 11) to page 101 (line 3), Division 6 to be opposed.
(18) Schedule 7, item 1, page 101 (lines 4 to 11), Division 7 to be opposed.
(19) Schedule 7, items 2 and 3, page 101 (line 12) to page 102 (line 10), to be opposed.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:24): On behalf of the opposition, I ask that the question on schedule 5 and division 6 of schedule 7 be put separately so the opposition can vote accordingly.
The CHAIR: So the question is that schedule 5 and division 6 of schedule 7 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [13:29]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (13:31): I now move to the second part of the question, which was asked to be split. The question is that divisions 3, 4, 6 and 7 of schedule 7 and items 2 and 3 of schedule 7 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (8) on sheet PX114 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Title, page 1 (lines 10 and 11), omit "and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009".
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedule 1, Parts 1 and 2 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
|
2A. Schedule 1, Part 3, items 23 and 24 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
|
2B. Schedule 1, Part 3, item 25 |
The later of: |
|
(a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2A; and |
. |
(b) the commencement of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 |
|
However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items.
(4) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.
(5) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 10 to 14) to page 3 (table items 15 and 16), omit the table items.
(6) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 17), omit the table item.
(7) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 19), omit the table item.
(8) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 3—Small claims procedure
Fair Work Act 2009
23 Section 12
Insert:
small claims proceedings means proceedings dealt with as small claims proceedings under section 548.
24 After subsection 548(1A)
Insert:
(1B) Proceedings are also to be dealt with as small claims proceedings under this section if:
(a) a person applies for an order (other than a pecuniary penalty order) under Division 2 from a magistrates court or the Federal Circuit Court in connection with a dispute relating to one or more of the following matters:
(i) whether a casual employee meets the requirements of either or both of paragraphs 66B(1)(a) and (b);
(ii) whether an employer of a casual employee has reasonable grounds under section 66C not to make an offer to the employee to convert to full-time or part-time employment under section 66B;
(iii) whether a casual employee may make a request of an employer to convert to full-time or part-time employment under section 66F;
(iv) whether an employer of a casual employee has reasonable grounds under section 66H to refuse a request from the employee made under section 66F; and
(b) the person applying for the order indicates, in a manner prescribed by the regulations or by the rules of the court, that he or she wants the small claims procedure to apply to the proceedings.
Note: Orders that a court may make under Division 2 in relation to small claims proceedings may include the following:
(a) requiring an employer of a casual employee to consider whether the employer must make an offer under section 66B to convert the casual employee to part-time or full-time employment on the basis that the employee meets the requirements of paragraphs 66B(1)(a) and (b);
(b) requiring an employer of a casual employee to consider whether the employer must grant a request made under section 66F to convert the casual employee to part-time or full-time employment on the basis that the employee meets the requirements of subsection 66F(1);
(c) preventing an employer from relying on a particular ground under section 66C to not make such an offer, or a particular ground under section 66H to refuse such a request.
25 Subsection 548(1B)
Omit "Federal Circuit Court", substitute "Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)".
The committee divided. [13:36]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:38): In order to deal with the consequences for the opposition's voting position and, I think, also the Australian Greens, I seek leave to move amendment (1), (3) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 1220 together.
Leave granted.
Senator WONG: I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 9) to page 5 (line 18), omit section 15A, substitute:
15A Meaning of casual employee
(1) A person is a casual employee of an employer if the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in determining whether the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person, regard must be had to the following considerations:
(a) whether the employer can elect to offer work and whether the person can elect to accept or reject work;
(b) whether the person will work only as required;
(c) whether the employment is described as casual employment;
(d) whether the person will be entitled to a casual loading or a specific rate of pay payable only to casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument;
(e) the pattern of hours that is worked, or scheduled by the employer to be worked, by the person.
Note: Under Division 4A of Part 2‑2, a casual employee who has worked for an employer for at least 12 months and has, during at least the last 6 months of that time, worked a regular pattern of hours on an ongoing basis may be entitled to be offered, or request, conversion to full‑time employment or part‑time employment.
(3) To avoid doubt, regard may also be had to considerations other than those referred to in subsection (2).
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (before line 27), before subsection 66C(3), insert:
(2A) The employer must not:
(a) decide not to make an offer under subsection (1); or
(b) issue a notice under subsection (3);
unless the employer has consulted with the employee and any representative of the employee.
Note: An employee organisation may be a representative of the employee.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 12 (line 28) to page 13 (line 10), omit subsections 66M(1) and (2), substitute:
Application of this section
(1) This section applies to a dispute between an employer and employee about either or both of the following:
(a) whether or not an employee is a casual employee as defined in section 15A;
(b) the operation of this Division.
(2) However, this section does not apply in relation to the dispute if:
(a) a fair work instrument that applies to the employee includes a term that provides a procedure for dealing with the dispute; and
(b) that term provides either party with access to the arbitration of any dispute about the operation of this Division by the FWC.
Note: Modern awards and enterprise agreements must include a term that provides a procedure for settling disputes in relation to the National Employment Standards (see paragraph 146(b) and subsection 186(6)).
(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 13 (lines 18 to 26), omit subsection 66M(5), substitute:
(5) If a dispute is referred under subsection (4):
(a) the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration); and
(b) where the dispute is unable to be resolved under paragraph (a), the FWC must deal with the dispute by arbitration.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph (a), the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).
(6) Schedule 7, item 1, page 94 (after line 13), after subclause 45(1), insert:
(1A) Any determination made under subclause (1) must not affect the operation of any term of an enterprise agreement that is ancillary, incidental or supplementary to an entitlement of an employee under Schedule 1 to the amending Act.
Note: Subsection 55(4) allows for ancillary, incidental and supplementary terms to be included in enterprise agreements to the extent that the effect of those terms is not detrimental to an employee in any respect, when compared to the National Employment Standard.
(8) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (after line 19), after subclause 46(7), insert:
(7A) However, despite subclause (7), section 545A of the amended Act does not apply in relation to entitlements that accrue, or loading amounts paid, before commencement if an application has been made before commencement to a court for the court to determine a claim in respect of the entitlements or amounts.
(9) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (line 29), omit "before,".
(10) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (line 32), omit "before,".
(11) Schedule 7, item 1, page 98 (after line 12), after subclause 48(3), insert:
(3A) Any determination made under subclause (3) must not affect the operation of any term of a modern award that is ancillary, incidental or supplementary to an entitlement of an employee under Schedule 1 to the amending Act.
Note: Subsection 55(4) allows for ancillary, incidental and supplementary terms to be included in enterprise agreements to the extent that the effect of those terms is not detrimental to an employee in any respect, when compared to the National Employment Standard.
We also oppose schedules 1 and 7 in the following terms:
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 10 to 26), subsection 66C(2) to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 94 (line 18) to page 95 (line 10), subclauses 46(1) to (4) to be opposed.
The CHAIR: The question is that subsection 66C(2) in item 3 of schedule 1 and subclauses 46(1) to (4) in item 1 of schedule 7 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [13:44]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:44): (In division) Can we not commence the division until we have people seated?
The CHAIR: (In division) Senator Wong, I did warn people that I was about to commence. I remind the chamber that, once the tellers are appointed, you need to be sitting down; otherwise, you won't be counted. I'll ask that the count be started again.
The CHAIR: The question now is that opposition amendments (1), (3) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 1220, as circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:51]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:54): On behalf of Senator Patrick—I'm just making sure he knows I'm doing this—he opposes schedule 1 in the following terms:
(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), to be opposed.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [13:59]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (14:01): Senator Patrick, given that amendment (1) on sheet 1214 is consequential to the one we just passed, I'm wondering if you might seek leave to withdraw that amendment.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (14:01): by leave—I withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 1214.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:02): by leave—I move the Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1228 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".
(2) Page 3 (after line 11), after clause 3, add:
4 Review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:
(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments made by this Act is appropriate and effective in the context of Australia's changing employment and economic conditions; and
(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments made by this Act; and
(c) consider whether amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, or any other legislation, are necessary to:
(i) improve the operation of the amendments made by this Act under paragraph (a); or
(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).
(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this section commences.
(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
The CHAIR: The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Roberts, that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1128, by leave moved together, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [14:06]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:08): In the name of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, I move the amendments on sheet 1249, revised:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 24), omit paragraph 15A(2)(b), substitute:
(b) whether the person will work as required according to the needs of the employer;
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (before line 2), before section 66B, insert:
66AA Subdivision does not apply to small business employers
This Subdivision does not apply in relation to an employer that is a small business employer.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 27), before "the request", insert "if the employer is not a small business employer—".
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 66F(1), add:
Note: Nothing in this Subdivision prevents an employee from requesting to convert to full-time or part-time employment outside the provisions of this Division, or prevents an employer from granting such a request.
(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 14 (after line 26), after paragraph 125A(2)(d), insert:
(da) casual conversion entitlements of casual employees employed by small business employers;
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 16 (line 14), omit "such a term", substitute "a term of the fair work instrument or contract of employment under which the loading amount is paid".
(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 96 (line 2), after "employer", insert "(other than a small business employer)".
(8) Schedule 7, item 1, page 96 (line 17), after "employer", insert "(other than a small business employer)".
(9) Schedule 7, item 1, page 97 (after line 18), after clause 47, insert:
47A Casual employees of small business employers
(1) This clause applies in relation to an employee and a small business employer if any or all of the following apply:
(a) the employee was, immediately before commencement (and disregarding subclause 46(3)), a casual employee of the employer;
(b) the employee was, immediately before commencement (and disregarding subclause 46(3)), designated as a casual employee by the employer for the purposes of:
(i) any fair work instrument that applies to the employee; or
(ii) the employee's contract of employment;
(c) the employee is a casual employee of the employer within the meaning of
section 15A of the amended Act because of an offer of an employment made before commencement.
(2) Division 4A, other than Subdivision B, of Part 2-2 of the amended Act applies in relation to the employee and employer to whom paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies on and after commencement as if the employee were a casual employee of the employer within the meaning of section 15A of the amended Act.
(3) An employer referred to in subclause (1) must give an employee referred to in that subclause a Casual Employment Information Statement as soon as practicable after commencement.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 1249, revised, standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.
The committee divided. [14:10]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Question agreed to.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:12): by leave—I withdraw One Nation amendments on sheets 1250, 1251, 1252 and 1253.
The CHAIR: Senator Griff, do you want to seek leave to withdraw amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 1265?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:13): I would like amendments (3) and (7) to be put separately and the others withdrawn.
The CHAIR: Amendment (3) deals with schedule 5, which has been removed from the bill. I was expecting you to move amendments (1), (2) and (7). To be clear, I thought you would move amendment (7). Are you seeking leave to withdraw the other amendments? Some of them have been dealt with.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:14): I would make the suggestion that Senator Griff get advice, because this is obviously quite confusing and the government is asserting that some of these amendments have been dealt with. I have to say I haven't compared Senator Griff's proposed amendments with the government's for this purpose. So, we could vote on (7) and Senator Griff, during the four-minute division, could get advice on the remainder of his proposed amendments.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): My advice is that items (1) and (2), relating to small claims hearings, are duplicates of amendments that the government has already moved and that have been accepted by the chamber.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:15): I move Centre Alliance amendment (7) on sheet 1265:
(7) Schedule 7, item 1, page 95 (after line 19), after subclause 46(7), insert:
(7A) However, despite subclause (7), section 545A of the amended Act does not apply in relation to entitlements that accrue, or loading amounts paid, before commencement if an application has been made before 18 March 2021 to a court for the court to determine a claim in respect of the entitlements or amounts.
The CHAIR: The question is that (7) on sheet 1265, as moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [14:21]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:24): by leave—I withdraw my remaining amendments on sheet 1265.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:24): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum, which has been circulated, relating to the government amendments moved to this bill.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title; report adopted.
Third Reading
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (14:24): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with an amendment to the title.
The Senate divided. [14:29]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The PRESIDENT (14:31): The time allotted for debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the other bills listed in that resolution. I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the second reading amendments on sheets 1262 and 1267, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
The Greens ' circulated second reading amendment on sheet 1262 revised—
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line;
(b) abolish mutual obligations which are hurting unemployed Australians and making it harder to find work; and
(c) abolish all forms of compulsory income management from our social security system, including the Cashless Debit Card and the Basics Card".
The Greens ' circulated second reading amendment on sheet 1267—
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to increase the Jobseeker Payment to above the poverty line".
Question negatived.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:32): Can we ask that the two separate second reading amendments be put separately, given that they are separate amendments and people will vote differently on them?
The PRESIDENT: I need someone to assert who will be voting differently on them.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (14:32): I will.
The PRESIDENT: Okay. I am happy to do that. I will recommit that matter and deal with them separately. The question is now that the second reading amendment on sheet 1262, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells being run g —
Senator LAMBIE: There has been a bit of confusion here. What I wanted was for clause (a) to be separated from clauses (b) and (c) in the second reading amendment on sheet 1262 and taken separately.
The PRESIDENT: Okay. I will cancel the division, with the leave of the chamber.
Leave granted.
The PRESIDENT: So with the amendment on sheet 1262 revised, Senator Lambie, you would like (a) dealt with separately from (b) and (c). Is that correct?
