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.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1442, moved by Senator Cash at the request of Senator Hanson.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (09:32): [by video link] These amendments confirm that One Nation are nothing more than lapdogs to the government. Three weeks ago this Senate had the government on the ropes with its JobKeeper rorts. We had a government bill to give the Treasurer a new round of powers to make COVID support payments and the Senate supported amendments moved by Senator Patrick requiring that a public register of who got JobKeeper be established. The Senate had clearly said to the government, 'If you want the parliament to give you more powers to give out more money then we want a little bit of transparency in return.'
We collectively sent an amended bill to the House. The government then rejected those amendments and we had a stand-off, so collectively we had to answer the question: do we insist or do we fold? The Australian Greens were up for insisting and at that time the entirety of the crossbench were up for insisting, but then, unfortunately, the Labor Party went to water like a dog on a hot day. The bill came back to the Senate and the Australian Labor Party folded, as they so often do.
Now here we are again with a new round of amendments to a different government bill, and it is One Nation who have folded this time. Worse than that, they are actually providing cover for the government. Their amendments would require the reporting of details of JobKeeper payments by only public listed companies. This is next to useless because we already have that information because publicly listed companies report that information. For the benefit of Senator Roberts, that's what being a publicly listed company actually involves.
Ownership Matters have done some work on this overnight. By their account, while ASX 300 companies certainly got a lot of JobKeeper—around $2.5 billion—that accounts for less than five per cent of the total of around $90 billion in JobKeeper payments. With One Nation's amendments, we won't even know about the other 95 per cent. Any JobKeeper payments made to private companies, for example, or any other entities not listed in Australia will remain secret. Payments made to private schools will remain secret. Payments made to companies owned by foreign governments—including the CCP, which One Nation claim to be so worried about—will remain secret. Payments made to companies domiciled in tax havens will remain secret. We will find out next to nothing that we didn't already know.
What One Nation's amendments actually do is provide a significant amount of cover and a massive escape hatch for the government. Just as public pressure on the JobKeeper rorts starts mounting to unsustainable levels, in steps One Nation to help out their mates in the Liberal Party. We've got more reports from the ABC this morning showing that at least $6 billion in JobKeeper payments went to companies that increased their turnover in both the June and the September quarters of last year. But, thanks to One Nation's stitch-up with the government, we won't ever find out who the majority of those companies are. We won't know who has profited so massively at the expense of the Australian public. We won't know which mates of this government lined their pockets in one of the biggest financial rorts this country has ever seen, as Australia's biggest support package became Australia's most rorted support package. And we won't know because Labor failed to insist on amendments when we had the government on the ropes last week and because One Nation have stepped up and shown they are patsies to the government in helping the government out of this massively increasing public pressure that is coming to bear on the JobKeeper rorts.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (09:37): I rise to contribute briefly to this debate. I did make a contribution last night about these amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021, but I want to put Labor's position very firmly on the record, particularly given the unreasonable partisan and inaccurate characterisation of Labor's position by Senator McKim just now. Of course, Labor has led the public campaign around JobKeeper and transparency, and I commend the work of my colleague Andrew Leigh in the other place, who has assiduously documented the organisations that have received JobKeeper and whose profitability and turnover in fact increased rather than decreased during the pandemic. In the early months of JobKeeper, 15 per cent of the money went to firms that had rising earnings. These firms then received about $13 billion across the whole program. It is an eye-watering number, and it's why Labor led that debate about JobKeeper misuse, pointing to firms such as Accent Group, AP Eagers and Best & Less as well as the men's-only Australian Club and the Kings School, all of whom got JobKeeper despite increasing their earnings. Now, some companies have repaid, with repayments totalling $225 million. That's a big number, isn't it? But it's not nearly as big as $13 billion—$13 billion of waste that this government has been happy to just overlook and ignore.
In New Zealand they're committed to transparency around these issues. They've had an online register listing all recipients of their wage subsidy scheme, and around five per cent has been repaid. That is almost certainly a result of having greater transparency. That is what transparency produces and it's why in this dimension and others, including around tax policy, we argue consistently for much greater transparency. Proposing a transparency register for the JobKeeper program is responsible from a policy and a governance stance.
Transparency is not something that has ever been a priority for this government, which slips and slides away from accountability whenever it is provided an opportunity to do so. On this occasion, they are trying to hide historical amounts of waste and gross mismanagement of public money. That's the real problem. The government do not want Australians to see how badly they have steered the JobKeeper ship. Look at a firm like Best&Less, who told investors that this was a one-off sugar hit from JobKeeper that was never to be repeated. That's the sort of example you don't need. That's the sort of failure in policy design that you'd think a government might be interested in. But, instead of confronting the problems, instead of confronting the waste, instead of confronting their own mistakes and owning up to them with the community, the government's approach, as always, is to try and hide it.
Look at a car sector firm like AP Eagers—$130 million in JobKeeper despite an increase in their profits. We want to see government providing transparency because with greater accountability comes better public behaviour. Public firms have made the lion's share of JobKeeper repayments. Yes—$225 million was paid back by 25 companies, and almost all of that was by public firms because of the scrutiny that came as a result of listed entities being required to disclose JobKeeper. From the unlisted firms, we're only getting dribs and drabs. And that is the problem, isn't it? It's the problem with the amendments that are before us, because they only deal with the companies that are already required to disclose the amount of JobKeeper that they have already received.
Senator McKim has sought to mischaracterise Labor's position on this. When this matter was last debated in this place, we supported an amendment for JobKeeper transparency. That's consistent with the public approach and it's consistent with the campaign run by Andrew Leigh, my colleague, but this government, so scared of transparency, were willing to play chicken with the resources that are so desperately needed to support the economy right now for Australian businesses and families. They threatened to hold up that bill—threatened the Australian public by saying that, if the Senate insisted on the amendment, then they would be willing, in an act of vindictive cowardice, to delay rolling out money altogether for the community. That's not a risk that Labor are willing to take, because we know that this is an immensely difficult time for businesses all around the country affected by the lockdowns that are a direct consequence of this government's failure in managing the pandemic. It was a difficult choice but a responsible choice made by Labor to prioritise support for the economy, but we said that, at the first opportunity, we would seek to introduce the amendment again, and this Senate should continue to introduce amendments to drive transparency. People paying attention to this debate will not be fooled by silly partisan contributions, like the one made by Senator McKim, which seek to make some electoral point for the Greens at the expense of Labor, neglecting the fact that it is, in fact, the Labor Party that has driven this campaign in the public domain.
Later today, I imagine we will hear from Senator Patrick, who is moving a far more comprehensive amendment that goes to the transparency of JobKeeper, and we support that approach. In fact, the amendment to be moved by Senator Patrick is the same as the amendment submitted by me. As I outlined last night, we have gone through a sorry saga where One Nation said initially that they support this approach. Then they said: 'Oh, it's moved by Labor. We don't support it because Labor hurt our feelings recently'—a novel confession that their approach in this chamber is driven by childish emotions rather than an assessment of the policy proposition, but there you go.
Now we find ourselves with One Nation and an entirely different proposition again—one which will assist businesses around the country to conceal their receipts from JobKeeper, and it puts the lie to the assertion from One Nation that they're on the side of the battlers. How can it possibly be on the side of the battlers when it supports and props up this government in concealing waste and mismanagement? It doesn't sound like something that battlers would be interested in to me. It doesn't sound like something the people of Queensland would be interested in to me. I think One Nation should explain why it is that it's supporting such a limited, ineffective, redundant approach to transparency when a much more comprehensive option is on the table.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (09:45): [by video link] I have spoken on this, but I want to just make a quick comment about partisan statements being made around the chamber. I do acknowledge the work that Andrew Leigh has been doing on this, and I do believe the Labor Party are concerned about this. I think they made a tactical blunder when they backed down on the insistence, but I don't doubt their commitment related to this issue.
I am also very surprised that One Nation are not supporting it. They have brought transparency measures to the chamber before which I and others have supported. This seems very much at odds with some of their past conduct. This JobKeeper rorting—and that's what it has been—means companies have taken advantage of the goodwill and the lack of prudential safeguards from the Treasurer to basically loot money from the taxpayer. There's a saying that the thing that people who operate in dark places fear the most is light. That's what we're trying to do in relation to this—shine a little bit of light on exactly what is going on here.
I won't go into private conversations, but Senator Hanson did indicate she was going to support this. She did call me later to say that she was proposing an amendment, so she was upfront with me. I didn't see the amendment until just prior to this bill being debated. I think it is a dud amendment. It basically requires disclosure where disclosure is already required in relation to publicly listed companies.
I would like to, through you, Chair—and I know that Senator Roberts has indulged me in the past in relation to this—ask a couple of questions of Senator Roberts about his amendment. The first one goes to the fact that this amendment doesn't include foreign owned subsidiaries. I point to an article in the AFR by Michael Roddan on 3 August that talks about Consolidated Minerals booking $1.8 million in JobKeeper, with no loss in profit. It's a company that's well known for transfer pricing back to its Chinese owned parents through a tax haven. I just wonder why it is that One Nation has decided to exclude foreign subsidiaries—that is, companies that are operating in Australia with an ABN but are a subsidiary of a foreign company and are not listed on the Australian stock market—from this disclosure requirement. I would be grateful if Senator Roberts could answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:48): [by video link] I would be delighted to answer that question and any others that Senator Patrick has. I'll put that in context. Do we want showmanship or substance in the Senate? Parliament, for many people in our country, has lost relevance. People laugh at Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals in particular because there's just a failure to have accountability. What we want to do is look at something substantive and significant, not just shame people indiscriminately. One Nation, like its leader, Pauline Hanson, has strength of character. We can admit when we make an error. We also value strong debate within our own party room. A staffer raised an issue with Senator Patrick's amendment which led to a lot of debate within our party room. What we realised is that Senator Patrick's amendment is not a transparency measure at all. It is a dud and it will do damage, potentially. I would like to explain why, and then I'll get to Senator Patrick's question.
Senator Patrick seeks to require the Commissioner of Taxation to publish JobKeeper payment information for entities with a turnover greater than $10 million. Note the restriction there: $10 million. So Senator Patrick is admitting there is some need for some restrictions. The proposal is said to be a transparency measure in that it is intended to allow taxpayers to see what has happened to the $90 billion spent on the JobKeeper program in the hope that the information will lead to some form of government or recipient accountability.
One Nation wants the government to be held accountable for money wasted through the poor design of the JobKeeper program—something that the parliament signed off on. We don't bury the government for that; we take partial responsibility for it, as every senator should.
Senator Patrick's amendment wants JobKeeper recipients who enriched themselves at the expense of taxpayers to be held accountable and for the money to be returned. Unfortunately, Senator Patrick's proposal will not lead to accountability, which is the purpose of any transparency measure. The proposal is poorly conceived, although well intended. Senator Patrick's proposal is founded on the power of shame, but that power is ineffective against the shameless. The individuals who pocketed JobKeeper payments that were intended to help Australian workers through the toughest of times are shameless, and this amendment will not shame them into returning the money. It will give us very little understanding about their circumstances or what they've done.
Senator Patrick's proposal shines no light on the amount of money wasted by the poor design of the JobKeeper program, because the proposal provides no way in which JobKeeper payments can be matched to an entity's other financial information. Without seeing the total picture of profit and loss, no-one can form a view about waste and enrichment at an individual business level or at a global level. Senator Patrick's proposal shows a failure to start with an end in mind—a necessary requirement for something useful to be achieved in good policy.
It's been suggested that Senator Patrick's proposal would hold the big tax avoiders accountable—that is, privately owned entities, and companies which are entirely owned by foreign companies. It won't and it can't. In the face of the total failure of Senator Patrick's proposal to hold anyone accountable, One Nation was left with no choice but to put forward an alternative proposal, and that's what we've done in Senator Hanson's amendment.
Senator Hanson's proposal is the first step in delivering real accountability to taxpayers, not showmanship. She wasn't born politically in Senator Xenophon's circus; she was born in the real world of Australian small businesses and Australian workers and families. Senator Hanson's proposal will shine a light on Australia's largest employers and largest recipients of JobKeeper payments. The reputational damage to listed companies who paid their executives bonuses from JobKeeper cannot be underestimated. That will occur with Senator Hanson's amendment.
Senator Hanson's proposed amendment on sheet 1442, will see ASIC publish on its website a consolidated report on JobKeeper payments by listed entity. This information will be useful because the matching financial information will be available in a standardised form, and that is one key to accountability.
Senator Hanson's real transparency measure will lead to a level of accountability through reputational damage to listed companies and by quantifying part of the money wasted by the poor design of the JobKeeper program. It will not tarnish those that have done the right thing. It will not lump everyone into the same basket. It will separate those, obviously, who have rorted it and deserve shame, from those who've done the right thing by their employees.
Senator Patrick's amendment is not an alternative transparency measure because it can achieve nothing. It is open to the Senate to work on other transparency measures which will lead to accountability in respect of the JobKeeper program. I gave an invitation to Senator Patrick and the Labor Party last night when I spoke about joining us to get real accountability through a proper, thorough audit. Neither mentioned it in their responses; not one word about it.
One Nation welcomes the opportunity to retrospectively fix the design of the JobKeeper program. If One Nation's amendment is not supported, we will know that Senator Patrick, the other crossbench senators, Labor and the Greens were only ever interested in virtue signalling rather than accountability. Peter Strong, the former head of COSBOA, said that Senator Patrick's amendment will be very difficult for small and medium enterprises to comply with. Senator Patrick's amendment purports to do one thing and doesn't achieve that. It's an ill-conceived dud.
What I will do now is to continue to address some of the points that Senator McAllister and Senator Patrick raised last night. Firstly, Senator Patrick's amendment would ultimately lead to every Australian business being forced to disclose their profit and loss statements, which could potentially lead to the nation's banks calling in loans to businesses they deem a risk following the impact of COVID. That's a serious threat, because the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties have given the banks extraordinary power in this country.
Secondly, businesses needed to meet the test only once, and that was very simple. Mum-and-dad businesses had to see a 30 per cent decline in their turnover in any given month in which the JobKeeper payment began. Any business with a turnover of over $1 billion had to show a decline in their business of 50 per cent. It was quite clear. The ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, ultimately determined the legitimacy of all JobKeeper applications.
Thirdly, if Senator Patrick and Labor are worried about whether or not Gina Rinehart received JobKeeper, we can assure you she didn't, as one of our staff phoned her and asked the question this morning. The mining and farming sectors of this nation help pay for the spoils of JobKeeper, and they will continue to pay for the spoils of JobKeeper long into the future.
I'll make some miscellaneous comments. Our position is because this is an issue of context and fairness. It is not about simply naming and shaming. That shames the guiltless—the innocent. This is about context and fairness. One of our staffers pointed it out to us, and Senator Hanson and I had the guts to discuss this and debate it and then come to a different conclusion from our initial conclusion. We don't mind saying we made a mistake. We don't mind saying we're sorry. We don't mind saying we're wrong. We don't mind saying: 'We don't know. Can you help us?' But now, after we've done more work, we know our position is correct on this. We want to protect workers and honest employers, and we want to have an effective transparency measure, not a dud. What's on trial is not Aussie workers. It's not the employees. We've got to remember that. We're happy to be hard on foreign firms—and Aussie firms—but it's important to uphold Aussie values in doing so, and that means fairness and integrity. We do what is best in accordance with Australia's national interest, in accordance with Australian values. That's extremely important.
I'd just like to finish up by saying that, after the drought broke recently in places, a small business, a tractor dealer employing very few people, could sell enough equipment to cross that $10 million threshold. We need to understand that small business in context. We are tired of the Labor Party spending decades protecting foreign companies. The petroleum resource rent tax comes to mind, as do many other initiatives. Senator Patrick's amendment is an ill-conceived dud that we woke up to at the last minute. We ask the senators interested in genuinely and fairly holding recipients accountable to vote for our amendment.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (09:58): [by video link] When Senator Patrick put this whole thing up, we said, yes, it sounded good—to hold companies who got payments under the JobKeeper program accountable. After further investigation into it and given information that we received, of course it's not going to achieve what it was intended to.
Senator Roberts has covered a lot of the issues here. It's interesting that here we have two senators on One Nation's side of the parliament doing the work that most of the Labor senators should have been on top of. Labor put up the same amendment, which is going to achieve absolutely nothing if the end result you want is accountability. It's not going to achieve that. Yet we can actually find out the information and put up an amendment that is going to have more results than this politicking—getting out there and saying to people, 'Look what we're doing. Aren't we great? We're going to call for accountability,' which will achieve absolutely nothing. If those in Labor are really serious about accountability, then why haven't they put up an amendment that says companies should pay back the money? Why? Because they're too gutless. That's exactly right—they're too gutless. And they also know that, if you did that, companies would shut down and close their doors, and people would lose their jobs.
Now, we've dug deep into this. Senator Patrick—he's up for re-election, and this is important—is saying, 'I'm out there beating the drum, and I want accountability,' which will prove absolutely nothing. It all sounds good on the surface. That's what we get on the floor of the parliament all the time—what sounds good. But in parliament I've found, for the last five years, that we're bandaiding legislation that has been poorly drafted and doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
Our proposed amendment on sheet 1442 will see ASIC publish on its website a consolidated report on JobKeeper payments by a listed entity. This information will be useful because matching financial information will be available in a standardised form. My amendment is a transparency measure that will lead to a level of accountability through reputational damage to listed companies and by quantifying part of the money wasted by the poor design of the JobKeeper program. Senator Patrick's amendment is not an alternative transparency measure, because it can achieve nothing. You see, publicly listed companies have to show their profit and loss. Privately listed companies don't. What are we comparing it to? Absolutely nothing. Senator Patrick, I've got to tell you: you should've been in the show; you're the greatest showman on earth, because what you're trying to sell us is a lemon. The Labor Party have gone along with you. And you know what? The Labor Party really don't want to see this get up with our votes. And that's why you're trying to shame One Nation into supporting your amendment, which is useless, because the Labor Party know that it will get knocked back in the lower house. You've got no chance of getting it up. But at least, with our amendment, there is a chance that it will get up and will lead to accountability. So Labor are just smoke and mirrors, again, as usual. They don't even know what they're talking about. They're going on this little trip with you, propping you up and having a go at One Nation. Remember, everyone: it's coming into election time. And there is going to be no end result.
I remember when I tried to get my dairy bill up and it needed one vote. That one vote was Rex Patrick's. He didn't support it. He said to me: 'I go back and I talk to the people in my electorate. I actually find out what their feelings are and how they feel about things.' Well, Senator Patrick, have you read the Advertiser newspaper today in your state? Are you aware that small businesses are totally against you? You have not spoken to them. You have not consulted with them. They are against you on this. And you say you talk to people? That's not the case; that's not what I'm hearing. So this is just you grandstanding to say, 'Look at me and what I'm achieving.' You're achieving nothing! And, like I said, if the Labor Party go along with this, then you're too bloody gutless, because you should've put up an amendment on how you're going to get the money back. No-one's done that.
As to this shaming of businesses: you're going to tie up everyone in this—people who have done the right thing. You might have those ratbags out there, but this is going to tie up small mum-and-dad businesses that have done the right thing and it could have unintended consequences on them. Who knows—the banks might come after them, or radical groups might come after them and name and shame them. You know, there are people in our society who, no matter how much heat you put on them to shame them, will not change their stinking attitude.
So what we do is: we start with legislation that is going to expose those people and make a start which will work. Your amendment will not work.
I have tried to work with the government, to see sense in this, to actually get accountability. That's why Senator Roberts and I have worked hard together on this to come up with a solution. Like I said, we are constantly trying to work with the government, or the opposition, or the crossbenchers, to come up with something that is right for the people of this country. We're sick of this. Labor has a go at me, saying, 'We're not supporting this amendment, because it's been rushed.' How many times have we heard that with my amendments? 'We're not supporting it, because it's rushed.' Labor are so bloody-minded that they don't want to support something that may be good for the people of Australia, because they don't want to see that One Nation is doing their job. That's why they don't support us on most of our amendments, amendments that are good for this country.
If good legislation is put up by whichever side of politics, we will support it. But I am opposing your amendment because it achieves nothing. And I'm not going to put those small businesses into a situation where they may be attacked unnecessarily and unwarrantedly. I say to Labor again: unless you've got a real fair dinkum argument on this you should be supporting my amendment, because I'll tell you now that Senator Patrick's hasn't got a chance of getting up and you damn well know it. You know it'll be thrown out because you haven't got the numbers in the lower house. It'll be thrown out anyway.
Let's have some common sense here and support this amendment, which is going to bring some accountability to this country. That's what you really want, isn't it? You want accountability, not just to be out there grandstanding, saying, 'Look what I'm doing; I'm trying to get accountability'? It will achieve nothing because there's no transparency. A lot of these private and listed companies don't put up their profit and loss statements, so what are you comparing it to? Nothing. Sorry, Rex; you tried, but your amendment is a lemon.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:06): [by video link] I'll go through a few points raised by Senator Hanson. I'll also point out that Senator Roberts didn't answer my question, but I'll give him an opportunity again to perhaps do that. On the dairy bill, I asked the local dairy industry and they didn't want to support it, and that's the basis upon which I opposed it. In relation to the Advertiser this morning, go and have a look at the poll associated with the article that you referred to. Over 70 per cent of the people who responded to that said they don't think that the money that we're asking to be disclosed here is private information. It's public information. So I am certainly against it.