Senator LAMBIE: That is correct.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that clause (a) of the second reading amendment on sheet 1262 revised be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [14:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (14:43): The question is that clauses (b) and (c) of the second reading amendment on sheet 1262 revised be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [14:43]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (14:46): The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1267 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [14:46]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (14:50): I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 1243 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated second reading amendment—
At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the effect of this Bill will be to cut unemployment payments by $100 per fortnight at the end of March, at the same time as JobKeeper is ending, and
(ii) over 1.3 million people are relying on unemployment payments – almost twice as many as before the pandemic; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) abandon its counterproductive and punitive plans for a dob-in-a-jobseeker hotline that will only make life harder for job seekers and employers by further increasing mutual obligation requirements at a time when unemployment and underemployment is high,
(ii) consider allowing people to keep more of their earnings from part-time, casual or seasonal work, to help people move into employment, and
(iii) do more to support Australians facing poverty and hardship – through adequate payments to those who need them, housing, addressing child poverty, and better health and education services".
The Senate divided. [14:54]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:56): by leave—I table my second reading contribution to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021.
The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The PRESIDENT (14:57): I will now deal with the circulated requests and amendments to the bill, starting with those circulated by the Australian Greens. Is it the wish of the committee that the statement accompanying the requests circulated for this bill be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the request to which they relate? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question now is that items 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 and 32 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
The Aust ralian Greens opposed schedule 1 in the following terms—
(3) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 17 (lines 9 to 12), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, items 28 and 29, page 17 (lines 17 to 20), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 1, items 31 and 32, page 17 (line 23) to page 18 (line 2), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (14:58): Forgive me, but I'm confused as to why our amendments are all being moved together, despite being on different sheets.
The PRESIDENT: I'm going from a script here. My memory of such matters is that when we're dealing with matters under a limitation of time debate, unless there's an inconsistency, or someone asks for them to be dealt with separately, they're dealt with together. They can only be put separately if someone is going to vote on them separately. The question now is that the remaining requests and amendments circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:59): You're asking that they stand as printed. My understanding is that that is not the right question.
The PRESIDENT: The advice I've just received, Senator Siewert, is that, because you are seeking to remove items from the bill, the question is that the bill stand as printed and that, to support your amendments, you would vote no to that motion.
Senator SIEWERT: I apologise.
The PRESIDENT: There is no need to apologise.
Senator SIEWERT: As they are being put together, we definitely ask you to put that again, because we can divide.
The PRESIDENT: With the leave of the chamber, I'm going to put that again. Do people need me to read it again, or are they clear? They're clear. The question is that the bill stand as printed.
The Senate divided. [15:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The PRESIDENT (15:05): The question is that the remaining requests for amendments on sheets 1219, 1221, 1222 and 1223, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Greens' circulated amendments—
SHEET 1219
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), before item 3, insert:
2A Point 1067G ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basic rate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $1115, but not nil, then the person's maximum basic rate is $1115.
(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 1), before item 6, insert:
5A Point 1067L ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basic rate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $1115, then the person's maximum basic rate is $1115.
(3) Schedule 1, page 9 (before line 1), before item 8, insert:
7A Point 1068 ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $1115, but not nil, then the person's maximum basic rate is $1115.
(4) Schedule 1, page 11 (before line 1), before item 9, insert:
8A Point 1068A ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $28,990 per year ($1115 per fortnight), then the person's maximum basic rate is $28,990.
(5) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after item 9, insert:
9A Point 1068B ‑A2 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basic rate using Module C below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module C is less than $1115, but not nil, then the person's maximum basic rate is $1115.
9B Point 1068B ‑A3 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module C below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module C is less than $1115, but not nil, then the person's maximum basic rate is $1115.
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1) to (5)
Amendments (1) to (5) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum basic rate amount of youth allowance, austudy, jobseeker, parenting payment (single) and parenting payment (partnered) to $1115 per fortnight. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1) to (5)
If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
_____
SHEET 1221
(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 17 (lines 3 to 4), omit the item, substitute:
21 Paragraph 1067G ‑H29(b)
Omit "$143", substitute "$300".
(2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 17 (lines 7 to 8), omit the item, substitute:
23 Point 1068 ‑G12
Omit "$100", substitute "$300".
(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 17 (lines 15 to 16), omit the item, substitute:
27 Point 1068B ‑D27
Omit "$100", substitute "$300".
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1), (2) and (4)
Amendments (1), (2) and (4) are framed as a requests because they amend the bill to provide that the ordinary income-free area for jobseeker payment, youth allowance (other) and parenting payment (Partnered) be permanently increased to $300 per fortnight rather than $150 per fortnight. As income free area means the amount a person can earn before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free are from $150 to $300 would result in recipients receiving a higher rate of payment.
The effect of the amendments would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 .
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1), (2) and (4)
If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as a request.
_____
SHEET 1222
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
5. Schedule 2 |
1 April 2021 |
1 April 2021 |
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (line 10), before "A person", insert "(1)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 13 (line 11), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 14 (after line 13), after at the end of section 504BA, add:
(2) A person is qualified for a youth allowance in respect of a period that occurs between 1 April 2021 and 31 December 2021 if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person's working hours were reduced (including to zero) as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID 19; and
(b) throughout the period the person satisfies the activity test (see Subdivision B) or is not required to satisfy the activity test (see Subdivision C); and
(c) the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i) the person is not entitled to receive a leave payment in respect of the period; or
(ii) the person has taken reasonable steps to access any leave payment to which the person may be entitled in respect of the period; or
(iii) the person is receiving a leave payment in respect of the period but, as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID‑19, the payment is less than it would otherwise have been; or
(iv) the person is receiving a leave payment in respect of the period, but the total amount of the leave payment in the period is less than the amount of youth allowance that would be payable to the person in the period if the person's claim were granted; and
(d) throughout the period the person is of youth allowance age (see Subdivision D); and
(e) throughout the period the person:
(i) is an Australian resident; or
(ii) is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7).
(3) A person is qualified for a youth allowance in respect of a period that occurs between 1 April 2021 and 31 December 2021 if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i) the person became unemployed as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID‑19; or
(ii) if the person is self‑employed or is a sole trader— the person's business was suspended, or suffered a reduction in turnover, as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID 19; and
(b) throughout the period the person satisfies the activity test (see Subdivision B) or is not required to satisfy the activity test (see Subdivision C); and
(c) throughout the period the person is of youth allowance age (see Subdivision D); and
(d) throughout the period the person:
(i) is an Australian resident; or
(ii) is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7).
(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 14 (line 18), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (after line 16), after subsection (5), insert:
(6) A person is qualified for a jobseeker payment in respect of a period that occurs between 1 April 2021 and 31 December 2021 if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that the person's working hours were reduced (including to zero) as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID 19; and
(b) throughout the period the person satisfies the activity test or is not required to satisfy the activity test; and
(c) the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i) the person is not entitled to receive a leave payment in respect of the period; or
(ii) the person has taken reasonable steps to access any leave payment to which the person may be entitled in respect of the period; or
(iii) the person is receiving a leave payment in respect of the period but, as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID‑19, the payment is less than it would otherwise have been; or
(iv) the person is receiving a leave payment in respect of the period, but the total amount of the leave payment in the period is less than the amount of jobseeker payment that would be payable to the person in the period if the person's claim were granted; and
(d) throughout the period the person:
(i) is at least 22 years of age and has not reached the pension age; and
(ii) is an Australian resident or is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7); and
(e) the person was not in receipt of a youth allowance during the period.
(7) A person is qualified for a jobseeker payment in respect of a period that occurs between 1 April 2021 and 31 December 2021 if:
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i) the person became unemployed as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID‑19; or
(ii) if the person is self‑employed or is a sole trader— the person's business was suspended, or suffered a reduction in turnover, as a result of the adverse economic effects of the coronavirus known as COVID 19; and
(b) throughout the period the person satisfies the activity test or is not required to satisfy the activity test; and
(c) throughout the period the person:
(i) is at least 22 years of age and has not reached the pension age; and
(ii) is an Australian resident or is exempt from the residence requirement within the meaning of subsection 7(7); and
(d) the person was not in receipt of a youth allowance during the period.
(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 16 (line 8), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 16 (line 16), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(9) Schedule 1, item 20, page 16 (line 24), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(10) Schedule 1, item 35, page 19 (line 19), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(11) Schedule 1, item 36, page 20 (line 10), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(12) Schedule 1, item 37, page 20 (line 31), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(13) Schedule 1, item 38, page 21 (line 23), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(14) Schedule 1, item 39, page 22 (line 12), omit "30 June 2021", substitute "31 December 2021".
(15) Page 22 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Continuation of coronavirus measures
Part 1—Liquid assets test waiting period
Social Security Act 1991
1 At the end of section 549A
Add:
Exception—coronavirus
(8) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
2 At the end of section 575A
Add:
Exception—coronavirus
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
3 At the end of section 598
Add:
Exception—coronavirus
(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
Part 2—Partner income test taper rate
Social Security Act 1991
4 Point 1068 ‑G1 (method statement, step 6)
After "point 1068‑G11", insert "or 1068‑G11A".
5 Point 1068 ‑G11
Omit "If", substitute "Subject to point 1068‑G11A, if".
6 After point 1068 ‑G11
Insert:
1068‑G11A In relation to jobseeker payment and the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021, if a person has a partner income excess, the person's partner income reduction is an amount equal to 27% of the part of the partner's ordinary income that exceeds the partner income free area.
Part 3—Newly arrived resident ' s waiting period
Farm Household Support Act 2014
7 Subsection 42(1)
Omit "subsection (2)", substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".
8 Subsection 42(2) (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Exceptions
9 At the end of section 42
Add:
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) applied to the person before that period started).
10 Section 43
Before "A", insert "(1)".
11 At the end of section 43
Add:
(4) Subsection (5) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection 42(3), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(5) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
Social Security Act 1991
12 At the end of section 500X
Add:
(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) applied to the person before that period started).
13 At the end of section 500Y
Add:
(3) Subsection (4) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection 500X(6), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(4) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
14 At the end of section 549D
Add:
(9) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) applied to the person before that period started).
15 Section 549E
Before "If", insert "(1)".
16 At the end of section 549E
Add:
(2) Subsection (3) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection 549D(9), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(3) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
17 At the end of section 575D
Add:
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) applied to the person before that period started).
18 Section 575E
Before "If", insert "(1)".
19 At the end of section 575E
Add:
(2) Subsection (3) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection 575D(5), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(3) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
20 At the end of section 623A
Add:
(10) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) applied to the person before that period started).
21 At the end of section 623B
Add:
(4) Subsection (5) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection 623A(10), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(5) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
22 At the end of section 739A
Add:
(10) Neither subsection (1) nor (2) applies to a person during the period beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021 (even if subsection (1) or (2) applied to the person before that period started).
(11) Subsection (12) applies if a person would have, apart from the operation of subsection (10), been subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period during the period (the relevant period) beginning on 1 April 2021 and ending at the end of 31 December 2021.
(12) The person is taken, for the purposes of this section, to have been subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period (and time continues to run in relation to that period) during the relevant period.
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (3) and (5)
Amendments (3) and (5) are framed as requests because they extend the period in which a person is eligible for youth allowance and jobseeker payments due to quarantine or isolation from 30 June 2021, as proposed in the bill, to 31 December 2021. As the effect of this amendment will be to extend the period a person is eligible for a payment it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the standing appropriation).
Amendments (4) and (6)
Amendments (4) and (6) are framed as a requests because they extend the expanded the eligibility criteria for youth allowance (other) and jobseeker, which would otherwise cease on 31 March 2021, to 31 December 2021. This will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation.
Amendments (7), (8) and (9)
Amendments (7), (8) and (9) are framed as a requests because they extend the period in which the ordinary waiting period for parenting payment, youth allowance (other) and jobseeker respectively is waived, from 30 June 2021 as proposed in the bill, to 31 December 2021. This will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation.
Amendment (15)
Amendment (15) is framed as a request because it provides for the continuation of the following coronavirus support measures which would otherwise cease on 31 March 2021, to 31 December 2021: the partner income test taper rate of 27 cents; and the waiver of the Newly Arrives Resident’s Waiting Period for farm household allowance, parenting payment, youth allowance, austudy, jobseeker and special benefit. The amendment also reinstates the waiver of the liquid assets test waiting period for youth allowance, austudy and jobseeker from 1 April to 31 December 2021. The amendment will result in increased payments and expand eligibility for relevant participants, resulting in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014.
Amendments (1) and (2)
Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (15). Amendment (2) is consequential to amendment (4).
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (3), (4) to (9) and (15)
If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.
Amendments (1) and (2)
These amendments are consequential on requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.
_____
SHEET 1223
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:
2A. Schedule 1, |
1 April 2021. |
1 April 2021 |
(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after Part 1, insert:
Part 1A—Increasing pension rates
Social Security Act 1991
11A Point 1064 ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $28,990 per year ($1115 per fortnight), then the person's maximum basic rate is $28,990.
11B Point 1065 ‑A1 (method statement, step 2)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 2. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $28,990 per year ($1115 per fortnight), then the person's maximum basic rate is $28,990.
11C Point 1066A ‑A1 (method statement, step 1)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 1. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $28,990 per year ($1115 per fortnight), then the person's maximum basic rate is $28,990.
11D Point 1066B ‑A1 (method statement, step 2)
Repeal the step, substitute:
Step 2. Work out the person's maximum basicrate using Module B below. If the amount of the person's maximum basic rate worked out using Module B is less than $28,990 per year ($1115 per fortnight), then the person's maximum basic rate is $28,990.
11E Application provision
The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's age pension, disability support pension or carer payment in respect of days occurring on or after the commencement of this item.
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (2)
Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the maximum basic rate amount of age pension, disability support pension and carer payment to $1115 per fortnight. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
Amendment (1)
Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (2)
If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
Amendment (1)
This amendment is consequential on a request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.
The Senate divided. [15:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:09): I withdraw opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1244.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson or Senator Roberts, as these amendments were circulated after 12.45 pm today leave is required for them to be considered. Do you seek leave for them to be considered?