You say that my amendment could have unintended consequences, when we know that if it's not passed there will be—and have already been—unintended consequences. This is the biggest public expenditure scandal in the history of the Commonwealth and One Nation are basically standing there saying, 'We're going to help cover it up.' To suggest that my amendment doesn't do anything is to ignore the experience in New Zealand, where they've done exactly what my amendment does. They've managed to get a five per cent return on their wage subsidy program. We've got 0.25 per cent. There is empirical data that shows—and I know how much Senator Roberts likes to look at empirical data—that in actual fact transparency does work.
Going back to the question of mine that wasn't answered, which surprises me, this amendment does not cause disclosure of any foreign owned subsidiaries in Australia. That's money that may have been taken, probably using things like transfer pricing. I'm sure that there are oil and gas companies that may have subsidiaries that have collected JobKeeper—we won't know, because you're not going to support my amendment—taking taxpayers' money when it wasn't needed and using it to fill the pockets of foreign investors, funnelling our taxpayers' money from the pockets of Australians into the pockets of foreign investors.
I wonder why it is that you haven't chosen to include private schools. Private schools received JobKeeper—there are four in Ipswich that received JobKeeper. They didn't have a loss in turnover. That is money that has gone to private schools that won't go to the public schools, where the battlers are. Last night in the boardrooms around Australia there would have been champagne flowing, toasting to Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson. They're all about Bollinger, not battlers, and that's the truth of the situation. Why is it that you're letting private universities not disclose? Why is it that you are letting subsidiaries of universities not disclose? What about clubs? Perhaps some of the good golf clubs that Senator Roberts goes to—that people like me probably can't afford to go to—don't want the fact that they might have taken JobKeeper disclosed to the public.
What about unlisted public companies? They're just as capable of looting the taxpayer as anyone else. What about the private companies, those large, grandfathered companies that don't even have to provide a financial report to ASIC? They get away scot-free in relation to this. It's bizarre because One Nation have supported my grandfathering amendment, which is about disclosure by large private companies, and yet they won't support this, which is—again—trying to deal with the biggest public expenditure scandal in the history of this country. And it's not going away. There are stories that are going to break over the weekend as to some of the entities that have received this money and profited. And every time one of those stories breaks, everyone is going to be thinking about how it is that Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts did not support a good transparency measure.
I find it really confusing that the suggestion is made that my amendment is a dud, because on four separate occasions One Nation have supported it. For the last month, One Nation have supported it. When it comes to the crunch, however, they falter. They join the side of the looters. That is really disappointing. I wonder whether or not Senator Roberts can explain to the chamber exactly why they decided to exclude those particular companies. There are 10,000 companies, as the tax commissioner has indicated, whose JobKeeper payments would be disclosed under my amendment. There are 2,090 companies listed on the Australian stock market. There are 8,000 companies we don't get to know about that are the kinds of companies, entities and organisations that I have described. Political parties could receive JobKeeper. They could have received it and still maintained their income through donations and all the other methods that they use to receive money—and that won't be disclosed under this particular amendment proposed by Senator Roberts. Can he can explain that? It just doesn't seem to make any sense. I ask that Senator Roberts give an explanation.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:13): [by video link] First of all I need to correct a mistake by Senator Patrick. I play no golf. I don't go to golf clubs. I used to play rugby union and rugby league. I think golf is a nice way to wreck a walk, and that's about it. Secondly, I have already answered Senator Patrick's question about the context twice. I addressed it last night and again just now. What we really want to do—and I invite Senator Patrick to discuss this with us after this debate—is to achieve a real audit. Senator Hanson and I want something meaningful and strong that actually gets the money back to the people's government.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:13): It seems we're perhaps likely to go to a vote on this shortly. I want to indicate that Labor will be supporting Senator Hanson's motion. For all the reasons I explained earlier, I do think it is an inadequate response. I think that it is unlikely to be effective. I think that it does little more than is already required of these companies, and it leaves many, many companies without any scrutiny whatsoever. Notwithstanding that, it would be churlish to vote against it, and we on the Labor side generally try and make our decision based on the policy position, not on the grounds of hurt feelings. So we will be voting for the amendment proposed by Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:14): [by video link] Just to avoid an unnecessary division, I will also be voting for the amendment, not because it does very much but because it does do some consolidation. It leaves a gaping hole in this public scandal. Finally, I point out to Senator Roberts: Senator McKim has a private member's bill that seeks to recover this money, and I guess you're going to support it based on what you've said.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:15): [by video link] I thank Senator Patrick for reminding Senator Roberts of the bill that the Australian Greens currently have before a Senate inquiry. Just really quickly, before we wrap up debate on this amendment, I wonder if either the minister or Senator Roberts could confirm that this amendment will not catch private companies, private schools and foreign owned companies, and therefore that companies that are owned by foreign governments like, for example, the CCP will not be caught by the provisions of this amendment. I wonder if Senator Roberts would be able to respond to that, please.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:16): [by video link] It will not, but it will also not capture innocent companies that are privately owned—small and medium enterprises. Australians value fairness and integrity. We need to make sure that any system that is put forward is fair to the employers, because the employers have a significant responsibility to the employees. This scheme was designed, although poorly—and all the senators approved it—to protect workers, and that's where the money ends up: with Australian workers. We will invite you to discuss with us a proper audit for returning money that has been incorrectly paid to companies, and we would love to work with you, Senator McKim, on that, provided it is legitimate, proper and fair.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1442, moved by Senator Cash at the request of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (10:17): [by video link] by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1411 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
2. Schedules 1 and 2 |
The first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October to occur after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
3. Schedule 3 |
The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
(2) Page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Publication of information about COVID-19 payment recipients
Taxation Administration Act 1953
1 Subsection 2(1)
Insert:
annual turnover of an entity for a financial year is the total of the following that is earned in the year in the course of the entity's business:
(a) the proceeds of sales of goods and/or services;
(b) commission income;
(c) repair and service income;
(d) rent, leasing and hiring income;
(e) government bounties and subsidies;
(f) interest, royalties and dividends;
(g) other operating income.
If the entity is a non‑profit body (within the meaning of section 23‑15 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999), treat the operations or activities carried out by the body as the business of the body.
Coronavirus economic response payment has the same meaning as in the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020.
jobkeeper payment means a payment under the jobkeeper scheme.
jobkeeper scheme means the scheme for the Coronavirus economic response payment known as the jobkeeper payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1) of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 in relation to the period 1 March 2020 to 28 March 2021.
2 At the end of Part IA
Add:
3J Commissioner must publish information about entities that received jobkeeper payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a jobkeeper payment:
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the number of individuals for whom the entity received a jobkeeper payment;
(c) the total amount of jobkeeper payments received by the entity;
(d) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (c), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received a jobkeeper payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
3K Commissioner must publish information about entities that received certain Coronavirus economic response payments
(1) The Commissioner must publish the following information about each entity covered by subsection (2) that has received a Coronavirus economic response payment provided for in rules made for the purposes of subsection 7(1B) of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020:
(a) the name of the entity;
(b) the total amount of such payments received by the entity;
(c) whether the entity has voluntarily paid to the Commonwealth an amount equal to all or part of the amount referred to in paragraph (b), and if so, the amount of the payment.
(2) An entity is covered by this subsection if the annual turnover of the entity for a financial year in which the entity received such a payment is more than $10 million.
(3) The information must be published as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on a publicly available website maintained by the Commissioner.
(4) Information published under this section must be kept up to date.
These amendments are designed to provide a level of transparency around those companies that receive JobKeeper. We must understand that JobKeeper was passed by this parliament on 8 April 2020, not as a scheme with any particular form but as a head of power that allowed the Treasurer to introduce or declare rules around the program that is now known as JobKeeper. The parliament had very little to do with the construction of the JobKeeper scheme, and that was because it was an emergency. Everyone understood it was an emergency. We wanted to get through the pandemic and keep employers and employees connected, so it was the will of this parliament that the program be implemented. But the details came down to the Treasurer, and he basically created an honesty system where you didn't have to show anything as actuals. Rather, you were able simply to project and indicate to the Taxation Office that you thought your revenue would drop by either 30 or 50 per cent, depending on the nature of the company.
The idea behind that was quite okay. Particularly in those circumstances, there would have been a lot of cash-flow issues for companies, and what was put in place was good. Unfortunately, there was no clawback regime put in place to deal either with dishonesty or with people who got through the bump and actually did a lot better than perhaps they might have done in the previous year. And that's where the problem lies; there's been a huge prudential failure in relation to the JobKeeper program. It is a massive scar that will sit with Treasurer Frydenberg for years to come. This is going to bring about the biggest public expenditure scandal in the history of this country. Thank you very much, Treasurer Frydenberg!
What we need to do in these circumstances is to address the situation where we find that money has been funnelled from the wallets of taxpayers to the wallets of investors, and to executives by way of executive bonuses. One of the ways to do that is simply to shine a light. Light is a great disinfectant. This amendment mirrors the scheme that the New Zealand government voluntarily put in place because they, clearly, believe in the benefit of transparency. Everyone can access the New Zealand website. People just have to Google 'wage subsidy disclosure New Zealand', and they will be taken to a site where they can look up any company—any company at all—that received a wage subsidy payment. It's public money. It's not private information. When a business goes to a bank and gets money, that is private business. When a business gets money from the public, that's public business. New Zealand have recognised that. We've seen a situation in New Zealand where they paid out far less in wage subsidies—I think it's in the order of $13 billion—and have received $600 million-plus back. We've paid out $90 billion and have only got $200 million back. They've got a five per cent return; we've got a 0.25 per cent return.
This amendment seeks to shine a light. It won't name and shame companies. For companies that needed JobKeeper, no-one begrudges them the fact that they got that money. What the amendment will do, however, is allow employees to identify whether their company received JobKeeper. They'll understand how well the company was doing. It will simply lay out the basis for, potentially, more companies to stick their hands up and say: 'You know what? We're going to do the right thing. We're going to return the money that we didn't actually need, the money that came from the public purse.' That money could be used for social housing, health, aged care and a whole range of things that we need and for which we struggle to get money—it could be education, university degrees—whatever it is. This is public money that has come from our debt register. It is money that will be paid for not by me or anyone else in this chamber but, rather, by our children and our grandchildren. And that is such a shame. I urge the Senate to support my amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ) (10:23): Just before I call Senator McAllister, I want to clarify that, if the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick is passed, then the opposition's amendment will be negated by that. I want to make sure that people are very clear about that. Senator McAllister.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:24): I rise to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. I have spoken a number of times in the committee stage, so I don't intend to labour or repeat some of the ideas that I've already presented. But Labor is totally committed to making sure we are transparent about this and many other questions in terms of the corporate largesse that is so casually doled out by the government—$13 billion in this instance.
I was clear about the deficiencies of the amendment that has just been passed in this chamber. Listed companies received only three per cent of the entire JobKeeper program. There's no harm in what the government cooked up with One Nation, but it adds nothing to the transparency that Australian taxpayers are calling for and it doesn't address the staggering waste that Mr Frydenberg has overseen. That amendment will deal with 120 companies in total, and they received $2½ billion. Meanwhile, we know there are over 150,000 firms who were beneficiaries of that $13 billion in JobKeeper. They had rising takings, and we will know nothing about them. In contrast, the amendment that is before us now does deal with this issue. It would require much broader transparency. It's an amendment that was moved, at least for this bill, by me in the first instance. An identical amendment was moved by Senator Patrick to accommodate the previously described hurt feelings that One Nation have about various other matters unrelated to this question.
Just as Harvey Norman's repayment of $6 million this week shows the importance of public scrutiny, the positive effects that ASIC has already generated by requiring some measure of transparency show us exactly why we need a much clearer picture of the big firms that profited from JobKeeper. The reason we brought this amendment forward, the reason we brought a similar amendment forward, the reason we support Senator Patrick's amendment now and the reason we voted for a similar amendment in a previous debate is that we know the government is desperately trying to cover up $13 billion of waste—$13 billion of waste. We'd like to know where it went and so would most Australians. The question is: why does the government persist in trying to cover it up?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:27): I would like to put on the record the Greens' support for Senator Patrick's amendment. Of course, we have tried through a number of ways over the last few months to bring this information to light to ensure that there is accountability for the use of taxpayers' money and public money. We're disappointed it won't pass today because One Nation will not be voting for it, but, for the record, we still think it's an important amendment.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:28): [by video link] I just want to correct something that both Senator McKim and I concurred on. We were wrong: companies operating in Australia that are owned by foreign governments were never able to claim JobKeeper. That was something we all discussed in the Senate. I just want to draw that to people's attention.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1411, as moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [10:33]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (10:35): I am in the hands of the chamber. Senator McAllister, are you seeking the call? I'm going to end the committee stage if I don't get a call.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:35): I had understood that Senator Hanson-Young was going to persist with her amendment. I just wondered if now was the moment.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:35): Now can be the moment, Senator McAllister. This amendment is in relation to a much-needed avenue of support for our arts and entertainment industry, which we know has been smashed throughout the COVID-19 period and the pandemic. Lockdowns, border closures and health restrictions have meant that live performances and other types of live events, in particular, just don't have certainty going forward.
The insurance industry has, of course, done what the insurance industry always does: it has put up higher premiums, which effectively squeeze anyone in the real world out of being able to access them. This amendment simply requests of the government that they establish an insurance guarantee for live performance and live events going forward. Even once we get to the phase of opening up, once we have an appropriate number of people vaccinated in this country—including young people, I might add—companies, small businesses and those in the entertainment and live performance sector simply can't plan without access to insurance. There is a market failure. What this amendment requires is for the government to establish a mechanism to underwrite and guarantee insurance. It's not going to cost the government any money. Companies and businesses will pay into it, as they would an insurance company. It's simply to fill the gap, because there has been a market failure.
If the role of government isn't to step in at times like this, what is the role of government? It is simply unworkable for this industry to continue limping on without proper support from the government of the day. This doesn't solve all the problems, but it would go some way to giving the industry a helping hand. I hope the government considers this proposal in good faith and, if they don't take this one up, does something that will help—that will deliver insurance going forward for this sector so that we can get the show back on the road. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1402:
(1) Page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund
1 Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund
(1) There is to be a Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund.
(2) The Treasurer must, by legislative instrument, make rules to provide for and in relation to the establishment, governance and operation of the Fund, the purpose of which is to provide for a fund to underwrite an insurance scheme for the live performance sector to fill a market failure in the insurance industry as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic.
(3) Money for the Fund is to be from funds appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this Act.
(4) The Treasurer must make rules for the purposes of subsection (2) within 30 days after the commencement of this Act.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (10:38): The government will not be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. I should remind the chamber that this bill is, in fact, about the administration and oversight of organisations with deductible gift recipient status, and it's about removing preferential tax treatment for offshore banking units. It's not about COVID support measures for any industry.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Senator Hanson?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:38): Hanson-Young. I will just correct you, Temporary Chair. You've said 'Senator Hanson' a few times. The minister said 'Senator Hanson'. I just make it really clear I am Senator Hanson-Young.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Yes, my apologies. I think we know you are Senator Hanson-Young.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:39): Labor does support this amendment. It would be far preferable, of course, if the measures contained in this amendment were, instead, contained in a bill brought forward by the government. That would be better, wouldn't it? We would much prefer that the government actually dealt with this challenge. At the moment, we have an uncosted amendment that's been brought forward by a Greens party senator. We are in this position though because the government is dragging its feet.
The opposition has joined with the live entertainment industry to call for an insurance fund for live entertainment and events. We've been calling for it for months, and I think anyone who enjoys live entertainment, anyone who enjoys festivals, understands why—because there is a heartbreaking list of events where enormous amounts of time, money, energy and commitment from festival organisers and artists have all come to nothing. The pandemic brings significant uncertainties, but the lack of support for the industry is crippling it. The people I know that work in the festival sector are beside themselves. The artists are beside themselves, because they can see a lifetime's investment in building their businesses, in building their audiences, in building their reputations, in building their financial resources draining away, with almost zero interest from the government.
The government, I should say, announced a very similar measure for the screen sector more than a year ago. That's worked very well since, and the screen industry is doing well. But the federal government says no to the live entertainment and events sector when it asks for exactly the same thing, and it's impossible to know why. Certainly there's been no explanation provided here in the chamber on the substantive policy issue. The minister for arts tries to say that this should be a responsibility for the states. It's a pretty common refrain, isn't it? Passing the buck to someone else, making it someone else's responsibility. Well, I happen to think that having a thriving live entertainment sector, a thriving arts sector, a thriving live performance sector is in our national interest. It's part of our national identity. It's a core part of our economy. It's a key element of soft power. There are so many reasons why supporting this sector should be considered an absolute priority for this government. But they have washed their hands of the live entertainment sector from the very beginning of the pandemic. It is time for the government to sit up and listen, to pay this industry some respect. It's time for the government to introduce its own bill for a live entertainment and events insurance fund.
In supporting this amendment, I do have some caveats to put on the table. We strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We've argued for it publicly. We are concerned that it's not costed. It gives us some comfort that the amendment as proposed leaves it up to the government to decide the level of appropriation. This kind of fiscal uncertainty is not Labor's preference, but we are only at this point because of this government's failures. I ask the minister to consider asking her colleagues why it is that they will not lift a finger for the live entertainment sector. The live entertainment sector is desperate. It's crying out for help and support, and so far it's crickets from your side of the chamber.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1402, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [10:48]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (10:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (10:50): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. I can confirm from the outset that Labor strongly supports the passage of this bill, particularly the superannuation family law elements in schedule 5, which I will talk about in more detail shortly.
Overall, this bill contains a number of relatively minor technical amendments. Schedule 1 clarifies the operation of income tax law in relation to the Renewable Energy Target, ensuring that generators are not taxed when they later rectify a failure to meet a target in a given year. Schedule 2 allows for increased penalties to be applied to breaches of industry codes prescribed by the Competition and Consumer Act. I note that increasing penalties for breaches of the franchising code was expressly recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Labor supports franchisees being protected by industry codes as recommended. Schedule 3 removes some minor red tape for self-managed superannuation funds and other small super funds. Schedule 4 makes a number of technical amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to provide regulatory certainty for industry codes. These amendments primarily ensure that industry codes may confer functions and power appropriately.
But I turn now to schedule 5, which is the area in this bill that is of most interest for me personally. It amends the Taxation Administration Act and the Family Law Act to create a new mechanism for sharing superannuation information for family law proceedings. It sounds a little dry; I understand that. But Labor has been calling for this reform to be implemented for many years. It is long overdue. Of course, most things associated with women's policy in this government are long overdue, starting with Tony Abbott as the Minister for Women. The very least you could say about that is that it was an inauspicious start. We have had eight years during which Australian women's interests have been neglected, ignored, dismissed, ridiculed and mocked. Generally, there is very little this government can point to where it has made any ground at all for Australian women. It was only when tens of thousands of women all around the country marched on this parliament, marched in their cities and marched in little towns like Lismore that this government was dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge that more than 50 per cent of the Australian population deserve a proper response to the issues that concern them.
Back to the specifics of this measure: this was first announced back in 2018 as part of the grandly titled Women's Economic Security Package. It promised $3.3 million for the Australian Taxation Office to develop an electronic information-sharing system to ensure that the family law courts have better visibility of parties' superannuation assets when making property orders. The then Attorney-General put out a media release—a big announcement—in 2018, and they said this electronic information-sharing system would commence on 1 July 2020. Well, that was not to be. When asked about it the Attorney-General's Department told me in an estimates hearing some time ago that it was because it really just wasn't a priority. Just now, a year later, the government's finally got around to legislating this critical measure, and it really isn't good enough. It is an indication this government cares so little about women's economic security and, as I'll also go on to argue, about their safety.
I want to talk about why this matters. I want to talk about the problem that this measure is trying to fix. Parties to family law proceedings are legally required to disclose all their assets to the court, including superannuation. However, in practice, parties may forget or—let's be honest about it—deliberately withhold information about their superannuation assets. Getting full visibility of superannuation in family law matters can be complex, time-consuming and costly. It often requires parties to use subpoenas and other formal court processes, and there is no guarantee of success. The nondisclosure of superannuation assets can often disproportionately disadvantage women due to a significant disparity in superannuation savings between men and women. There's a very well understood superannuation gap. What then happens is that that lack of financial disclosure by a former partner can result in women receiving a smaller share of property than they would otherwise be entitled to.
This scheme is designed to help all women access their share of superannuation assets, but it will especially impact on disadvantaged women and those experiencing family violence. Nondisclosure of assets in family law proceedings can also delay cases, and sometimes that is the main point of a nondisclosure. Stakeholders did terrific work laying the groundwork for this policy initiative, and their work began a very long time ago. In 2018, the Women's Legal Service Victoria put out a study titled 'Small claims, large battles'. It looked at a whole series of cases for clients they had assisted and it found that two-thirds of clients they surveyed faced delays caused by a former partner failing to make the necessary financial disclosure. Here is the kicker: in 87 per cent of those cases, the women surveyed reported that family violence was a factor in the relationship breakdown.
Let's be honest about what's happening here. There are controlling, abusive partners. They are controlling and abusive in the relationship and, when a woman decides to leave, they seek to further extend and perpetuate their abuse and their control through prolonging proceedings. They withhold information deliberately. It's described as 'systems abuse' and it means that women are stuck for years and years trying to extricate themselves from an abusive relationship and are unable to conclude the matter. These tactics also mean that women are deprived during this period of the financial resources they need to start a new life. These women are strong and resilient and they deserve support and, instead, they've been frustrated.
The government recognised this problem back in 2018, and here we are in the middle of 2021 finally getting around to a piece of legislation to actually address it. That's three years. Think about the women who might've benefited from these provisions in the three years that have elapsed since these issues were first acknowledged by the government. It is simply not good enough. It is disgraceful, in fact. One can't help wondering if the rush now is only because the women's safety summit is on Monday.