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (15:09): No. I withdraw One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1261.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (15:09): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021
Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021
Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (15:09): The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2020
Third Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:11): I present the explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to this bill.
The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Biosecurity Amendment (Clarifying Conditionally Non-prohibited Goods) Bill 2021
First Reading
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:11): I present the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Senator DUNIAM: I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (15:12): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020
Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:12): I move:
That these bills be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (15:13): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:14): I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (15:14): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to order, the Senate shall now move to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:15): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Why did the Morrison government decide to launch the coronavirus booking website five days earlier than the medical appointment booking industry had been told? Does the minister understand the extent of the chaos that followed as a result? Is this an example of the minister's claim that the vaccine rollout is 'going quite well'?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:15): I thank the senator for his question. I think the ramp-up of the rollout of the vaccination process continues to progress. And yes, I think it is actually going quite well. Yesterday was always going to be a busy day, the first day when Australians sought to gain access to the vaccine. In fact, 98 per cent of people who checked the website to check whether they were eligible for the vaccine got through the first time—381,000 people.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Well, that's not true, Senator. Some people can book online. And this vaccination process was always going to start slowly and build up. As I said yesterday, Australians must be patient; they should be patient. Every Australian who wants a vaccination will have access to a vaccination. We are scaling up the rollout of the vaccine as more vaccines become available, and we will continue to do that. We said we'd start the Pfizer vaccine rollout in February, and we did. We said we'd start the AstraZeneca rollout in early March, and we did. And we've now started the rollout of phase b, which will commence next week. And I say to all of those in doctors' surgeries: thank you for your forbearance. I say to all of those on the phone lines yesterday: thank you for the work you did. And I say to all Australians who are seeking a vaccination: be patient, be polite, and you will get the vaccination when you need it. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:17): In stark contrast, industry sources have said they were told that the booking website was going live next Monday and that the early launch 'eroded patients' trust in online bookings in one day'. Was the Morrison government so desperate for a good news day that it was prepared to erode confidence in the booking system on day one?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:18): The only thing eroding the confidence in the vaccine rollout is the relentless negativity of those on the other side, who at every turn and at every opportunity try to tear the process down. We have always said we would build the rollout of the vaccine as more vaccine became available, and that's what we are doing. So, the relentless negativity of those on the other side is the thing that's eroding people's confidence in the vaccine rollout. As I said, 381,000 people yesterday were able to access the website at their first opportunity—98 per cent of those who wanted to access the website. It's the relentless negativity of Labor, of those on the other side, that is causing concerns about the vaccine rollout. We will continue to ramp up the vaccination process as more vaccine becomes available. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, a final supplementary question?
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:19): In response to the vaccine booking bungle and the delayed rollout, Liberal Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian, has said, 'What is occurring now isn't a surprise to me or the New South Wales government' and that reaching the vaccine targets 'will not happen in the current program'. When even the Liberal Premier of New South Wales has no confidence in the Morrison government, how can anyone else?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:19): One thing that you learn in this place is not to take everything that Labor say at face value, because their record of misrepresentation is probably better than any other record that they have. They could not make a statement that stacks up if they tried. As I've said, we will continue to scale up the rollout of the vaccine as more vaccine becomes available. The states will play their part in that, along with doctor's surgeries, residential aged-care facilities and pharmacists around the country, as well as Commonwealth based vaccination clinics as they come online, and 100 of those will come online next week. So we will continue to ramp up the vaccination process with the availability of vaccine, and none of Labor's relentless negativity will hold us back.
Economy
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (15:21): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is working to create a stronger economy with more jobs?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:21): I thank Senator Molan for his question, and I know his deep interest in seeing the success of Australia, the continued success of our economy and continued jobs growth for Australians. The great news for Australians today is that jobs growth as part of our economic recovery plan has continued and is continuing strongly. Indeed, we welcome today the fact that the unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 per cent to 5.8 per cent in February. Employment has increased by some 88,700 people to be back above its March 2020 levels. Let all senators reflect on that fact for a moment: employment in Australia is back above the levels that existed in March 2020. The overall increase in employment was driven by full-time jobs. In fact, full-time jobs grew by some 89,100.
As Senator Abetz said before, you'd expect some cheering from those opposite. You would expect some positivity from those opposite, rather than the deathly silence of the merchants of doom and gloom over there. They want the vaccine program to fail. They want the economy to fail. They just want to see negative outcomes. They don't want to celebrate in Australia's success.
We know there's a job to continue to do, and we are determined to keep doing that job. We welcome the fact that building on the first two quarters in Australia's history of back-to-back three-plus per cent growth we've seen that translate into jobs growth. That jobs growth means more opportunities for more Australians and more security for more Australian families. Our policies are designed to keep that going into the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Molan, a supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (15:23): Based on those figures, can the minister inform the Senate on how the government's strong economic management is creating more jobs and what confidence this provides as we transition out of emergency and temporary support measures?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:23): It's been the greatest global shock to the economy since the Great Depression. But our policies and the approach that we've taken in Australia, and the work of Australian businesses and the Australian people, have kept Australia safe and secure. They've kept our economy strong. That is evidenced by these job figures. Today we've seen Prime Minister Gillard's former economic adviser Stephen Koukoulas describe these figures as 'some pretty good labour force numbers, whichever way you cut it'. 'This recovery has been remarkably good,' he said.
We are pleased to see the recovery continuing, but we know that more work needs to be done. So we continue to work through the policies that are necessary to keep delivering for Australians. But already unemployment is above the forecasts of the RBA and better than the forecasts of the Treasury. Those jobs are good news for all Australians. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Molan, a final supplementary question?
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (15:24): Can the minister update the Senate on further measures the government is taking to support the next phase of our economic recovery?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:24): Under our economic recovery plan, we've been investing in some $251 billion of economic support to Australians—to businesses, to households, to families across the country. That continues. Significant parts of that economic support package continue. Of course, we have added to it in recent weeks as well.
As we enter the next phases, with the end of the JobKeeper program that we introduced, the largest single intervention ever in the Australian economy, we've subsequently implemented a $1.2 billion tourism and aviation recovery package, providing 800,000 half-price airfares across the country to get Australians travelling, to make sure we support those sectors that we need to target to continue to save and to create jobs for Australians. Our SME loan guarantee scheme has been widely welcomed by businesses, providing some $40 billion in lending support, all of it designed to keep the jobs growth we're seeing going into the future.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:25): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. This morning the president of the European Commission indicated the previous blockage of exports of the vaccine to Australia would not be a one-off. Does the Minister for Health stand by his previous assurance that the European Commission blocking the international shipment of vaccines will 'not affect the pace of the rollout'?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:26): I thank Senator Brown for her question. We are in a very fortunate position in this country in that we have a sovereign capacity with respect to the manufacture of vaccines. In this country, we will have approximately 50 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine that will be made in Australia, and they will start coming online later this month. That capacity will continue to ramp up. As that capacity ramps up, so will the vaccination rate and the supplies that we distribute to providers, out to our vaccination processors around the country. So our vaccination process in this country is largely reliant on our sovereign capacity. We have other capacities, of course. We continue to receive regular shipments of Pfizer vaccine, and of course those are being applied through the process.
Senator Watt interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: I will take Senator Watts's interjection. We continue to receive, based on our schedules, our supplies of Pfizer vaccine. And we are extremely fortunate that we have contracted the local manufacture of 50 million doses of Australian-made AstraZeneca vaccine, which will start ramping up as of later this month and through April. Next week, over 1,000 GPs will start the vaccinating process, increasing to over 4½ thousand during April. So the supplies will increase based on our sovereign manufacturing capacity, and the ramping up of the vaccination process will continue as that sovereign capacity comes on supply. And later in the year we will look to other supplies being available as they go through the appropriate approval processes. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, a supplementary question?
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:28): On Tuesday, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care said:
Other vaccines may come online to support the vaccination of Australians as the approval process continues …
What other vaccines was the minister referring to? What negotiations are underway to secure these other vaccines?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:28): It would be really good if Labor listened to what has been said by the government over a period of time, rather than trying to misrepresent it in the chamber. As I've said in the chamber before, and as the Minister for Health and Aged Care has also said in the chamber before, we have access to 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. We have access to 50 million doses of vaccine that are being manufactured in Australia. We are looking to the potential for 51 million doses of Novavax, pending its regulatory approval. This has been well publicised over a period of time, and of course we also have access to 25.6 million doses through the COVAX structure. So there are a number of other sources of vaccine to make up that 150 million doses that we have coming onstream. As those are approved and become available— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, a final supplementary question?
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:30): Given the effect on the economy and jobs of the slow and bungled rollout of the vaccination program, is the Morrison government now reconsidering ending JobKeeper in just 10 days?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:30): I completely reject the premise of the question. We have continued to grow and build the rollout of the COVID vaccines across this country, as we said we would, in line with available supply. We're in a very enviable position in this country. We have been able to start the vaccination process with a full assessment of each of the vaccines that we're applying by our world-leading Therapeutic Goods Administration. Instead of the relentless negativity of Labor, who seek to undermine confidence in the vaccination process, it would be good if the Labor Party decided to support the process and continue to work with the government in the interests of Australians to ensure that they have available a vaccine, which they will.
Members of Parliament: Staff
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:31): My question is to Minister Cash. Did any of your female staff members advise you to not hire—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: There was a bit of discussion about the question list order. Can I ask you to commence again, Senator Waters; my apologies.
Senator WATERS: My question is to Minister Cash. Did any of your female staff members advise you not to hire or to rehire Andrew Hudgson or warn you in any way of his history of poor behaviour towards women?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:32): Thank you for the question. The answer to the question is no.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:32): I'm happy if the minister needs to take that first question on notice to assure herself that that is, in fact, correct. But I shall persist. Did the minister at any time tell the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office of any concerns that may have been raised about Mr Hudgson and his attitude to women?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:32): If I recall, Mr Hudgson worked for me four years ago for a short period of time as an assistant media adviser, and the answer is again no.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:32): Did Mr Hudgson work for you at any time when Ms Brittany Higgins or Ms Rachelle Miller also worked for you?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:33): In relation to Ms Higgins, no. In relation to Ms Rachelle Miller, there may have been a crossover of three or four weeks, but I would need to take advice on that because it was, as I said, around four years ago.
COVID-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:33): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Birmingham. For obvious reasons, cinemas have had to close throughout COVID-19. Most of them have had to rely on JobKeeper for the past year just to tread water. Even though most businesses are getting back to normal, because of the situation overseas, particularly in the US, where there are no blockbuster movies being released, making it difficult to attract patronage, is the government looking at a targeted package to support independent cinemas, and what support is being considered if this is the case?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:34): I thank Senator Patrick for his question and for his interest in an important part of the Australian economy and an important part of the small business and medium business community across Australia. As everybody in this chamber appreciates, many Australians and many Australian businesses have experienced significant challenges in the past 12 months, and the cinema sector, in particular, has been one of those.
We are acutely aware of the fact that independent cinemas make up approximately 30 per cent of the cinema exhibition sector in Australia, and that they have been particularly impacted by COVID-19—especially, as you said Senator Patrick, by the absence of the usual blockbusters flowing through to them to help attract crowds back in, even as some of those restrictions have been lifted. It's hard to disaggregate the elements of support provided, but across the arts and entertainment sector some $730 million in assistance has been provided via JobKeeper. As the Senate is well aware, other payments have been made to small and medium-sized businesses. Other measures such as the loss carry back provisions will provide assistance to many cinemas as well.
We continue to work closely with all industry sectors to understand the particular circumstances that they find themselves in. We have acted in relation to travel agents, for example, by providing more than a quarter of a billion dollars of support there for a sector that was essentially shut down. We will keep our approach using the targeted, proportionate way we've indicated, and we will certainly continue to listen carefully to the independent cinema sector and to work with them over the weeks and months ahead.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a supplementary question.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:36): Thank you, Minister. You will be aware that, of the 51 cinemas in South Australia, 41 of them are independent. I appreciate what you've said about paying JobKeeper, but JobKeeper is about to end. You are potentially putting people in a position where you've supported them throughout the past year with JobKeeper only to let them fall over a cliff at the end. Is there a package specifically for cinemas, and when will you announce it?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:36): As I said, there have been a lot of different targeted measures that we have deployed during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of those targeted measures launched last year have been for diverse sectors, including exhibiting zoos and aquariums, recognising the unique nature of their circumstances. Although JobKeeper provided—
Senator Ayres interjecting—
Senator BIRMINGHAM: pardon the pun, Senator Ayres—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick on a point of order.
Senator Patrick: My question was directed at independent cinemas, not other industries. Is there going to be a package for independent cinemas?
The PRESIDENT: I've allowed you to remind the minister of the question, Senator Patrick. The minister has 33 seconds remaining to answer. Senator Birmingham.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thanks, Mr President. As I was saying, we have targeted assistance over and above JobKeeper and small-business payments and other economy-wide measures throughout the course of the pandemic. Some of them, such as those that I outlined, were at the height of the pandemic, if you like; others were more recently, through the course of this year—for example, in relation to the travel agency sector. As I said in relation to the primary question, we are acutely aware of the particular situation that independent cinemas find themselves in, and we continue to look very carefully at that sector and to engage very closely with it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (15:38): There are 10 days until JobKeeper finishes, and decisions are being made now. I'm aware of two cinemas in regional South Australia who have already made the decision to close, and there are others that are very close to it. Will the minister, as a South Australian senator and a minister of the government, undertake to contact them personally—I will provide details—to see exactly what they may need to get them through this difficult time?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:38): Of course, Senator Patrick, I'm always happy to engage with small businesses and with constituents, and to work cooperatively with senators across this place to understand the particular needs that may be out there. As I indicated in my answer to your previous question, the government is very committed to working with the independent cinema sector to ensure its viability and to understand the unique circumstances it faces.
We have already launched various initiatives in relation to getting audiences back into cinemas. The 26 December initiative by Screen Australia, around the Our Summer of Cinema campaign, focused on and highlighted a number of Australian titles to try to help create and generate more interest in people returning to cinemas. Equally, we are supporting other parts of the arts sector in generating more Australian content, but also attracting more movie production here. We're very committed to working with those independent cinemas, and I'm happy to speak directly with them.
Employment
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (15:39): My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how today's labour force figures show how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is supporting Australians into jobs and Australia's economic recovery?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:40): I thank Senator Bragg for his question. The labour force figures that have been released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the Australian labour market—and that is, of course, the employers out there—continued to recover strongly in February 2021. What we saw last month was employment actually increase by 88,700 over the month, and that exceeded all market expectations. Importantly, all states and territories across Australia recorded a rise in employment over the month, so the ending of those COVID restrictions is well and truly seeing the states and territories now create jobs. There are now more than 13 million Australians in work. That means that the level of employment is now 3,600 above the pre-COVID level in March 2020. In fact, it's 876,400, or 7.2 per cent higher than the trough in the labour market recorded in May 2020.
In terms of job creation in the month of February, the increase in employment over the month, I am pleased to say, was due entirely to a surge in full-time jobs. Full-time jobs rose by around 89,100 in February. We now have full-time employment at a record high in Australia, at 8,895,000. As our Minister for Women knows, women accounted for the vast majority of the rise in employment in February. That was up by 74,100. That is also at a record high, at 6,174,200. We also saw the unemployment rate drop by half a percentage point. So we're seeing a strong recovery in the labour market.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cash. Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (15:42): Minister, how will the government continue to support our labour market to recover from this once-in-a-century economic shock from the COVID-19 pandemic?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:42): The government's economic recovery plan, described by the OECD as key to saving jobs, will continue to create employment opportunities in Australia and also to secure Australia's economic and labour market future. As we enter the next phase of COVID-19—because we know there is a phase and we need to come out of it—we have our $74 billion JobMaker plan. That is, of course, putting in place major supports for employers and the Australian workplace. As the minister for skills, I'd like to highlight the government's strong focus on supporting apprentices and trainees throughout Australia. Our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy has now seen over 123,000 apprentices kept on since COVID-19 commenced, and Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements has now supported over 100,000 new commencements.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bragg, a final supplementary question?
Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (15:43): As we enter the next stage of our economic recovery from COVID-19, why should Australians have confidence in the resilience of our labour market and the potential of our economic recovery?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:43): As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say, there is a long road ahead, but the economic outlook is optimistic. When you look at the performance of Australia, we have outperformed all major advanced nations, with more Australians in work today than before the crisis. As I said, we now have in excess of 13 million Australians in work, and the level of employment today is actually higher than it was at the height of the crisis. We continue to see, though, consumer confidence, business confidence and job ads grow to higher levels than before the pandemic. Despite the impacts of COVID-19, the latest ABS data also shows that an additional 46,000 businesses were trading over the year to June 2020. Again, the government is all about putting in place that right economic framework to ensure that, across Australia, businesses can prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians.
JobKeeper Payment
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:44): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In my home state of Victoria more than 410,000 workers and over 130,000 businesses will be affected by the Morrison government ending JobKeeper in just 10 days. How many of the more than 410,000 workers will lose their jobs? And how many of the more than 130,000 businesses will be forced to close their doors?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:45): I thank Senator Kitching for her question. It's a question that is eerily reminiscent of questions I recall facing at each of the transition points in relation to JobKeeper. When the government announced that there would be a phasing out of JobKeeper after the first six months and we announced the journey to doing so, at each of those transition points the opposition would come in here and ask questions about what would occur and potentially how many jobs would be lost. Yet at each of those transition points to date, we have seen that the number of jobs has kept going up, that more Australian businesses have graduated off JobKeeper, that more Australian employees have graduated off JobKeeper and that the number of people employed across Australia has kept going up—to the point where, as Senator Cash and I have both told the Senate today, total employment across Australia is now back at a level above where it was in March 2020. Total employment is back at the level it was before JobKeeper came into effect.
We acknowledge that there will be, for some businesses, potential challenges ahead. We've always acknowledged that that would be the case. But we've sought throughout the pandemic to put in place the safeguards to get Australia through the worst of it. And now, as we've very clearly come through the worst of the pandemic, through the worst of the economic crisis, we've made those measures more targeted. We've ensured that those measures home in on the parts of the Australian economy—
The PRESIDENT: I have Senator Kitching on a point of order.
Senator Kitching: On relevance: I asked how many of the more than 410,000 workers will lose their jobs and how many of the more than 130,000 businesses—I'm happy to take a percentage or a number.
The PRESIDENT: While the minister is talking about the specific program in question and specifically talking about numbers employed in the labour force, I can't instruct him how to answer the question, but I do believe he is being directly relevant. There's the opportunity after question time, albeit slightly later than normal, to debate those matters.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: As I addressed very clearly through the answer to this question, we've seen jobs growth continue. The forecasts are for jobs growth to continue, and we will continue to support industries. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:47): On Tuesday Victoria's 11 regional tourism boards signed a joint letter to Minister Tehan calling on the Morrison government to urgently add more destinations to its tourism support package. Will the Morrison government now add more destinations in regional Victoria to its tourism support package?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:48): Our tourism support package—$1.2 billion, some 800,000 half-price airfares that we are supporting across the country to get people moving—is a package about which we said, at the outset, from day one, that we would continue to monitor the impacts across different regions of Australia and target and shift support and subsidy across Australia as necessary. So, we will do that; we are doing it. We will continue to do it through the life of this program. Around 46,000 discounted flights per week are being supported under this program. That is going to help to shift hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians around the country, generating more tourism activity, more bed nights, more experiences being booked, more opportunities for Australians to take a break and also for Australians to support the jobs and small businesses of tourism operators across Australia. We will keep making sure that the package responds as necessary. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:49): I'm going to read a quote from the Victoria Tourism Industry Council chief, and I don't think she will take great satisfaction from your answer to my first supplementary question. Ms Mariani has said:
I've spoken with many operators who have said they have already told people that they can't keep them employed, so these are decisions being made right now … people cannot see a way out of this.
Why is the Morrison government turning its back on Victorian businesses?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:49): I know that those opposite want to see everything fail; that's their whole modus operandi. But what we've seen in the short period of time since this program was announced has been a significant spike in the number of airline bookings across Australia. It is a significant spike in relation to people getting back to business, getting back to travelling and making those sorts of bookings around Australia, very much including regional Australia. We have seen airlines report lifts in their bookings, we've seen lifts in bookings elsewhere across the tourism and travel industry, and we've promised that we will continue to adapt this program, responsive to the bookings and information and data that we get from the aviation industry and the tourism industry, throughout its rollout. This is about us once again implementing a program targeted and responsive to the needs of Australians to protect their businesses and protect their jobs.
Energy
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:51): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Seselja. Can the minister update the Senate on the potential impacts of the announced early closure of the Yallourn coal-fired power station on the security of electricity supplies in Australia?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:51): I thank Senator Canavan for a very important question. Yallourn has provided the reliable generation needed to keep energy prices low and the grid secure in Victoria and the National Electricity Market for decades. As it's an employer of around 500 staff and an important contributor to the local economy, our thoughts are with the workers, their families and local business owners who rely on the power station for their livelihoods. While the Commonwealth government understands this is a commercial decision, the exit of 1,480 megawatts of reliable energy generation brings with it reliability and affordability concerns. As it's an essential service, the Commonwealth government expects the market to step up to deliver enough dispatchable generation to keep the lights on and prices low once Yallourn closes. While coal exits impact reliability and system security, the major impact for consumers will be the significant increase in prices if not adequately replaced with dispatchable capacity. We've already seen this happen with the closures of Northern in South Australia and most recently Hazelwood in Victoria, where wholesale prices skyrocketed by 85 per cent.
The Commonwealth will model the impact of the closure to hold industry to account on the dispatchable capacity needed to ensure affordable, reliable power for consumers. This will deliver needed transparency around the impact of Yallourn's closure. We're not going to stand idly by and watch a loss of reliability and affordability. We want to see industry step up and we also want to see that consumers are properly looked after and we get the affordability and reliability that Victorians deserve and, indeed, that all Australians deserve. What we won't do is risk the stability and affordability of our energy system, as those opposite would do. Labor have a 2050 energy policy but won't explain how they'll get there. They won't explain how much it'll cost. Labor has tried it before and will try it again. We're supporting technology, not taxes. That's how you bring down power prices and deliver reliability.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will call Senator Canavan when there is order. We've been here a while and will be here a while longer until there's silence.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:53): Can the minister outline how the Liberal and Nationals government is encouraging investment in reliable coal and gas power generation?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:53): Delivering reliable and affordable energy is one of the highest priorities of this government. In Senator Canavan's home state we are investing in a number of projects that will help secure the reliable and more affordable energy we need, and we know this will drive further private investment. We're investing in CopperString 2.0, with over 1,000 kilometres of high-voltage transmission line between Mount Isa and Hughenden. CopperString will deliver 750 direct construction jobs and connect North Queensland with the National Electricity Market to help deliver lower-cost power. We're also delivering more investment in reliable generation through our Underwriting New Generation Investments program. We've got a 13-point plan to ensure Australian gas is working for all Australians. Those opposite have no energy policy, just a plan for more and bigger taxes. We have a plan focused on technology, not taxes. We'll protect jobs, we'll deliver reliable energy and we'll drive down costs for households and businesses.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, a final supplementary question?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (15:55): Can the minister advise the Senate on the government's actions to deliver more reliable and more affordable power to Australians, and any risks to increased reliability and affordability for households and businesses?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order during questions! Senator Watt, I've called your name numerous times during this question time. Senator Seselja.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:55): Thank you very much, Mr President. It's great to hear Senator Costanza over there interjecting again. He was a bit quiet yesterday.
Keeping energy prices down and maintaining—
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Watt!
Senator SESELJA: Thank you, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan?
Senator Canavan: I think the clock hasn't been set for the answer.
The PRESIDENT: On the advice of the Clerk, we'll give Senator Seselja the full minute. Honestly, I might have noticed it if there wasn't so much noise in the chamber. Senator Seselja, recommence your answer.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:56): Keeping energy prices down and maintaining secure power supply is central to our COVID economic recovery and is critical to supporting jobs. There are, however, a number of risks to this recovery. What Labor don't understand is that we need sufficient dispatchable energy capacity to keep prices low, keep the lights on and back up the record investment in renewables. That's why we've set a target for the electricity sector to deliver a thousand megawatts of new dispatchable energy to replace the Liddell power station before it closes down in 2023. That's why we'll back a gas power plant in the Hunter if the private sector doesn't replace Liddell's capacity—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Watt and Senator Canavan.
Senator SESELJA: That's why we are unlocking billions in new investment in our energy system through the Technology Investment Roadmap. We support technology and totally reject Labor's taxes because their taxes won't keep prices down, they won't deliver for our energy system and they won't protect our economy.
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (15:57): My question is to the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. Yesterday, in response to a question about the government's plan for victims-survivors of domestic violence to fund their own escape plans using their superannuation, the Prime Minister said: 'We've been consulting with various groups around the country. We're listening to those concerns, and that measure is now under review.' Can the minister now rule this measure out?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (15:57): I thank Senator McAllister for her question and her sincere and enduring interest in the economic welfare of women in retirement. This was a measure that was first raised in the 2018 Women's Economic Security Statement, and we have been actively listening to stakeholders in this area and reflecting on their views. Stakeholders have raised concerns about this proposal; that is true. We understand their concerns. As both the Prime Minister and I have said this week, the measure is now under review, and that's exactly what that means. The measure was in fact originally proposed, you might recall, by the super fund HESTA. Around 80 per cent of its members are women. It was in fact supported not just by HESTA but also by the industry superannuation funds generally.
The most important thing here is that we get the safeguards right. The safeguards need to be in place to ensure that women taking money out of their superannuation to flee a dangerous relationship are not being in any way coerced to do so. If we can't get those safeguards right and if we get the feedback from those frontline workers in particular, who know the difficulty faced by victims fleeing violent relationships, every single day, the measure simply won't proceed.
The Morrison government is acting to support women's safety in their homes, in their communities, in their workplaces and online. The Commonwealth has led the way with the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, which will be succeeded by the national plan next year. Since coming to office in 2013, we've committed more than $1 billion to women and children facing family, domestic and sexual violence. There will be further consultation as we develop the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (16:00): Domestic violence victim-survivor Nicole Lee told the ABC: 'We don't even have any super to tap into, and the other side of that is that we shouldn't be tapping into super to escape from violence.' Why does the minister think it is 'a terrific opportunity' to make a woman who wants to leave a violent relationship choose between her financial security and her personal safety?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (16:00): In fact, it wasn't just me that said that we wanted to give women an opportunity to leave a violent or menacing relationship; the CEO of HESTA said:
Women already retire with almost half the super of men, and they shouldn't have to use their super for this purpose. But family violence is one of the rare situations in which short-term financial needs are more compelling than the need to preserve superannuation for retirement.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Hume! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: On direct relevance. The CEO of a super fund is not the minister. The minister was asked about her quote, her own statement—'a terrific opportunity'. I ask her to return to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, when the question concludes with 'why does the minister think it is' and refers to a quote the minister has made, I think it is also directly relevant if the minister is referring to supporting material in that. I'm listening carefully to the answer. At the moment I believe that is directly relevant.