Superannuation is often one of the biggest assets in relationships, and nondisclosure of these assets just continues a cycle of crippling emotional and financial abuse as well as the economic control experienced by family violence victim-survivors. The failure to implement this scheme in a timely way has had serious financial implications for disadvantaged women, especially those suffering from violence. Instead of implementing much-needed reform, this government has prioritised other reforms. It's not as though there's been a shortage of bills on superannuation come before this chamber. We spend hours and hours debating superannuation in this chamber, but this is the one bill for which there's been no time made on the government program for three years. What did this government do? They did this for women: they asked women to raid their own superannuation balances to pay for their own costs during the pandemic, the very pandemic that crushed women's workforce opportunities. These policies also created an opportunity for perpetrators to exploit and financially abuse their partners. The government has done nothing to address the superannuation gap in retirement. Women continue to face homelessness and destitution. This is totally unacceptable.
I want to conclude by really thanking the advocates who've championed this issue—organisations like Women in Super and the Victorian Women's Legal Service and the organisations and individuals that contributed their stories to Small Claims, Large Battles. They were absolutely vital in securing this incredibly important reform. For eight years this government has ignored and neglected women's safety and their economic interests. It's not a surprise that this reform, like so many other reforms, is overdue. The government has time and time again been forced kicking and screaming into action, while on every occasion its action is too little too late.
The reforms contained in schedule 5 of this bill are welcome. They will make a difference to the lives of women, but it will take much more than one oft-repeated promise announced, re-announced and belatedly delivered for this Prime Minister and his government to win back the trust of Australian women.
Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation) (11:00): [by video link] I'm not very happy about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021 being rushed through today. I feel that we haven't had enough time to actually debate it or discuss it. The government has been joined by Labor; Labor is quite happy to do it. I understand the bill will streamline access to superannuation balances. A judge can access superannuation balances to deal with a court case before them. I know that it was a long and costly process to get this.
I listened to Senator McAllister debate this issue. She said it's about protecting women. The last time I attended a court there were both men and women. Both men and women suffer separation and divorce. Both are subject to domestic violence—and I admit that more cases are reported where men are the perpetrators of domestic violence, but 25 per cent are also where women are the perpetrators. Men also suffer at the hands of women in cases and in divorce. I am upset that we have had a family law inquiry that handed down recommendations with regard to the family law courts. We have a submission in at the moment. In that submission is a recommendation about freeing up agreements.
Let's look at superannuation. That is what a person has worked for. Superannuation is in lieu of wages they would have received. We do see people entering second marriages or getting married for the first time at 40, 50 or 60 years of age. They end up in relationships that don't last. These people have accumulated their superannuation over a long period of time. What they have forgone in wages has gone into superannuation. They get tied up in a relationship—they don't have to be married; they just have to be together for six months—and that relationship may break down in a couple of years time. Why should the ex-partner be entitled to the superannuation of someone that they weren't with at the time?
Superannuation in family law courts should be taken from the date their relationship started—upon marriage or after a certain period of time of living together. It should not be taken back to the last 20 or 30 years. Those people think they're going to make some money out of it, and they do. I've heard that from a lot of people. That's where we should have had an amendment to this bill. I wanted to put up an amendment to say that superannuation accumulated prior to their relationship should not come into consideration. That would be fair on all sides. There are probably a lot of men who get tied up with women purely for the money, and we've heard that time and time again. And there is the reverse situation: women will go after whatever they can of their ex-partner. We have power-hungry and greedy people who use whatever they can to pull the other person down and get out of them what they can.
Our parliament should be about what is fair and just for the people. This is not. You're pushing this bill through and we don't have enough time to debate it. You've got a cut-off point that's coming, so you're rushing it through. But Labor said yes, and all Senator McAllister wants to talk about are the poor women out there. Well I wish she would be fair to everyone and look at it from a balanced point of view. She talked about family violence. If you text someone and keep saying, 'I want to see my child,' that's classified as domestic violence. That is totally different to someone who has been bashed. It's totally different. We don't define what domestic violence is, but she put it all in together because it sounds good.
She talked about men having control over the women. I can tell you for a fact that there are a lot of women who have control over men. But she won't admit that. There are controlling women who tell their husbands: 'Sorry, you can't go and have a beer with your mates. You can't go fishing. You can't do this.' It is happening all the time. Or it's, 'You're spending too much money.' It works from both sides. I'm sick of the debate of whether it's men or women. Look at a topic and determine what is fair and just.
I'm sorry to see this being pushed through. We need to deal with this and it should be dealt with. I've heard that the minister wants this to go through in a rush because she's going to be giving a speech. She wants something so that she can go out there, wave the banner and say, 'Look what I've done.' And Senator McAllister supports this. Labor support this. She gave a pat on the back to women's organisations. She's not fair. She's not looking at what's fair and just right across the board. Again, this is where One Nation stand up above everyone else because we're trying to do what is right, right across our whole society. But she won't admit that there are men out there who are being mistreated in our court system, through child support and through everything. She won't admit it. She's always on about the women. I'm a female. I've been through it. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not taking sides here. I'm trying to find a balance that is fair. That's all One Nation ever do in this parliament. We try to find out what's fair and just for all concerned.
I'm not happy with this bill being pushed through, but again Labor have done deals with the Liberal Party to push it through without finding the right outcomes for the Australian people. I won't be supporting the bill based on that, because it is being rushed through. There's a lot more we should actually have been addressing in this bill, not just giving a minister the right to say, 'Look what I've done.' That's basically what it is. I'm not happy.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (11:07): Firstly, I'd like to thank all those senators who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges. This measure will clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and ensure that taxpayers who receive a refund of shortfall charges are not inadvertently disadvantaged. This will enable the market for these certificates to work as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising cost impacts on consumers.
Schedule 2 of the bill establishes a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with the franchising code by amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available under this code to the greater of $10 million, three times the benefit obtained from the contravention of the code or 10 per cent of annual turnover. The maximum civil penalties that can be applied to industry codes generally will also be lifted from 300 to 600 penalty units, or $133,200.
Schedule 3 of the bill delivers on a government commitment to reduce costs and simplify reporting for affected superannuation funds by streamlining an administrative requirement for the calculation of exempt current pension income. It does so by removing the redundant requirements for superannuation trustees to obtain an actuarial certificate when calculating their exempt current pension income when all the fund members are fully in the retirement phase for the entire income year. Schedule 4 of the bill will strengthen the industry codes framework and provide legal certainty by clarifying that industry codes can confer powers and functions on third parties to the commercial relationship between industry participants.
Finally, schedule 5 of the bill improves the visibility of superannuation assets during family law proceedings. This schedule amends the Family Law Act 1975 and also the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow parties to family law proceedings to apply to Family Court registries to request information from the ATO—the Australian Taxation Office—that will assist them to identify their former partner's superannuation interests. Parties will then be able to use this information provided by the ATO to seek up-to-date superannuation information from their former partner's superannuation fund for use in these family law proceedings.
These amendments will reduce time, cost and complexity for parties seeking accurate superannuation information, supporting more separated couples to divide their property on a just and equitable basis. I commend this bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:11): [by video link] I oppose schedules 1 and 2 in the following terms:
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (lines 1 to 19), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 2, page 5 (line 1) to page 6 (line 12), to be opposed.
I just want the chamber to understand what these amendments are about and why I think it's important from a principle perspective to support them, and that is that the first three schedules of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021, basically duplicate the simpler schedules within the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill currently has attached to it my amendment that seeks to end a 25-year long temporary exemption for large proprietary grandfathered companies to not disclose or not submit financial reports to ASIC. It creates a class of companies that are privileged, that are not treated in the same way in which all other companies are treated, and it's something that has to be removed from our legislature.
Because that amendment is to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill, the government have not brought it forward. They haven't brought it forward because they know that that amendment will get up. It's supported by Labor. It's supported by the Greens. It's supported by all of the crossbench. So what they have done here—just so everyone knows—is they've taken schedules out of that bill and attached it to this bill because the other schedules are quite important, and most people agree with them, as I do. We shouldn't let the government run games around very serious matters.
The effect of the amendments that I am proposing today are to remove schedules (1), (2) and (3) to this bill. We can, of course, have our say on those particular schedules if they were presented with the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 4) Bill.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (11:14): The government considers the measures are important and should not be omitted from the bill.
The CHAIR: The question is that schedules 1 and 2 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:14): by leave—I indicate the Greens' support for Senator Patrick's motion, which means we would have voted no.
The CHAIR: Yes. You want it recorded?
Senator SIEWERT: Thank you.
The CHAIR: Do the Labor Party want their vote recorded?
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales) (11:15): by leave—We are opposed to Senator Patrick's amendment.
The CHAIR: Thank you. We will record those.
Progress reported.
PETITIONS
The Clerk: A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: Platinum Jubilee
To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows:
6 February 2022 will be the 70th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the throne of Australia.
A platinum jubilee is a milestone never before reached by a monarch in the shared history of Australia, the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms. It is an historic occasion worthy of public celebration.
On 12 January 2021 the British Parliament established an all-party parliamentary group called "The Queen's Platinum Jubilee Society of the Houses of Parliament" to discuss how to best mark the Platinum Jubilee in the United Kingdom
Your petitioners ask that the Senate initiate a working group, consisting of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from all parties, to plan nationwide events to celebrate this momentous occasion.
by Senator Abetz (from 1,002 citizens).
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH ( Western Australia — Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 11:15 ): I present the 11th report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
2 September 2021
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)
Senator Raff Ciccone
Senator Katy Gallagher
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Senator the Hon James McGrath
Senator Rex Patrick
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston
Secretary: Tim Bryant ph: 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 11 OF 2021
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 1 September 2021 at 7.13 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2021 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2021 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 and Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(h) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021
Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021
Aged Care Amendment (Registered Nurses Ensuring Quality Care) Bill 2021
Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021
Air Services Amendment Bill 2018
Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021
Customs Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation) Bill 2021
Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021
Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018
Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Paid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies) Bill 2021
Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021
Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019
Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021
International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021
Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Transparency and Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Improved Grants Reporting) Bill 2021
Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 (No. 2)
Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021.
(Dean Smith)
Chair
2 September 2021
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Whether the Bill has an appropriate regulatory balance for managing human health risks and reporting requirements for aircraft and maritime vessels to enable Australia' s borders to reopen safely.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Department of Health
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
open
Possible reporting date:
By 14 October 2021
(signed)
Anne Ruston
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Commonwealth Electoral Act (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consider issue of auditing elections "cyber integrity" and voter identification.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Dr Vanessa Teague, School of Mathematics, ANU
vanessa@thinkingcybersecurity.com
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date: 1
4 October 2021
(signed)
Richard Hopkins
for Senator Roberts
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill deals with issues of significant interest to the public and our democratic processes; therefore, the public should be afforded an opportunity to provide submissions and evidence to the parliament. Particularly as we begin the proc s of reflecting on the end of our longest war, the 20-year long conflict in Afghanistan, and looking in to the future of the changing security dynamics in our region, critical public debate is needed about war powers reform, and in particular, the proposed changes within this bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Former Defence and Foreign Ministers (e.g. Fmr Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr)
Academics e.g.