Senator HUME: Indeed, it wasn't just me that felt that this was an opportunity to give to women fleeing a menacing or dangerous relationship; it was also the CEO of the HESTA superannuation fund, and, indeed, Matt Linden, the deputy CEO of Industry Super Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: This is a prior statement the minister has made. I understand your ruling enables some other material, but the question goes to comments this minister has made. I would ask her to return to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I will carefully review the Hansard. I genuinely believe that if someone is being asked why they hold a particular view it is directly relevant for them to refer to supporting material that may have been of persuasion or other matters. I will review the Hansard in detail and make sure I come back when we next sit.
Senator HUME: Indeed, I am not the only one that believes this is an opportunity for women to flee a dangerous or menacing relationship. Matt Linden, the deputy CEO of Industry Super Australia, said:
…allowing access to super in special circumstances could mean the difference between someone seeking vital help or not.
(Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (16:03): Domestic Violence New South Wales CEO Delia Donovan has said:
… it's absolutely not OK in terms of creating further debt and poverty later on for women, who are already affected by the gender pay gap
One in three women have no super. Most women under the age of 45 have a super balance of less than $45,000. I ask again: why does the minister think it would be 'a terrific opportunity' to create further debt and poverty for women leaving violent relationships?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (16:03): I answer again: this is an opportunity for women to leave a dangerous or menacing relationship. It wasn't just me that thought this was a good idea. In fact it was not just the CEO of HESTA and not just Matthew Linden, the deputy CEO of Industry Super Australia, but the board of HESTA. Can I tell you who's on the board of HESTA? Representatives of the ACTU. The ACTU are on the board of HESTA. Who else is on the board of HESTA that thought this was a very good idea? Let me tell you. The United Workers Union are also represented on that board; I believe that's Senator Walsh's and Senator Watt's union. The Health Services Union is represented on the board of HESTA; I believe that might be Senator Kitching—
Senator Kitching interjecting—
Senator HUME: Well, I know you had something to do with the Health Services Union; I'm not sure whether you're a member anymore. Can I also tell you that the Australian Services Union—I think that's your union, Senator Wong; is that not correct?—also thought that that was a good idea. (Time expired)
Superannuation
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (16:05): My question is also to the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. Can the minister confirm that there is up to $13.8 billion in lost and unclaimed superannuation waiting for Australians to find and also advise what measures the Morrison government have put in place to make it easier for people to claim their lost super, including in my home state of Tasmania?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (16:05): I thank Senator Askew for this question. This is indeed a terrific opportunity. That's exactly right: there is $13.8 billion in lost and unclaimed superannuation that is simply waiting to be claimed by ordinary Australians. In fact, New South Wales tops the nation in unclaimed amounts—around $3.4 billion—and New South Wales holds six of the top 10 postcodes. My home state of Victoria follows with $2.2 billion in unclaimed or lost super. Then, in your home state, Senator Watt, $1.9 billion is sitting there. In Western Australia there's $1.2 billion. In South Australia it's $800 million and in the ACT it's $230 million. Indeed even the Northern Territory has around $160 million in lost and unclaimed super waiting to find a home. Senator Askew's home state of Tasmania is also on the list, with $135 billion in lost and unclaimed super. In fact, beautiful Launceston, where Senator Askew is a terrific representative, ranks as the No. 1 postcode in her state for lost and unclaimed amounts.
This is Australians' hard-earned wages. It could be from your first job or a casual job that you held years ago and forgot all about. You may have changed your name. You may have changed your address. You may have lost your super fund from many years ago because it's been inactive for a period of time. But, by law, your super fund is now, thanks to the Morrison government, required to transfer certain amounts to the ATO, which then becomes unclaimed super money. Unlike super funds, the ATO does not charge fees and, thanks to the reforms passed by this government, it proactively consolidates any unclaimed money into an eligible and active account wherever possible. So I encourage all senators to review the lost amounts data and share that news with their constituents.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (16:08): Can the minister please explain to the Senate how easy it is for Australians to find their lost superannuation?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (16:08): It is in fact very easy to find your lost or unclaimed super. It is also very quick—quicker than it takes to order a cup of coffee. You can find out if a slice of that $13.8 billion belongs to you. All you have to do is jump onto the myGov website, link to the ATO portal and click the 'manage my super' link. It is that easy. So if you've lost or you have forgotten your super it will be sitting there waiting for you. You can scroll through and you can actually consolidate your lost and forgotten amounts into your active primary super fund all for free, making sure that your super works much harder for you. It is that simple. The government has requested that the ATO do that work on your behalf. So there's no need to search. There's no need to hand over information. If you have forgotten super, the ATO will use data-matching technology that only the ATO has to match your lost super to you. That all happens right in your myGov account.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Askew, a final supplementary question?
Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (16:09): Can the minister also outline what additional actions are being taken by the Morrison government to proactively reunite working Australians with their lost super?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (16:09): I am very proud to inform the Senate that the Morrison government has already reunited Australians with billions of dollars in lost and unclaimed superannuation. Data released by the ATO for the financial year ending June 2020 shows that the Morrison government's reforms have had an enormous impact on the retirement balances of millions of Australians, reducing unclaimed super by around $7 billion, compared to 30 June 2019. In just seven months, $7 billion in lost and unclaimed super has been reunited into the accounts of hardworking Australians. This is on top of the Morrison government's incredibly effective Protecting Your Super reforms, which allowed for the proactive reuniting of lost and unclaimed super, and also capped fees on low-balance and inactive accounts, making your super work so much harder for you.
Attorney-General
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:10): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed that advice was being sought regarding the scope of the Attorney-General's portfolio responsibilities which would be removed from the Attorney-General on his return to work. When was this advice sought and by whom?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:10): Those are details that I do not have to hand. I would have to take those on notice for the senator as to specifically when it was sought and specifically who made the request. As we have outlined to the Senate quite clearly, the government sought that advice out of an abundance of caution. We have, out of a further abundance of caution, acted in a number of interim ways in relation to engagement that the Attorney-General or his office would have on matters as they pertain particularly to the Federal Court and to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, pending the receipt of that advice. I'm not aware of updates to any of those precautions that have or are being taken at present. But of course, as all senators are aware, in the interim, at this point in time, Senator Cash is acting as the Attorney-General and is, therefore, without any risk of conflict, in a position to be able to fulfil all of the normal duties of the Attorney-General.
In relation to any ongoing arrangements that may be necessary when the Attorney-General returns to work, it would be the intention of the government, I'm sure, that the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Senator Stoker, would undertake those relevant duties, as is appropriate, to ensure that all duties are fully handled. It's not unusual, in relation to any potential for a perceived conflict of interest to exist, for other ministers to be asked to handle matters in relation to such a perceived conflict of interest, but the government is acting cautiously and awaits that advice on this matter.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:12): Did this request include advice on whether Attorney-General Porter is a fit and proper person to return to the position at all, and, if not, why not?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:13): The advice the government is seeking is exactly of the nature that I have outlined. It relates to appropriately taking precautions in relation to ensuring that there is no real, or potential for perceived, conflict of interest to exist whilst the Attorney-General undertakes the defamation proceedings that he has publicly announced.
The Attorney-General, like any member of parliament, like any Australian, has a right to use existing laws of the land to be able to pursue a defamation allegation, and, in doing so, an independent judicial process will no doubt have an opportunity to hear the claims that are made and to ensure that, through that process, the matters are properly, independently— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:14): Why should the Australian people accept a part-time Attorney-General on a full-time salary?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:14): As I said, if the senator had listened to the primary answer, it is not unusual with ministers—and there would be many precedents on all sides of politics—that, if there is any chance of a potential for a conflict of interest to exist, there be acting arrangements put in place in relation to those particular responsibilities and duties.
I have no doubt that when the Attorney-General and Minister for Workplace Relations returns to work he will continue to pursue the type of work that the government has seen indeed only today, with the passage of legislation through this chamber that's ensuring greater certainty for casual employees and greater certainty for small businesses, and avoiding the risk of some $39 billion of potential liabilities that many business organisations and representatives said could have pushed many businesses over the edge. (Time expired)
Senator Birmingham: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Commonwealth Day
The PRESIDENT (16:15): I want to join with the Speaker in the other place by tabling a statement in respect of Commonwealth Day earlier this month. I include in that, as is customary, a message from Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:15): by leave—I move:
That today—
(a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) following the tabling (only) of committee reports, the routine of business be the introduction and consideration of the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021;
(c) if, after 30 minutes, consideration of the bill has not concluded, the questions on all remaining stages be put;
(d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(e) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(f) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister
This motion has been circulated. In moving it, and as I indicated earlier in the day, the government is bringing forward legislation—the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021—which will seek to achieve the very important outcome of guaranteeing to any individuals who participate in the inquiry and review into parliament's workplace practices that is being undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Commissioner Kate Jenkins, through the Australian Human Rights Commission that their participation can be done with the utmost confidence in its confidentiality. This legislation will be able to provide any existing or former staff member in this place, or indeed any other individual seeking to make submissions, with the confidence that, if they make a submission and participate in any way in that review and wish for their information to remain confidential, it will remain confidential.
I thank various parties for their advocacy in relation to this matter. It was certainly the government's intention at the outset, in using the Human Rights Commission, that we believed there were sufficient protections in place to guarantee confidentiality. This legislation will, if you like, provide an absolute additional way to safeguard that, such that I hope everyone can engage in it. The government recognises the urgency of passing such legislation to give the confidence, and hence the hours motion that I'm proposing.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:17): I'll just flag that whilst we don't like the practice of last-minute hours motions, given the content of the bill that is sought to be passed through this chamber today—and, we understand, in the House early next week—and given that it will facilitate staffers and former staffers to provide confidential evidence to the Jenkins culture review, on that basis alone we will support this. I might add that we've been seeking this fix to be drafted all week, as has the opposition, as I understand it. We look forward to actually seeing a copy of that draft bill, which I would very much like to receive very soon, and then we will agree to this hours motion.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:18): I wouldn't mind if Senator Birmingham would clarify one thing. I haven't seen the bill either and I don't know the text of the bill. I'm broadly in support of it, but I would like to know, in the circumstances that the bill carves out all submissions made to the Human Rights Commission, whether the government would give an undertaking that a government submission would be released administratively?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham can seek leave to make another contribution now, or he can close the debate now and answer that question later. There will also be an opportunity to debate the bill, albeit briefly, at the time it comes forward, Senator Patrick.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:19): I'll close the debate. I'm seeking to make sure that details of the bill are shared with minor parties and crossbench senators and, indeed, all senators, as quickly as possible. I trust that will be the case. Of course, Senator Patrick, once it is shared with you, I will happily engage in relation to any details or concerns you may have. It's certainly the government's intention that any individual who wishes to make public their submission retain the right to do so. In relation to any government submissions, I would anticipate that they will be made public, barring any features of particular personal confidentiality or the like that may be contained within.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Members of Parliament: Staff
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:20): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to members of parliament and their staff.
I asked Minister Cash about staff members who had been employed in her office who yesterday were revealed as having disgusting attitudes to women and frequently sharing those in the workplace. Folk might realise that yesterday there was an ABC article in which three Liberal staffers alleged that a particular Liberal staff member, a man, routinely subjected them to disgusting comments and generally displayed misogynistic behaviour. Last night, in the Tasmanian parliament, Greens leader Cassy O'Connor said that she believed that this was in fact the same man who had directed a vile slur to her while she was in the process of trying to give a press conference. It's very interesting that the problem males in the Liberal Party don't tend to get the sack until someone goes public with their disgusting behaviour. The behaviour is tolerated and swept under the carpet, and they're cycled through various offices rather than actually being attended to and sacked or, at the very least, trained and brought into this century rather than the 1950s, where they evidently belong.
We've had successive female staffers in this place raise concerns about these issues. What more do they have to do to be listened to? These staff members yesterday had to go to the media, and then they needed a member of parliament in a different parliament to use parliamentary privilege to identify this person before he was then asked to resign. And he was asked to resign; he wasn't sacked. He was asked to resign, which no doubt has implications for any sort of severance or payment package that he might get. Women keep raising these concerns, and so far it seems like the Liberal Party are doing sweet nothing about it until such time as the media spotlight is turned upon them. Brittany Higgins's alleged rapist was asked to leave. He wasn't fired. He also was asked to leave. He got a pretty well-paying job soon after, in some fancy lobbying firm. There were no consequences for him. Meanwhile, Ms Higgins, one of the bravest people that I've seen in recent years, had to take the difficult decision to choose her own personal safety ahead of any possibility of career advancement for her in the Liberal Party.
Andrew Hudgson, who was the staff member named by the Greens leader in the Tasmanian parliament yesterday, and who we understand is also the staff member about whose misogynistic treatment those three Liberal staff women were complaining, has been cycled around different offices. He started off in Minister Cash's office. He then got recycled into the Tasmanian parliament, and he came back in to work for Minister Sukkar. Honestly, does nobody do anything when female staffers raise concerns about sexist remarks and, worse, sexist behaviour in the workplace? This man was well known to have disgusting attitudes and to frequently give voice to them, and yet nothing was done. He just kept getting moved around. It seems like Minister Cash's office is the place you go when you might be a political problem for this government, whether you're a perpetrator or a victim-survivor. Do better, folks.
I'm glad that we now have the Jenkins review, and there is now going to be a hasty patch-up of a loophole that should have been non-existent in the first place. But it's deeply unsatisfactory that this government do nothing about sexism and misogyny until the media spotlight is on them. It's no surprise they don't have many women in their ranks, because their culture is well known. It's toxic, it's sexist and it's misogynistic. It is unsafe. So I'm very pleased that those female staff members, Ms Brittany Higgins and Ms Rachelle Miller, had the courage to come forward, but it shouldn't take media scrutiny to do the right thing. Clean up your own backyard.