Peter Mulhein (Deakin University)
Dr Andrew Carr (ANU)
Dr Alison Bronowski
Professor David Letts (ANU, Director of Military Law Program)
Professor Ben Saul (Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney)
Australians for War Powers Reform
The Australia Institute
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September/October 2021
Possible reporting date:
30/11/21
November/December 2021
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The impact on the reduction of transparency regarding the Future Fund on investment choices.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Investors
Civil society
Academics
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
On the papers
Possible reporting date:
October 2021
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Investment Funds Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/pri ncipal issues for consideration :
Implications of the proposed changes in the bill, including the proposed FOI exemption and changes to the Medical Research Future Fund
Possible submissions or evidence from :
Department of Finance Department of Health
Future Fund Management Agency
Medical research sector
Public sector unions
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
14 October 2021
Senator Anne Urquhart
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Live Performance Federal Insurance Guarantee Fund Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
There is an urgent need for support for the arts and entertainment sector given the covid situation across the country
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Artists and peak bodies across the arts and entertainment sector
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment & Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
13th October 2021
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a Bill to a Committee
Name of Bill:
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021
Reason for Referral:
Referral is consistent with public and stakeholder interest in scrutiny of these Bills.
Possible Submissions or evidence from:
Unions, energy and environment groups, relevant stakeholders, DIS and regulator/s.
Committee to which the bill is to be referred
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible Hearing date/s
TBC in September
Possible reporting date:
14 October
Senator Anne Urquhart
Chief Opposition Whip
1 September 2021
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This Bill establishes a regulatory framework for a new Australian industry, building on this Government' s strong record of supporting renewables projects and critical grid infrastructure.
The bill will enable the development of an offshore electricity sector.
It will facilitate and regulate the development of offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth waters, including transmission infrastructure and generation.
The Government believes these are important changes and recognises that there is significant interest from the Senate in these issues.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Star of the South
Tasmanian Government (Marinus Link)
TasNetworks (Marinus Link)
SunCable
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September/October 2021
Possible reporting date:
14 October 2021
(signed)
Anne Ruston
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Adequacy of the proposed regime for supporting investment in offshore renewable energy
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Clean Energy Council
Renewable Energy Investors Unions
Academics
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
November 2021
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Significant policy matters impacting First Nations communities including employment services, income support, mutual obligations, alternative employment models.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Dr Elise Klein, Tangentyere Council Aboriginal Corporation, Aboriginal Peak Organisations of the Northern Territory, Central Land Council, Human Rights Law Centre, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, Professor Jon Altman, Children's Ground.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs References Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
14/10
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a Bill to a Committee
COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Reason for Referral:
Need to examine impact of provisions noting the abolition of COAG coincided with the creation of the "National Cabinet".
Possible Submissions or evidence from:
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Attorney-General's Department
Legal academics
Committee to which the bill is to be referred
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible Hearing date/s
TBC
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday, 19 October 2021
Senator Anne Urquhart
Chief Opposition Whip
1 September 2021
Senator DEAN SMITH: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:16): I move:
That general business notice of motion no. 1240 be considered during general business today.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Report
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (11:17): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the presentation of reports from the Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
Leave not granted.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: A postponement notification has been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing the disallowance of the Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021, postponed till 18 October 2021.
The PRESIDENT ( 11:17 ): I remind senators the question on that postponement may be put at the request of any senator. There being no such request, we will proceed.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reference
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:18): At the request of Senator Waters, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2021:
The future of the National Electricity Market, including any changes necessary to deliver a secure, reliable and least cost electricity system, and with particular reference to:
a. the post-2025 market design final advice of the Energy Security Board; and
b. any related matters.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:18): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government will be opposing this motion, as this is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent and undermine the collaborative work of the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments which has been undertaken through the Energy Security Board. The ESB's advice on post-2025 market design is the culmination of two years work and extensive consultation. Their proposed reforms have been warmly welcomed, including by CFMEU Mining and Energy and the Australian Workers Union, as critical to securing Australia's manufacturing sector. The ESB estimates that these reforms could save consumers $1.3 billion. Running a parallel Senate inquiry into a major public consultation will undermine much-needed work to reform the NEM and demonstrates that the Greens prioritise grandstanding on climate change over the national interest.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 2 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say 'aye'; to the contrary 'no'. The noes have it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:19): Could I have an indication about how Labor was intending to vote on that?
Senator Urquhart: We'll support it.
Senator SIEWERT: The ayes have it.
The PRESIDENT: I will call for a division, even though we are in a unique situation where there aren't two voices, on the basis that Senator Urquhart said that the Labor Party was supporting it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:19): Mr President, I'm in the unfortunate position where we don't know where the crossbench stands. So we actually don't know what the state of the chamber is.
The PRESIDENT: You are entitled to call a division.
Senator SIEWERT: If we can get an indication, I may withdraw my request for a division.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:19): In the interests of the chamber, can I put on the record that the government and One Nation both oppose this motion.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, did you want to say something?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:20): In that case, I withdraw the request for a division, but I would like it noted that the Greens, obviously, supported our own motion.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:20): [by video link] Mr President, I just want to confirm whether this is the referral for the select committee.
The PRESIDENT: No, this is the reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee on the future of the NEM—Business of the Senate matter No. 2.
Senator PATRICK: In that case, I would like to indicate my support.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:20): I indicate Labor's support for this motion as well.
The PRESIDENT: So, for the record, the noes have it with those recordings.
Question negatived.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:20): I move:
That—
(1) On Monday, 18 October 2021, the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of section 7 of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Implementing the Technology Investment Roadmap) Regulations 2021 be called on together following the placing of business, and the question be put after 30 minutes.
(2) On Tuesday, 19 October 2021, the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme) Instrument 2021 be called on following the placing of business, and the question be put after 30 minutes.
Question agreed to.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:21): by leave—I would like the Greens' opposition to this motion recorded.
The PRESIDENT: So recorded.
COMMITTEES
Young People: Select Committee
Appointment
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:21): At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Young People, be established to inquire into and report upon:
(a) the impact of the events of 2019-21 on the lives and wellbeing of young people across Australia;
(b) specific issues affecting young people into the future, including but not limited to:
(i) housing affordability and accessibility,
(ii) employment,
(iii) financial security,
(iv) higher education and training,
(v) mental health,
(vi) access to healthcare,
(vii) loneliness and isolation,
(viii) climate change,
(ix) bullying and harassment, and
(x) experience of First Nations youth, culturally and linguistically diverse youth, disabled youth, LGBTQIA+ youth, and young women;
(c) the adequacy and effectiveness of government policy in relation to young people;
(d) the social and economic costs associated with failing to sufficiently include and co-design policy affecting young people and their broader inclusion in decision-making; and
(e) any other related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report by 30 June 2022.
(3) That the committee consist of six senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) Senator Steele-John; and
(d) one nominated by minor party or independent senators.
(4) 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 minority 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) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.
(5) 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.
(6) That Senator Steele-John be appointed as chair of the committee, and the committee elect as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(11) That the committee and any subcommittee 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 and 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 papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Young Australians have many reasons to be optimistic and hopeful for the future. The Australian government's National Youth Policy Framework acknowledges the challenges faced by young people, particularly from the impacts of COVID-19, and outlines the government's significant support and ongoing commitment to delivering practical measures to listen to and support young Australians.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:22): [by video link] Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator PATRICK: I will not be supporting this referral to a select committee, for the same reason that I haven't supported Senator Roberts or Senator Canavan. I refer again to page 485 of Odgers', where the Senate had resolved or put a proposition forward that there should be only three select committees at any one time. If this referral were to go to a reference committee that already stood I would support it.
The PRESIDENT: So the question is that motion No. 1241 be agreed to. Is a division required? I will let Senator Ruston indicate positions that she is aware of.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:23): In the interests of chamber management, I advise that the government, One Nation and Senator Patrick, who has already indicated it, are not supporting this motion.
The PRESIDENT: So, by my count, the noes have it.
Question negatived.
The PRESIDENT: Would anyone like their position recorded?
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:23): by leave—Could you record Labor's position as supporting.
The PRESIDENT: It is recorded that the opposition supported it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:23): by leave—Obviously we support our own motion.
The PRESIDENT: Noted.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The PRESIDENT (11:23): I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:23): I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees —
Discharged—Senator McGrath
Appointed—
Senator Canavan
Participating member: Senator McGrath
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees —
Discharged—Senator Fawcett
Appointed—
Senator Bragg
Participating member: Senator Fawcett
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:24): 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 RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:24): 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—
I am pleased to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021.
This Bill will reform the system of military discipline for those who serve in our Defence Force by improving the way Discipline Officers and Summary Authorities operate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.
To defend Australia and our national interests, we must maintain an operationally capable Defence Force which demonstrates high levels of discipline, professionalism, competence and commitment.
The women and men who join the Australian Defence Force are subject to military law, in addition to civilian law, which has its own discipline system and capacity to impose punishments and orders under the Defence Force Discipline Act.
The Defence Force Discipline Act provides a comprehensive system of military discipline that must be trusted by the Australian people, and most importantly by those who serve in our Defence Force, to be applied fairly and effectively, in all circumstances.
The system of discipline administered by the Australian Defence Force must encourage the men and women of our Defence Force to be accountable for their actions, and importantly, to learn and grow from their mistakes.
Because the people in our Defence Force work and live with one another and within teams, they have a perfectly reasonable expectation that any wrong-doing or breach of discipline will be dealt with quickly and fairly.
Failure to do so may put the lives of others at risk, erodes morale and adversely affects unit cohesion and fighting capability.
Military service and the need to maintain discipline places constraints and responsibilities on the people in our Defence Force.
These challenges are unique and experienced by few of their fellow Australians.
A separate system of military discipline is essential to enable the Defence Force to deal with matters that relate directly to its discipline, morale and operational capability.
It is in this context of a disciplined fighting force that, in some cases, breaches of military discipline by the people in our Defence Force are dealt with more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in similar conduct.
The military discipline system operates in Australia and overseas, in times of peace, conflict and war.
Enforcing military discipline is essential at all times - both in training for operations and during conflict, in often difficult and dangerous circumstances.
Those in the Australian Defence Force are legally bound to follow all lawful commands, including orders that involve considerable risk to their own life and others, or may require them to use lethal force against an enemy.