The Prime Minister keeps trying to get off these issues, but he is sending the signal that not only does he not believe women and does he not realise rape is a problem until his wife tells him; but he will accept this sort of behaviour in the workplaces he presides over. We need leadership from the Prime Minister. He needs to say that this behaviour is not going to be tolerated in his party; otherwise, we'll see more and more media stories until the government finally gets the message that women have had enough.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
General business notice of motion no. 1070 standing in the name of Senator Hanson for today, postponed till 11 May 2021.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020—extended from 12 May 2021 to 17 June 2021
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Judges' Pensions Amendment (Pension Not Payable for Misconduct) Bill 2020—extended from 5 April 2021 to 20 May 2021
The PRESIDENT (16:25): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Reference
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (16:26): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 August 2021:
The TPI payment (Special Rate of Disability Pension), with particular reference to:
(a) the purpose, adequacy, structure and indexation arrangements of the TPI pension;
(b) the case made, and analysis provided, by the TPI Federation, including the extent to which the TPI pension value has changed over time and the support available to TPI veterans;
(c) all relevant existing information and previous reviews in relation to the TPI pension, including the recommendations of the Tune review;
(d) recommendations on any potential changes to the payment and any other issues;
(e) advice on costs associated with any recommendations; and
(f) any related issues.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (16:26): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2021:
The accuracy of information provided to Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) members, including:
(a) the accuracy of information provided to DFRDB members about the effects of commutation on future retirement pay entitlement, the consequences of this, and what remedial action (if any) could be taken;
(b) whether retirement payments were indexed as required by legislation and, if not, what remedial action (if any) could be taken;
(c) policy and legislative issues, including provisions for:
(i) use of certain life expectancy tables,
(ii) permanency of reductions to commuted pensions, and
(iii) indexation arrangements; and
(d) recommendations on any potential changes to administrative arrangements, policy or legislation;
(e) advice on costs associated with any recommendations;
(f) all relevant existing information and previous reviews in relation to DFRDB, including the findings of the Ombudsman's investigation;
(g) the level of understanding among DFRDB members about how the legislation works, and ways to improve this; and
(h) any related issues.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:27): I move:
That—
(1) On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 the hours of meeting be midday to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment and the routine of business from 8.30 pm be:
(a) Budget statement and documents 2021-22; and
(b) adjournment.
(2) On Thursday, 13 May 2021:
(a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 5.30 pm till approximately 8 pm or after the ringing of the bells, whichever is later; and
(c) on resumption, the routine of business be:
(i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and
(ii) adjournment.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Veterans: Suicide
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:27): Before moving general business notice of motion No. 1071, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Ciccone will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Lambie, Steele-John, Griff, Wong, Kitching, Hanson and Ciccone, move:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australian Defence Force personnel have a suicide rate of less than half that of the wider Australian community while serving but nearly twice the rate of suicide after leaving the Australian Defence Force; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government to establish a Royal Commission into the rate of suicide among current and former serving Australian Defence Force personnel.
(2) That this resolution be transmitted to the House of Representatives for concurrence.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide bills that are currently before the Senate give effect to the Prime Minister's announcement that the inquiry into Defence and veterans' suicide prevention will have inquiry powers broadly equivalent to a royal commission while also being established as an enduring function. Royal commissions are time limited and do not have an ability to monitor the implementation of the recommendations. In contrast, the national commissioner will be able to monitor the implementation in order to ensure accountability and build on prevention and on Defence and veteran wellbeing strategies into the future. The bills also provide a range of improvements compared to the Royal Commissions Act to ensure the national commissioner has appropriate powers.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology Select Committee
Appointment
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (16:29): I move:
That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology be amended as follows:
(1) The committee be called the Select Committee on Australia as a Technology and Financial Centre.
(2) The following additional matters be referred to the committee:
(a) the size and scope of the opportunity for Australian consumers and business from Australia growing into a stronger technology and finance centre;
(b) the flow-on employment and economic benefits which accrue to finance and technology centres;
(c) barriers to the uptake of new technologies in the financial sector;
(d) new opportunities for Australia as a technology and finance centre arising from the COVID-19 pandemic;
(e) benchmarking of comparable global regimes with Australia;
(f) the impact of corporate law restraining new investment in Australia;
(g) the policy environment facing neo-banks;
(h) opportunities and risks in the digital asset and cryptocurrency sector; and
(i) any related matters.
(3) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 October 2021.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
JobKeeper Payment
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:30): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1074 be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 8th Anniversary
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:30): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1075 be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
Paid Domestic Violence Leave
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:30): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1076 be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
DOCUMENTS
COVID-19 Vaccination Certificates
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (16:31): I move general business notice of motion No. 1077:
That—
(1) There be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services (Senator Ruston), by not later than the third business day of each month, a report, setting out, for the previous calendar month:
(a) the number of COVID-19 vaccination certificates issued;
(b) the total number of COVID-19 vaccination certificates issued to date;
(c) the number of COVID-19 vaccination certificates uploaded to the Australian Immunisation Register;
(d) the number of COVID-19 vaccination certificates made available on the myGov app;
(e) the number of COVID-19 vaccination certificates made available on the Medicare Express Plus app; and
(f) the average number of days between an individual receiving the COVID-19 vaccination and a COVID-19 vaccination certificate being made available to them.
(2) The first report is due on the third business day of April 2021 covering the period 1 March to 31 March 2021.
(3) If the Senate is not sitting when an update is ready for presentation, the report is to be presented to the President under standing order 166.
(4) This order is of continuing effect until 31 December 2022.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:31): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: The order for the production of documents misunderstands how vaccinations are recorded in Australia. The Australian Immunisation Register is the unifying national system used to monitor immunisation coverage and individual immunisation status, including for COVID-19 vaccines. Australians will have proof of COVID-19 vaccination through their individual immunisation history statement. The statement can be accessed digitally or in hard copy. These statements are already used to determine eligibility for some family assistance payments, as well as child care and school enrolment in some states. The total number of vaccinations is being publicly reported by the Department of Health and is updated regularly and available at health.gov.au.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1077 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:36]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Alleged Misuse of Disaster Relief and Recovery Payments in Queensland Committee
Appointment
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:38): I move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Alleged Misuse of Disaster Relief and Recovery Payments in Queensland, be established to inquire into and report on the alleged misuse of Commonwealth Disaster and Recovery and Relief Funding arrangements and associated activities in Queensland, with reference to:
(a) the alleged misuse of Commonwealth funding in the provision of relief and recovery assistance to disaster affected communities;
(b) the circumstances surrounding the alleged misuse of funding, including the roles of relevant entities;
(c) allegations of redirecting funds and fraudulent claims for the purposes of boosting profits or claiming excessive administration costs;
(d) the lack of transparency relating to the administration of funding arrangements; and
(e) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 14 October 2021.
(3) That the committee consist of six senators, three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one to be nominated by the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation.
(4) That the committee may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of taking evidence; a sub-committee will consist of any three members, chaired by a government or Pauline Hanson's One Nation member, with one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(5) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minor party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) the presence of a quorum for the committee be determined in accordance with the provisions of standing order 29.
(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(7) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1072 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:43]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Question negatived.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (16:46): I seek leave to make a two-minute statement.
Leave not granted.
Senator ROBERTS: I'm aware that I can move a contingent notice to suspend standing orders, so I again seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted. You can seek to suspend standing orders, if you wish, Senator Roberts, but you can't speak to that motion.
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Roberts 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. 1072.
Question negatived.
MOTIONS
Education
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (16:47): Before asking that general business notice of motion No.1078, on the value of education, be taken as formal, I ask that the name of Senator Davey be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Pratt, Farrell, Faruqi, McGrath and Davey, ask that the motion be taken as formal.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
Trade with the European Union
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:47): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia exported $20.5 billion of goods and $12.9 billion in services to the European Union in 2018-19,
(ii) last week the European Parliament voted in support of the introduction of a carbon border tax, and the European Commission will be presenting the details of their Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in June,
(iii) Australia's carbon price was set to link to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015 and, if that had remained in place, Australian exporters would not be subject to carbon tariffs, and
(iv) the repeal of the carbon price by the Liberal National Government has unnecessarily exposed Australian exporters to carbon tariffs, which will particularly impact the competitiveness of Australian goods; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to support Australian exporters and give them a competitive advantage by introducing science-based 2030 emissions reduction targets and reintroducing a price on carbon.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (16:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DUNIAM: Australia is strongly committed to an effective global response to climate change, but the only way to deliver serious reductions in global emissions is through collaborating on low-emissions technologies to achieve technical and commercial parity. Protectionism and taxes are not the answer. We are on track to meet and beat our 2030 target, and our emissions have fallen faster than many developed country peers.
The Prime Minister has also said very clearly—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Senator DUNIAM: I shouldn't even listen to you. Seriously, you bring nothing to this place! You really don't know—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson!
Senator DUNIAM: You haven't, and you never will.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator DUNIAM: The Prime Minister has also said very clearly that our goal is to reach zero net emissions as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1079 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:56): I ask that general business notice of motion no. 1080, relating to farm efficiency projects, be taken as formal.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is an objection.
New South Wales: Coal Industry
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (16:56): I, and also on behalf of Senators McKenzie, Davey, McDonald and McMahon, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the New South Wales (NSW) coal industry has coexisted with the Hunter Valley community for over 200 years, supporting the local community and providing the essential ingredients for cheap, reliable power, strong domestic manufacturing, and a thriving energy export industry,
(ii) many mines have commenced and closed during this time, with companies rehabilitating the land to a productive state for agricultural and native ecosystems, and
(iii) mining and agriculture can coexist, with land use trials noting the benefits for cattle grazing on rehabilitated land compared with existing pasture; and
(b) acknowledges the importance of the NSW coal industry for ensuring the reliability of the national energy market and providing reliable energy for domestic manufacturing.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:56): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: The Greens oppose this motion. Another day, another motion from the National Party spruiking coal. They are a broken record. The Hunter Valley community deserves better than to be wheeled out as fodder for the stunts by the Nationals, the party of the coal lobby. The people of the Hunter Valley know there is no future in coal. They know the only reliable thing about coal is that it will deepen the climate crisis, it will poison land, water and air and it will end up a stranded asset. The community isn't interested in the Nationals' love letters to the coal industry. They want to see a coherent plan for a clean, healthy, jobs-rich future where no-one is left behind in a just transition away from coal.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1081 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
JobKeeper Payment
National Apology for Forced Adoptions: 8th Anniversary
Family and Domestic Violence
Education
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:01): I seek leave to move general business notices of notice Nos 1074, 1075, 1076 and 1078 together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.
Leave is granted.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notices of notice Nos 1074, 1075, 1076 and 1078 be put together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.
Question agreed to.
Senator GALLAGHER: I move general business notices of motion Nos 1074, 1075, 1076 and 1078 together:
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1074
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) JobKeeper has been a crucial lifeline to millions of Australian workers and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic,
(ii) over one million Australians will lose the financial support payment when JobKeeper is cancelled on 28 March 2021, including:
(A) 9,687 people in the Australian Capital Territory,
(B) 357,052 people in New South Wales,
(C) 4,128 people in the Northern Territory,
(D) 172,240 people in Queensland,
(E) 51,705 people in South Australia,
(F) 13,942 people in Tasmania,
(G) 413,418 people in Victoria, and
(H) 75,354 people in Western Australia;
(iii) the Morrison Government had committed to administering 4 million vaccinations by the time the JobKeeper program is cut at the end of March,
(iv) to date the Federal Government's vaccine rollout has only administered approximately 200,000 vaccines, and
(v) several economists have forecasted that more than 100,000 additional jobs could be lost across Australia due to the withdrawal of JobKeeper; and
(b) calls on the Morrison Government not to withdraw crucial financial support to those who continue to need it, particularly in hard hit sectors of the economy that continue to be significantly impacted by the pandemic like tourism and hospitality.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1075
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 21 March 2021 will be the 8th anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions;
(b) renews, to mark this anniversary, its commitment to:
(i) hear the voices of those that were forcibly removed, along with their families and loved ones, and
(ii) ensuring all of those affected get the help they need, are supported in finding the truth and are assisted in reconnecting with lost family;
(c) continues to acknowledge the profound effects of the policies and practices of forced adoptions on mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, sisters and partners; and
(d) further notes that the Senate remains resolved to ensuring the practices of forced adoption are never repeated, and that protecting the rights of children and the importance of a child's right to know and be cared for by their parents.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1076
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) family and domestic violence is a leading cause of death, disability and illness for women aged between 15 and 44,
(ii) leaving an abusive or violent relationship is one of the most dangerous periods for a woman and employment provides an important safety net; women are more able to escape if they are earning an income and have the financial capacity to do so,
(iii) employment allows women to maintain their social connections, financial independence and provides a pathway for rebuilding their lives, and
(iv) many women resign, are fired, or lose their connection with their work because they need to take time off to find a new place to live; see a lawyer or doctor; or enrol their children in a new school; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to support Labor's proposal to legislate for 10 days' paid domestic violence leave.
GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1078
That the Senate—
(a) notes that education is a fundamental human right;
(b) welcomes the commitment embodied in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4): Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all;
(c) acknowledges that the world is decades behind in delivering SDG 4, and the long-lasting impact of COVID-19 on learning is an immense risk to delivering the promise envisioned in Agenda 2030 of leaving no one behind; and
(d) commits to achieving the goals outlined in the Founding Declaration of the International Parliamentary Network for Education:
(i) higher total and better financing for education, ensuring that spending is efficient, accountable and in line with the SDG 4,
(ii) prioritisation of the furthest behind, so that no child is denied their right to education simply because of who they are or where they live, and
(iii) higher-quality education which delivers learning outcomes.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (17:02): I would like to table the government's statement relating to motion No. 1076 and to wish Senator Gallagher a happy birthday.
The PRESIDENT: Indeed! And what a day it is.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:02): I, too, would like to table a statement on motion No. 1076.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (17:02): At the request of Senator Birmingham and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent motion No. 1080 being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Question agreed to.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:03): I would like it recorded that Labor is opposed to motion No. 1080.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (17:03): I move general business notice of motion No. 1080:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin produce $24 billion worth of food and fibre per year, and
(ii) 2,029 gigalitres of water has been recovered from the consumptive pool under the Basin Plan; this represents a significant proportion of the consumptive water available in the Basin and has a major impact on agricultural productivity;
(b) congratulates:
(i) the Morrison-McCormack Government on the decision to close the inefficient Water Efficiency Program and pivot to off-farm water recovery, spurring an infrastructure boom across the Basin, and
(ii) the Morrison-McCormack Government on listening to communities and putting actions in place to reduce impacts from buy backs; and
(c) calls for the Minister to work with states to prioritise off-farm efficiency projects that invest in regional communities.
Question agreed to.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:03): I ask that the Greens' opposition to general business notice of motion No. 1080 be recorded.
The PRESIDENT: The Greens' opposition to that motion is recorded.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:03): by leave—I table a short statement with regard to motion No. 1080.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:03): I ask that my opposition to general business notice of motion No. 1080 be recorded.
The PRESIDENT: It is noted.
JobKeeper Payment
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (17:04): I'd like to have the government's opposition to general business notice of motion No. 1074 recorded.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Reference
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:04): by leave—I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2021: the administration of registration and notifications by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and related entities under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, with particularly reference to:
(a) the current standards for registration of health practitioners by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the National Boards under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law);
(b) the role of AHPRA, the National Boards, and other relevant organisations, in addressing concerns about the practice and conduct of registered health practitioners;
(c) the adequacy and suitability of arrangements for health practitioners subject to supervised practice as part of the registration process or due to a notification;
(d) the application of additional requirements for overseas-qualified health practitioners seeking to become registered in their profession in Australia;
(e) the role of universities and other education providers in the registration of students undertaking an approved program of study or clinical training in a health profession;
(f) access, availability and adequacy of supports available to health practitioners subject to AHPRA notifications or other related professional investigations;
(g) the timeliness of AHPRA's investigation of notifications, including any delays in handling, assessment and decision-making, and responsiveness to notifiers;
(h) management of conflict of interest and professional differences between AHPRA, National Boards and health practitioners in the investigation and outcomes of notifications;
(i) the role of independent decision-makers, including state and territory tribunals and courts, in determining the outcomes of certain notifications under the National Law;
(j) mechanisms of appeal available to health practitioners where regulatory decisions are made about their practice as a result of a notification;
(k) how the recommendations of previous Senate inquiries into the administration of notifications under the National Law have been addressed by the relevant parties; and
(l) any other related matters.
Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: That concludes the discovery of formal business.
BUDGET
Consideration by Estimates Committees
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:04): I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates.
COMMITTEES
Human Rights Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:04): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report 3 of 2021.
Public Works Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (17:04): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the 83rd and 84th annual reports of the committee and the committee's Report 2/2021—referrals made in November and December 2020.
Education and Employment References Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:05): I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on the regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:05): I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Australia's dairy industry, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I also present the interim report of the committee on the future of Australia's aviation sector.
Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:06): I present the final report of the Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave not granted.
Unidentified senator: I seek leave to speak to the report.
Leave not granted.
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:06): Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Rice moving a motion associated with the report of the sports grants inquiry.
The PRESIDENT: There is no contingent notice, I understand, for the purposes you're outlining, Senator Rice, so you can move a motion to suspend standing orders to allow for consideration of that matter. If you wish to do that, you can. That requires an absolute majority.
Senator RICE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Rice moving a motion associated with the report of the sports grants inquiry.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:08): Ordinarily at the tabling of committee reports there is an opportunity to take note of those committee reports. I understand that the arrangements in place today, Mr President, are such that, as you have seen with the other committee reports, committee reports have simply been tabled and the chamber has moved on. If it will facilitate the smooth running of the Senate, the government will grant leave for some short statements to be made, noting that, when the Senate next sits, senators will be free to dwell more fulsomely upon the report if they wish to.
The PRESIDENT: I am just going to provide the chamber with what I know, because this is obviously not something that has been discussed in the normal course. I understand there is a motion that relates to a recommendation that includes an order for the production of documents, and people are seeking an opportunity to debate the report.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: You can only speak on behalf of yourselves. I've asked others whether they wish to speak to it, and they have. I'll take it back a couple of steps now that people are more aware of what is being sought. The question is: is leave granted for Senator Chisholm to move a motion with respect to the recommendations in the report?
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Can you inform the chamber of the motion, Senator Chisholm?
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:09): It is a motion that recommendation 9 of the report, which proposes an order for the production of documents, be adopted.
The PRESIDENT: Has that motion been circulated?
Senator CHISHOLM: It's part of the report which just got tabled.
The PRESIDENT: Not all senators are aware of a report that has only just been tabled though, Senator Chisholm.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: This needs the unanimous consent of the chamber to go forward, unless there is a suspension of standing orders. I can imagine some people are considering how long the debate would go before any of the other 75 senators might wish to grant leave. For the information of the chamber, because it's normally discussed in other meetings, is this a motion that is sought to be debated or sought to be voted on?
An honourable senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I'm going to put it then. Is Senator Chisholm granted leave to move that motion?
Leave granted.
Senator Chisholm: I move:
That recommendation No. 9 of the report proposing for an order for the production of documents be adopted.
The PRESIDENT: The question is as outlined in recommendation 9 of the committee report, as moved by Senator Chisholm.
The Senate divided. [17:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (17:17): I seek leave to give a notice of motion for the next day of sitting pertaining to an order for the production of documents, as was outlined in recommendation 9 of the committee report that has just been tabled.
Leave not granted.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:18): I seek leave to speak to the report.
Leave not granted.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:18): Mr President, I just want to clarify that senators can speak on this at the next—
The PRESIDENT: Yes, this will be on the Notice Paper when parliament resumes. Committee reports go onto the Notice Paper, as per normal. They just can't be dealt with today, but when the Senate resumes they will be on the Notice Paper to speak on, as is normal. There is no need to seek leave to continue your remarks.
BILLS
Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
First Reading
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:18): Pursuant to order, I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Archives Act 1983 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Just for a brief bit of context, I appreciate that it's unusual for a bill to be presented and proceed through all stages at this time on a Thursday afternoon without having been previously laid on the table. But, of course, this bill is an important one to ensure the effective operation of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. This review is a historic opportunity for all of us across this parliament to work—and, ultimately, a report will be produced independently by Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins—to ensure that our workplace is an exemplar for the nation in terms of the way in which it prevents bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault and the way in which it ensures that we have leading practices not only for the prevention of such acts but also for the handling of such acts where they occur. I am very grateful to senators and members right across the parliament, across all parties and all Independents, who have engaged with me and the government over recent weeks to appoint Commissioner Jenkins to undertake this work and to establish terms of reference that provide very clearly for a comprehensive review and provide clear autonomy and independence to Commissioner Jenkins and the Australian Human Rights Commission to undertake the work.
At the time of releasing the terms of reference for the review, I made clear that it was the government's expectation that staff, former staff and, indeed, any other participants in the review, would and should be able to participate with complete confidence that they could do so with their privacy and their confidentiality being respected. We brought forward this legislation to respond to concerns that, although the Human Rights Commission could have used existing FOI provisions such as the privacy provisions to protect submissions around participation in the review, such protection would be appellable. Given the fact we wish to ensure that every single staff member, former staff member or any other individual who wants to make a submission to this review can do so safely and confident in the knowledge that their privacy will be respected, we worked across the parliament to bring forward this legislation and provide those guarantees. I thank the Senate for its cooperation in enabling this legislation's early consideration and swift passage this afternoon.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:22): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and 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.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (17:23): I rise to speak on the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, since it was one of the things that the Labor Party requested of the government in the discussions on the terms of reference for the inquiry. I'd like to start by speaking directly to our staff, who are listening throughout the building. I'm sure they are gripped by what's going on here this afternoon, or by what might come across in the Hansard, as they make this place function. To our staff, I say: this is your workplace. You deserve nothing but a completely safe and supportive environment. As Labor parliamentarians we have a special duty to you, our staff: to fight for you internally just as hard as we fight for every worker across the country externally.
On 5 March this year the government announced that it would appoint the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, to conduct an independent review into workplaces of parliamentarians and their staff. Labor believes that all workplaces in Australia, including our nation's parliament, should be safe. We know, thanks to the courage of people like Brittany Higgins and the thousands of men and women who marched this week, that that isn't true. An independent review is an important step forward. As set out in the terms of reference, the aim of the review is to ensure that all Commonwealth parliamentary places are safe and respectful and that our national parliament reflects best practices in the prevention and handling of bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assaults. If the review is to achieve its aims, it's absolutely critical that as many current and former staff as possible participate. We need to listen to those staff, particularly women, who have had experiences in our workplaces that nobody should have had. The review process, led by Ms Jenkins, should provide an opportunity for people to tell their stories in a way that is confidential, private and safe. But, to ensure this, this parliament must ensure that all participants have confidence in that process.
Concerns have been raised by staff that, as the Human Rights Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act, there is currently no guarantee that information submitted to the review will remain private. These concerns have been raised by Labor in discussions with the government over recent weeks. On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister indicating that Labor would support the issue being resolved before parliament rises for the Easter break. Yesterday a bipartisan group of current and former federal parliamentary staff members and their supporters wrote to the opposition leader and the Prime Minister expressing those same concerns. The bill introduced today is the product of negotiations between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The bill ensures that current and former staff can have confidence that their privacy will be protected if they participate in the review. This bill exempts documents provided to the independent review or brought into existence by the review from being released under the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act, the latter for a period of 99 years, consistent with the status of royal commission documents.
I'd like to thank all current and former staff from all sides who have engaged in the review issues so far. I'd also like to thank the government for working with Labor to address this important issue. We all recognise that there is some way to go in this process and that staff must be at the centre of it. Labor hopes that the bill ensures that all those who want to participate in this review will have the confidence to do so following the passage of this legislation.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (17:27): I rise to speak on the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 and this important fix, which will ensure that people who participate in the review being undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, can share their stories without fear of their identities or their stories being revealed against their wishes through the FOI process. The Greens supported and called for his important review into the culture of this building, those who work here and those who work for parliamentarians right around the country and are employed under the MOP(S) Act. We want staff members, former staff members and people who work in this building to be able to share their stories at that review and for their stories and submissions to be disclosed only with the consent of that person. We don't want complete randoms to be able to FOI someone's serious disclosure without their permission. The Greens have long supported strong and robust FOI laws. In fact, we would love to see an awful lot of reforms to freedom of information laws, including reduction in costs and diminution of existing loopholes, but that's a matter for another day. In this particular instance, we strongly support staff members being supported and encouraged to participate in this review. We will certainly be encouraging our staff members to do so, and I'm hopeful that this legislative fix will remove any chilling effects that might otherwise have applied.
There was quite a bit of chatter around the building this week because people were nervous that their stories, their confidences, would be revealed contrary to their wishes. We don't want this review to be undermined; we want this review to be as fulsome and comprehensive as it can be. We really want people to come forward. We want staff members, no matter what political party they work for, to come forward. It doesn't matter whether you're working in the early childhood education centre, in the press gallery—in whatever capacity you work in this building or for whomever you work—we want people to participate in this review. The fix that's been proposed in this bill will enable people to do so with confidence that their stories, their confidences, won't be revealed against their wishes. It is important that people can choose to share their stories if they so wish. That confidentiality is a right of the person making that disclosure, and we strongly support that. Staff members, if they are victims-survivors, deserve that right to make the call about whether their stories be made public or not.
I want to make just a few other remarks. I won't go too long, because I'm conscious that there are lots of folk who want to speak, and we've got only half an hour—which is a record short time to debate a bill, but I think we all appreciate the need for this to happen on an urgent basis. I'm grateful that in the terms of reference for the Jenkins review the government took on board the request that the Greens made—and it may well be that other parties ask for similar things—to make sure that former staffers' views could be considered and included and to make sure that folk in the building were covered, not just MOP(S) Act employees. The significance of that is that the press gallery are within scope for this culture review. Sadly, we know that some dodgy, sexist behaviour—unsafe workplaces, to varying degrees—has also plagued the press gallery, not just the offices of members of parliament. So, I'm grateful that that's within scope.
I'm also pleased that we're finally getting to this loophole. We've been asking for this to be fixed for a week, and the government did have a few quiet days there when it was sitting on the industrial relations bill. There's been an awful flurry today. I'm disappointed that we are doing this at the last minute, when the government had good notice that this was a loophole that needed to be fixed. Nevertheless, I'm grateful that we are now attending to fixing it.
On the drafting itself, I've had several reads of it. I'm not sure we'll have time for a committee stage but I want to flag my potential concern and I'll seek the reassurance of the relevant minister, if there's time for such a response. The wording of one of the limbs of what defines a 'document' potentially seems quite broad. Our concern is that drafts of any of the Jenkins reports or interim reports or recommendations would be out of scope. Whilst we want this review to proceed without interference, we also don't want the government to interfere with this review. So, if the Sex Discrimination Commissioner prepares a draft report then we would want for that to be FOI-able, because we'd want to see whether the government sought changes to that report.