The military discipline system administered under the Defence Force Discipline Act has three tiers:
At the lowest level is the disciplinary infringement scheme. This enables minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with by the issue of an infringement notice. A person can choose to admit the breach of discipline and be dealt with by a Discipline Officer who may impose a low−level punishment such as a fine or reprimand. This has some similarity to being issued with a speeding ticket by the police; you can accept the ticket and pay the fine, or you may choose to contest the matter in court.
The second tier is the summary system. This comprises of: subordinate summary authorities; commanding officers; and superior summary authorities. These proceedings are adversarial in nature with criminal law-like procedures within the disciplinary infringement scheme and are not administered by legally trained personnel.
At the highest level are superior tribunals. These comprise of Defence Force magistrates, restricted and general courts martial, which deal with more serious matters and apply criminal law procedures.
As early as 1989, The Defence Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review, chaired by the Honourable Xavier Connor AO, QC, reviewed the operation of the newly enacted Defence Force Discipline Act on behalf of Parliament.
He observed, "For the most part…service discipline, particularly as administered by summary authorities, has to do with matters which do not contain any element of criminality and which would not constitute an 'offence' under civil law...Many of them…are of quite a minor nature and probably in more than 90% of these the facts are not in dispute."
These matters referred to by the Review Board range from actions such as those relating to operations against an enemy force, not attending duty on time, the unauthorised discharge of a weapon, and having dirty boots on parade.
Discipline lies at the heart of service in any defence force.
In 2005 the Senate Committee commenting on change within the Australian Defence Force military discipline system noted: '…military command is in many ways defined by obedience and conformity. Discipline is, along with leadership, a crucial underpinning of command.'
At the same time, Australian Defence Force commanders have a duty of care to all the people under their command all of the time, 24/7, whether at home in Australia or deployed overseas.
The priority is not just about maintaining discipline − equally important is the welfare of our sailors, soldiers and aviators who serve in the Australian Defence Force.
By simplifying the disciplinary processes − the time required to resolve commonly occurring minor breaches of military discipline will be significantly reduced.
This will ease the stress on those involved with the disciplinary action process.
A 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the discipline system were overly complex and difficult to use.
The Review found in particular that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve and adversely impacting the people accused of wrongdoing.
Delays in resolving breaches of military discipline also adversely affects the morale, and potentially safety, of other people.
This is particularly so in circumstances where the people in our Defence Force live, work and operate closely together.
The current adversarial court-like summary discipline system has not been serving our Defence Personnel as best it might.
Many senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers are reluctant to use it.
There has been a lack of confidence in applying and understanding the complex court-like requirements of the adversarial summary proceedings.
As a consequence, use of the summary discipline system has been in constant and consistent decline.
The operation of the summary discipline system has proven problematic in recent conflicts; the nature of modern warfare has changed significantly since the Defence Force Discipline Act commenced in 1985.
Our Defence Force personnel have been deployed in smaller Australian formations, often either as independent units or embedded with our allies frequently far from administrative support.
The complexities of the summary discipline system, particularly given the frequency, nature and length of operations overseas, has often resulted in unacceptable delays in resolving or finalising breaches of military discipline.
The reforms in this Bill will build on, and are consistent with the Defence Values of - Service, Courage, Respect, Integrity and Excellence.
The reforms will provide Australian Defence Force commanders, and the women and men who serve under their command, with a system of discipline that allows for minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with quickly and fairly.
More serious offending will continue to be dealt with by a superior military tribunal or referred to civilian authorities as appropriate.
This Bill will reform the discipline system in three ways:
Schedule 1 will expand the operation of the highly regarded and effective disciplinary infringement scheme.
The changes will allow a greater range of minor breaches of military discipline to be dealt with more quickly and fairly, and with less formality within the disciplinary infringement scheme, rather than by the more complex and adversarial service tribunal processes.
This Bill introduces a new senior discipline officer position creating a two-tier disciplinary infringement scheme.
Additional safeguards are included in the Bill to ensure the scheme continues to be operated fairly.
In particular, this reform to military discipline preserves the right of anyone facing a disciplinary infringement to make an informed decision whether to choose to have their matter dealt with under the disciplinary infringement scheme and appear before a discipline officer, or a senior discipline officer in a non-adversarial process.
Schedule 2 modernises the discipline system structure and reduces its complexity by removing the subordinate summary authority.
It re-aligns the rank and punishment jurisdiction of summary authorities, ensuring a logical progression in terms of the rank of the accused person, the seriousness of the breach of military discipline, the level of the punishment that may be imposed and the seniority of the summary authority.
Schedule 3 will further reform the military discipline system by introducing several new service offences. These relate to cyber bullying; receipt of a benefit or allowance; and failure to perform a duty or activity.
Cyber-bullying conduct is corrosive to discipline and can have an extremely adverse effect on the mental well-being of its victims.
The new cyber-bullying service offence will send a very strong message to those in our Defence Force that the use of social media to cyber-bully another person is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the Australian Defence Force.
The intention of this new service offence is to enable Defence to protect victims of cyber-bullying through early intervention and putting a stop to the cyber-bullying behaviour before it gets out of hand.
It will protect the people who choose to serve in our Defence Force.
Current safeguards for persons accused of breaching military discipline will remain.
Crucially, under the disciplinary infringement scheme a person must choose to be dealt with by a discipline officer or senior discipline officer under the disciplinary infringement scheme.
Additional safeguards included in the Bill are:
The requirement for any reasonable excuse to be considered before issuing a disciplinary infringement notice
The ability of a discipline officer or senior discipline officer to dismiss an infringement if the officer considers the person has a reasonable excuse for committing the infringement
Punishments imposed by a senior discipline officer must be reviewed by a commanding officer. On review, a commanding officer will have the power to:
confirm a punishment decision
substitute a punishment decision with a reduced punishment
decide that no punishment be imposed; or that the discipline infringement be dismissed with no punishment imposed.
The reforms in this Bill will have a substantial and positive effect on improving the administration of discipline for all those who serve in our Defence Force.
I would like to acknowledge Rear Admiral Nigel Perry, CSC, RAN and Wing Commander Shane Carlson and their team for their commitment in progressing this legislation.
I would also like to acknowledge the Member for Fisher and his Coalition Backbench Policy Committee on Defence and Veterans' Affairs, including Senator Andrew McLachlan, CSC, for their input and assistance on this Bill. It has been most valuable.
I commend the Bill.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:25): [by video link] I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1435 together.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): I'm advised that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1435 are consequential on amendments (3) and (4), which were not supported and therefore they fall away. I'm happy for you to make a contribution, Senator Patrick, but there is not the possibility of moving those amendments.
Senator PATRICK: I have just also read the running sheet, so I withdraw my intention and will leave the chamber to get on with its business.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (11:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:28): Very briefly, noting I'm paired in support of the bill, I just want to put on the record that I support it.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:28): I move Labor's second reading amendment on sheet 1441:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes many families would not need these changes if the Prime Minister had done his job on quarantine and vaccine roll-out;
(b) further notes the Government's delay in providing certainty about Paid Parental Leave rules in relation to both JobKeeper and the COVID-19 Disaster Payment; and
(c) calls on the Government to ensure that families that rely on Paid Parental Leave are not left worse off".
Labor's second reading amendment notes that many of the families in need of this legislation would not need these changes if the Prime Minister had done his job on quarantine and the vaccine rollout. We further note the government's delay in providing certainty about paid parental leave rules in relation to both JobKeeper and the COVID-19 disaster payment. In this second reading amendment we call on the government to ensure that families who rely on paid parental leave will not be worse off.
Labor's proposed amendment to the bill before us today, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021, is an amendment to a scheme that Labor originally implemented and that we have always considered to be one of our core beliefs. We've always fought for the protection and strengthening of parental rights and the ability for people in Australia to be good parents. The purpose of the PPL scheme is to provide financial support to working primary carers of newborn and newly adopted children, so they can take the time off work that they need to care for a child while keeping connected to their workplace. There are two payments available, paid parental leave and dad and partner pay. This, of course, encourages the health and development of birth mothers and their children, and it promotes equality between men and women. But we know that it's still women who account for 90 per cent of all primary carers' leave. The paid parental scheme provides 18 weeks of payment at a rate based on the national minimum wage of $772.55 a week, which is a total of nearly $14,000. To be eligible for PPL, a person needs to work around one day a week or 330 hours in 10 of the last 13 months, and they cannot have had a break from work for more than 12 weeks. Parents who do not meet the paid parental leave work test may be eligible for the family tax benefit.
Last year, in the context of COVID, this parliament changed the rules so that periods on JobKeeper could be counted as work and we created an exemption so that people could remain eligible if they passed an extended work test, with people needing to work 10 out of the last 20 months. The government's amendment came some seven months after the first lockdown in March 2020. That slow response by the government—despite repeated calls by Labor and many community groups for support—created unnecessary anxiety for Australian families. Unfortunately, it also created a family tax benefit debt for those families who considered themselves to be ineligible over the seven-month period. The change to the work test ended when JobKeeper ended in March 2021. It was clear to everyone but the government that the effects of the pandemic were going to last longer than March this year, but still they had no plan for families who were struggling. Melbourne's third lockdown occurred in February and the fourth started in May. Those families had no certainty about passing the government's work test.
If passed, Labor amendment's to the bill will make the period of time spent on the COVID disaster payment count towards PPL and towards the work scheme conditions—the same arrangement as we saw for JobKeeper last year. This time, payments would be made to individuals who live or work in a declared COVID-19 hotspot and are eligible for the COVID-19 disaster payment. We have also been advised that enabling rules will ensure that parents who are relying on state government business support will, thankfully, also be eligible.
Today, without this amendment, parents who cannot meet the work test because of lockdowns will lose access to paid parental leave—hence the urgency of this bill. But, again unfortunately, as we have seen, the government has been so slow to act that the new provisions will be enacted with effect from 3 June this year, because that's when the COVID-19 disaster payment was announced. In this context, with the government confident that they would be able to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, they had decided to cut off eligibility for PPL for those who were forced out of the workplace after JobKeeper expired. They really overrated their confidence to get on top of the pandemic. And here we are with this necessary amendment to this bill, an amendment that we argued at the time should have remained in the power of the government so it could have the flexibility that's now required. It is another late response from a fumbling and out-of-touch government that hasn't been able to keep up with this pandemic. It took three months for the government to, again, be shamed into offering support to families in lockdowns across Australia. This slow, last-minute response has caused unnecessary havoc to Australian families and their financial planning. Is it any wonder that Australia's birth rate continues to decline?
The government needs to be reaching out to all those Australian families who thought they weren't eligible for PPL because of the work test and aid them in applying. For the many parents who claimed family tax benefit in the meantime because of their work test ineligibility, again, they are now likely to have incurred a Commonwealth debt. Many Australian families have been doing it very tough over the last 18 months, and the joy of a new child, or expecting a new child, can be deeply undermined when your household is suffering economic uncertainty.