With that caveat and with that question about the purpose of the second limb of that definition, we say that we support the bill. I understand that we're not able to move amendments, in any event, but I'm seeking your reassurance as to the intention behind that limb of the test. With that, I will finish by encouraging all staff members and workers in this building to engage in the Jenkins review. It's been a harrowing and revealing few weeks for many in this building. I think women have been on an emotional roller-coaster. Despite the emotional turmoil that talking about these matters provokes in so many of us, we cannot let this opportunity for reform pass us by. And I want to place on record my gratitude for the courage and the guts of all of the women who have come forward and for the people in the press gallery—mostly women, I might add—who have not let this issue drop off the radar. We cannot let sexism, misogyny and sexual assault and harassment fester in any workplace, let alone this workplace, which is looked to as an example for others.
So, let's get this culture review done. My final point is that I'm looking forward to the progress update of the Jenkins review—another request that the Greens made in the course of discussions about the terms of reference. We didn't want to wait until November to see the recommendations for what we expect to be an independent process. That's what we think should happen. We wanted to make sure the pressure was maintained and the momentum was maintained. So, we're looking forward to the progress update, which I understand is happening in July. With that, I conclude my remarks and signify the Greens' support for this bill.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (17:34): I will make a very short contribution to this bill, the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. There are a couple of things I would like to say in relation to the drafting. The drafting is such that I don't think it would give any FOI officer the choice to do what Senator Waters is asking, because you can't just choose how you wish to interpret the act. But one resolution may well be that, in the face of an FOI request for a draft, the government or the commissioner might consider simply releasing it administratively. I don't think that's something you can probably commit to at this point in time, but perhaps you can in discussions post the passage of this bill.
There is something I would ask the government for a commitment to in the minister's response. The fact is that this bill, perhaps unintentionally, covers a government submission to the independent review, and the whole principle behind FOI is to give access to government information or information held by government. So I think it would be reasonable for the minister to commit to table in this place any submission made to the independent review, subject of course to the redaction of information that might cause issues from a privacy perspective—things such as names and/or case examples, as an example. I would ask the minister to make a commitment to table any submissions that are made.
Finally, I would like to say that, had I had notice of this bill, perhaps I would have taken the opportunity to amend the bill in a number of different ways. The FOI Act is not working properly. I want to point out a couple of very important points. Right now, we have a situation where, when an FOI goes to the Information Commissioner, it takes between one and two years to get a response. There are a number of reasons why that is the case. One of the reasons is the fact that we don't have an FOI commissioner. We haven't had an FOI commissioner since 2014, and I think that's actually, in some sense, unconstitutional, because the will of the parliament is that there should be. But I won't ask that that be debated. I just point out to the minister that I would really be grateful to engage in discussion over the next few weeks in relation to the fact that we don't have an FOI commissioner. But, if you would at least make a commitment in relation to any submissions the government makes being tabled in this place, you would have my full support for this bill.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:37): I thank colleagues in the Senate chamber for the way that they have approached this small but important change to the way that the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act will operate in relation to information that's provided to the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, which, as we know, is being led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Jenkins. The review has been established to build an understanding of the culture of Commonwealth Parliamentary workplaces, with the aim of building a safe and a respectful workplace in which all staff are able to do their work, be their best and have clear and effective mechanisms to prevent and address bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.
I hear what's been raised by senators in the course of their contributions, and, given that we may not have the time for a committee stage, I may take a moment now to address those concerns. In relation to the concern raised by Senator Patrick that the terms of the Archives and Other Legislation Amendment Bill are cast in language that could be interpreted to be wide enough to encompass a government submission, I offer a commitment on behalf of the government that we intend to release publicly any government submission that is made, subject of course to removing the private information of people who are complainants or victims and that might be sensitive in that nature. But, in terms of providing submissions on behalf of government departments or members of the government itself, that is information we are prepared to provide.
In relation to the concern raised by Senator Waters, I acknowledge the concern about the breadth of the language that's used and would like to put on the record that it is not the government's intention to read that language in a way that would be so sweeping as to make the report itself secret. It is our intention to make very clear the outcomes of the report and make public the recommendations. We will have an opportunity to see in a public way the interim report and the interim recommendations in July and, of course, there will be a public release of the final report come November. There's an intention to deal with this in the open, clear air, and I trust that that will satisfy the senators and their concerns.
The review's terms of reference include understanding the experiences of current and former staff and parliamentarians with respect to a safe and respectful workplace, and this is an important part of the review. So the purpose of this bill is to make sure that people can come forward to the independent review and provide personal information with complete confidence that that information will not be released to others without their permission. That's an important thing if we're going to give people who work here the confidence they need to be able to come forward and share what may well be very delicate, sensitive, traumatic or personal information.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is subject in ordinary terms to the Freedom of Information Act, and that means that ordinarily it can use exemptions under the act to seek to prevent the release of some personal information, but it can't guarantee to us unequivocally that ordinarily that information would not be released now or into the future. So the purpose of this bill is to fix that very problem so that we can give a very clear assurance to anyone who comes forward that privacy can be maintained if that's their wish. Of course the government is concerned that the information that could be provided to the review may well be sensitive and personal in nature and that it may have serious consequences for the health and wellbeing of the individuals involved, were it to be released without permission. Assurance about the protection of that information and those who are providing submissions to the review is really important to making sure we get the maximum amount of contribution from the people who work in this place and those who have done so in the past. It's worth noting that amendments to the act of a similar nature were made for private sessions in relation to the child sexual abuse royal commission. It's something of an analogy. It's sensitive information and we want to make sure that it's treated with the kind of respect that's necessary to ensure people come forward.
So I thank the chamber for their willingness to entertain this bill, particularly at this time in the week. It has been something on which the government has acted from the very beginning of this week. Of course, these things take time to put together. It is great to see all of the parties and senators in this chamber prepared to do what's necessary to get it done.
It's also worth noting that the bill has the consequence that it will exempt all documents given to, or received by, the independent review as well as documents that are brought into existence by the review, with the exception of the matters for which I have given undertakings.
The further matter I would draw the chamber's attention to is that in relation to the Archives Act the bill will increase the open access period for Commonwealth records that contain the information from the independent review for 99 years. It will prevent accelerated open or special access during this period to make sure we are fulsomely and for the long term protecting the privacy of the people who have the courage to come forward and contribute to the review. I commend the bill to the Senate and thank all senators for their willingness to support a bill of this importance.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (17:44): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:44): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DOCUMENTS
Department of Defence
Order for the Production of Documents
The PRESIDENT (17:44): I table a letter from the Parliamentary Budget Office providing advice concerning compliance with an order for the production of documents relating to defence capital acquisition.
COMMITTEES
Northern Australia Committee
Membership
The PRESIDENT (17:45): I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a joint committee.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:45): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber.
The documen t read as follows—
Northern Australia—Joint Standing Committee—
On 19 April 2021—
Discharged—Senator Siewert
Appointed—Senator Thorpe
On 11 May 2021—
Discharged—Senator Thorpe
Appointed—Senator Siewert
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:45): 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 STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:45): 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—
This bill makes two suites of changes to the Corporations Act:
schedule 1 extends from 21 March 2021 to 15 September 2021 the expiry date of the temporary relief allowing companies to use technology to meet regulatory requirements to hold meetings, such as Annual General Meetings, distribute meeting-related materials and validly execute documents; and
schedule 2 of the bill permanently introduces a 'fault' element to our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officers will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they have acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence' in failing to update the market with price sensitive information.
In relation to the temporary relief in Schedule 1, he Government originally introduced this relief on 5 May 2020 using a temporary instrument-making power which was inserted into the Corporations Act 2001 as part of the Government's response to the Coronavirus crisis and subsequently extended it.
While this relief expires on 21 March 2021, the rationale for introducing it remains. COVID-19 continues to cause uncertainty and associated public health orders are introduced from time to time. It is necessary for the continuation of business that companies be able to host meetings and execute documents without having to physically meet. This relief ensures that companies can get on with business, while cooperating with public health orders made to deal with COVID-19 outbreaks as they occur.
At the same time, the Government continues to progress its Digital Business Plan, in which the Government is investing almost $800 million to enable businesses to take advantage of digital technologies to grow their businesses and create job as part of our economic recovery plan. As part of this Plan, the Government committed to consulting on making permanent this temporary relief – consistent with its agenda to Modernise Business Communications and improve the technology neutrality of legislation, which it has made a priority of its Deregulation Taskforce.
Schedule 1 contains enhancements to the temporary relief previously introduced, in response to feedback received during consultation. These enhancements ensure that companies are required to meet the same substantive regulatory standards regardless of whether a physical, virtual or hybrid meeting is held. They allow shareholders to opt-in to receive hard copies of meeting related materials. They also ensure that whether company officers physically or electronically execute documents, including deeds, via signature or witnessing the application of the company seal, this execution will be valid. This means that rights and obligations contained in those documents will be enforceable. They also improve the technology neutrality of other regulatory requirements related to meetings and document execution. These improvements are consistent with the recommendations of the interim report of the Senate Select Committee Inquiry on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology.
In response to the positive feedback from consultation, the Government proposes permanent reforms that will continue to allow companies to electronically sign documents and send meeting‑related materials electronically, to be in place when this temporary extension ends.
The Government also proposes to conduct an opt-in pilot for hybrid annual general meetings in which shareholders can choose whether to attend meetings in person or virtually. This pilot will commence when the extension to the temporary relief ends. The aim of the pilot will be to encourage companies and shareholders to engage with technology with a view to considering whether future permanent reforms are needed to further support companies to effectively use technology to positively engage with their shareholders.
The Government will continue to work to ensure that regulatory settings are
fit-for-purpose as we continue to deal with, and emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic as part of Australia's Economic Recovery Plan to create jobs, rebuild our economy and secure Australia's future.
Schedule 2 to the Bill will amend our continuous disclosure laws so that companies and their officers will only be liable for civil penalty proceedings where they have acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence' with respect to updates on price sensitive information to the market.
Schedule 2 makes permanent the temporarily relief introduced by the Government in response to the Coronavirus crisis on 25 May 2020 and extended until 22 March 2021.
These reforms also respond to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Report Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry, handed down on 21 December 2020 and are part of the Government's commitment to provide regulatory relief for businesses and will safeguard the capacity of business to drive Australia's economic recovery without the prospect of opportunistic class actions.
The threat of these actions makes it considerably more difficult for companies to release reliable forward-looking guidance to the market. Without a higher level of protection, companies may choose to withhold forecasts of future earnings or other forward-looking estimates, thereby limiting the amount of information available to investors.
Raising the liability standard so that companies only face civil penalty actions where they have acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence' allows companies and their officers to more confidently provide guidance to the market without exposing themselves to the risk of opportunistic class actions.
Reforming continuous disclosure obligations will allow business to reallocate resources towards improving efficiency and output. This will make it easier for businesses to invest, create jobs and grow the economy.
Schedule 2 also introduces the same standard of liability for misleading and deceptive conduct where an entity or officer has allegedly failed to provide an update with price sensitive information to the market. This ensures that those who bring class actions for an alleged failure to update the market must prove the company or officer has acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence, whether they bring the action under continuous disclosure or misleading and deceptive conduct.
Schedule 2 retains the existing standard for administrative penalties issued by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), so that they can continue to issue infringement notices without proving 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence'. Infringement notices are used for less serious breaches as a fast and effective regulatory response that is proportionate and proximate in time to the alleged breach. It also retains this standard for ASIC's other non‑pecuniary enforcement tools such as requiring the disclosure of information to the market by obtaining a court order. This ensures that the regulator can continue to enforce compliance with the law, but without entities facing the threat of class actions where they have acted honestly and without negligence.
These reforms are part of the Government's broader deregulation policy objectives. The Government is seeking to remove regulatory barriers and spur economic growth. Businesses should be able to pursue commercial growth without being impeded by legal actions that undermine their capacity to focus on their core operations.
The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted on the legislative amendments in this Bill and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the order agreed to on 16 March 2021, further consideration of this bill is adjourned until the first sitting day in August 2020.
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:46): 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 STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:46): 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—
The Government is continuing its program of reform to private health insurance, which is making private health insurance simpler and more affordable. The most recent premium round process, which delivered the lowest average premium increase in 20 years, demonstrates our success.
Announced in the 2020-21 Budget as part of the reform program, from 1 April 2021, the maximum age of dependants for private health insurance policies will able to be increased from 24 to 31 years. For the first time, there will also be the opportunity for insurers to offer policies with no age limit for dependants with a disability.
The Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules will include the definition of disability. Our intention is to align this definition with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but allow insurers flexibility to extend coverage to people who do not meet NDIS eligibility. The commencement date will be stated in the Rules.
We welcome the readiness of insurers to offer this expanded coverage to their customers and recognise that they will need some time to communicate with their customers about these changes.
Younger adults will be able to stay on their parent's private health insurance policy for longer at a time, when many young adults may otherwise consider opting out of private health. It will be easier for them to transition from being on their parents cover to buying their own when Lifetime Health Cover apply at the age of 31. While this reform most obviously benefits the younger adults who will be covered as dependants, their transition to their own adult cover after they turn 31 years of age will over the medium term contribute to making private health insurance more sustainable for everyone.
People with a disability will be provided with the flexibility to access more affordable private health insurance without age limits as they can be covered under a family policy at no or low cost – rather than purchase a standalone policy.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) (17:46): I move:
That—
(a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 11 May 2021, at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and
(b) leave of absence be granted to all senators from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.
Question agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 17:47