Not only have families been trying to keep working from home; they've had to raise the next generation of Australians, with confusion and slow action from this Morrison government. The fundamental change to the way people have been working has caused one of the biggest shake-ups to our everyday lives in living memory, and I note these findings from the Australian Institute of Family Studies: from the very first lockdown there was great uncertainty, anxiety and financial stress for families. The report found that, because of this giant upheaval, parents have been struggling to manage. Seven in 10 parents reported they were either actively or passively caring for children while they worked, and women are still five times more likely to take on the primary caring role and be caught in the juggling act between work and raising children. It is mainly women who are using the PPL scheme and thus it is more of a woman's issue, which makes it obvious why this government has seen it as so unimportant and has ignored it for too long. The extra burden caused by the government's lack of planning and slow response to issues like the eligibility test for the PPL scheme was, Labor feels, completely unnecessary.
People who are not living in a Commonwealth declared hotspot but who have been stood down or have lost hours because of COVID are not eligible, and their access for PPL may now be denied. These parents should not be missing out. If the government had reintroduced the national JobKeeper program, they wouldn't be. In an effort to save face over poor handling of this pandemic and to pretend that everything's fine, the government has failed Australian families yet again. These families are still suffering and having to work under the same stresses even if they are not in an arbitrary hotspot, and they cannot be ignored by this lazy and out-of-touch government.
Currently, there are work test exemptions to the work test for women working in dangerous jobs, such as jockeys and women with pregnancy related illnesses. And there was no work test exemption for women who would otherwise meet the work test but for the impact of family violence, including for people dealing with the impact of family violence and escaping domestic violence. So, yesterday in the House, Labor moved a detailed amendment urging the minister to consider taking action to address the significant shortcomings in the scheme. It mirrored Labor's private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Ten Days Paid Domestic and Family Violence Leave) Bill 2020. This is because Labor knows that keeping people safe from the impact of family violence is everyone's business, and everyone must take responsibility and show leadership. Labor is still the front fighter in relation to fixing these issues. In response to this pressure, I'm pleased that the government has finally amended this bill to give the secretary the power to make rules to make someone exempt, something that we suggested needed to happen because of the pandemic as well as these kinds of issues affecting women in a variety of circumstances. We're glad to see that people experiencing domestic violence will finally be able to be exempted, but it shouldn't have had to come down to Labor moving an amendment for this government to have moved on this.
Family and domestic violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness among women aged between 15 and 44. Two out of every three women who experience domestic and family violence are, of course, in the workplace, so the workplace is a very important component of the government's family violence policy response. Fleeing family violence takes time, planning, effort and resources. It causes upheaval and it can be costly, financially and mentally. We know about the fear and anxiety of having to leave a violent or abusive relationship. I can't imagine doing that at a time when you're also pregnant and worried about how you will be able to afford to have your baby and leave a relationship if you were to become ineligible for the PPL that you were expecting. No-one should have to choose between their livelihood and their safety.
After years of calling for this, we finally have a bill that can make a huge difference to women escaping or dealing with domestic violence by allowing this exemption to the work test and continued access to PPL, and I thank the government for moving on this. We're very glad to see these changes. We know we have to continue to hold this slow and ineffective government to account for the rights of families and women. Strong and supportive parental support in the public system is the key to a progressive and productive society. We will continue to fight for the rights of Australian families in this room and across the country.
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:42): [by video link] I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021. The Greens have always been strong proponents of a just and equal paid parental leave scheme. A strong parental leave scheme allows for positive health, wellbeing and bonding between parents and children. It reduces the gender wage gap, it increases the number of women returning to the workforce and it supports long-term economic security for women. I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment on what's needed to ensure best-practice paid parental leave—that is, 26 weeks of paid leave, with six weeks reserved for fathers and partners, to encourage more equitable sharing of care. We need superannuation contributions to be paid on parental leave and we need to remove income provisions that discriminate against families where the birth mother is the higher income earner, because we're not in the 1950s anymore and it does happen these days.
More equitable sharing of paid parental leave between parents helps strengthen the relationships with children, and research shows that it fosters a more equal division of caring responsibilities in the long term, which would be very welcome. Yet despite measures allowing dads and partners to take parental leave, only one in 20 do so. By contrast, the experience in many Scandinavian countries demonstrates that dedicated 'use it or lose it' provisions for both partners are the most effective way to encourage shared care, and the Greens support that approach. I note that workforce participation of mothers is considerably higher in countries that have both a strong paid parental leave scheme and available, affordable child care. We need free, universal early childhood education in this country and we need it now.
To go to the provisions of this bill, we support the extension of the work test rules in light of the ongoing COVID pandemic and in light of the Morrison government's vaccine rollout failure. To be eligible for the Paid Parental Leave scheme a person has to demonstrate that they have worked for 10 of the previous 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and for at least 330 hours within that period. Being unable to meet that work test simply because you are unable to work because of the pandemic should not disqualify parents from accessing the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Many families will have worked out how to make their budget stretch, especially in the current environment, to maximise their time off with their new baby. Losing the leave that they'd counted on being able to access because the pandemic has robbed them of their hours or their whole job would have a devastating impact on so many families, potentially leaving them nearly $15,000 worse off.
After the Greens raised this issue, the government moved to address it during the first wave of the pandemic, which we are grateful for. This bill now extends that safeguard, given that we're still in this godforsaken pandemic because of the aforementioned failure to build proper quarantine facilities and properly vaccinate the population, including children and young people. But, back to this bill, I acknowledge that provision 36AA, added by the government last night, recognises that other special circumstances should be taken into account where a parent can't meet the work test because life has intervened and unexpectedly prevented them from working. I note that this could include women needing to take time off because they're escaping family or domestic violence. It could include someone who needs to take leave during their pregnancy to attend hospital with their spouse or child struggling with a serious illness, or it could include a parent who can't work, because their workplace was destroyed during a bushfire. Many of those special circumstances could eventuate and have eventuated. This amendment recognises that a rigid application of the work test ignores those unexpected circumstances, which can completely throw your plans, through no fault of your own. The amendment gives welcome flexibility to take account of special circumstances and prevents families going into the birth of their child with the unexpected loss of parental leave on top of whatever other trauma has prevented them from meeting the work test. We support that amendment.
I note that we will also be supporting the amendment proposed by Senator Griff to fix the discriminatory impacts of the parental leave income test where a birth or adoptive mother earns over the threshold amount. It's an issue that we've raised a number of times previously, and, as I'm sure folk realise, paid parental leave is currently available where a birth mother's income is less than $150,000, irrespective of her partner's income. Paid parental leave entitlements can be transferred to a partner whose income is less than $150,000, but, where a birth mother's income exceeds $150,000, neither she nor her partner is eligible for paid leave. In practice, this means that, where a mother earns, for example, $55,000 and her partner earns, say, $155,000, the family will be eligible, but, where the tables are turned and it's the mother who's earning the higher income, the family wouldn't be eligible for paid parental leave. As a family, the collective income is the same, but the options to navigate paid leave and shared care arrangements would be very different. It shouldn't be that way. It is a modern world. Despite the fact that this government wants to keep us in the 1950s, we are not in fact in the 1950s anymore. The government has previously acknowledged this disparity in the income test and has committed to finding a solution. But, as is so often the case with this government, there has been an announcement but no follow-through. We commend Senator Griff for bringing forward this amendment once we get to the committee stage, and we flag that we will be supporting it.
With that, I note that I have foreshadowed a second reading amendment. I think that there is one already before the chair, but I shall move my second reading amendment when the time comes.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:48): [by video link] This bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021, amends the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to assist people who have been affected by the economic impacts of the pandemic and enables them to still be eligible under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The lockdowns and restrictions currently affecting many states have affected and are affecting the ability of many people to work. Some have been stood down or have seen large reductions in their work hours, which in turn can affect the ability of working parents to meet the work-test requirements of the scheme.
I am certainly happy to support a bill that seeks to address inequality in accessing the scheme at a time of great hardship for many. However, we also know that the Australian Paid Parental Leave scheme is far from best practice when compared to similar overseas jurisdictions, particularly Scandinavia and Canada. A great deal of inequality is embedded in the act and this needs to be dealt with. One area of inequality is that PPL does not extend to foster parents and kinship carers. These carers may be asked to look after a new baby or toddler at the drop of a hat. They don't have nine months to plan financially or otherwise for this life-changing event. They of course know the possibility is there because they've signed up to this, but that doesn't ease the financial burden.
We know from research that the first two years of life are developmentally very important for every child. They are the vital years during which a child forms secure or even insecure attachment behaviours which go on to dictate how they approach all other relationships in their life. They are the foundation of their future emotional security. Paying foster parents and kinship carers PPL would help a primary carer to afford to take some time off to bond with a new child in the family, whether that placement is for a few years or even a permanent one.
Opponents of this idea will point to the carer payment that foster parents receive, but this is a stipend that is not paid at even close to the level of PPL. More importantly, this money is for the child's care—and keep in mind that the child is often traumatised and has high needs. This money is not designed to sustain a family if the working foster parent elects to do the right thing and take leave. A number of top-tier firms in Australia have acknowledged this inequity by including foster carers in the paid parental leave they offer their employees, and it's time that the federal Paid Parental Leave scheme also ended its discrimination against this group of parents. To that end, Senator Siewert will be moving a second reading amendment on this on my behalf.
Another area the government has failed to correct is inherent discrimination, which penalises breadwinner mums and stay-at-home dads. The eligibility for the government's 18-week parental leave pay is tied to the mother's income except in the case of adoption. This means that if the mother earns more than $150,000 the family cannot qualify for parental leave pay, even if the partner earns under the cap or even if they earn nothing at all. This family unit gets nothing. They are financially punished. But where the mother earns less than $150,000 she can access the parental leave payment regardless of how much her partner earns. He could be earning a million dollars. We would all have to agree that this is manifestly unfair. This is not a debate about the cap. This is not another class war. But failure to correct the anomaly embeds discrimination and sexism in the paid parental leave system. High-earning women are penalised for being high-earning, as if this were something unusual. Surely the same threshold should apply to all parents, male or female?
I would hope that most of us here would agree that the view of the mother as the only primary carer is outdated and that this is a rule that penalises breadwinner mums and stay-at-home dads. It's a legacy of a scheme designed 11 years ago, when the notion of stay-at-home fathers was very much an afterthought. It makes absolutely no sense to stick with a policy that penalises family units that consist of stay-at-home fathers and breadwinner mothers. It needs to change now. That is why I propose an amendment that does away with this out-of-date component of the scheme. It is the same amendment I moved to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill in June last year. It was supported by everyone in this place except for the government and One Nation, who voted against it because of some vague assurances by the government of something of some kind coming down the line. I call on the government and One Nation today to support my amendment in this place and in the other place.
Modern parents don't define themselves as primary or secondary carers and neither should the legislation that supports and regulates their family life. By supporting this amendment, the Senate will bring the PPL scheme into the modern era. The amendment circulated in my name is framed as a request because it amends section 54 of the act, expanding the parameters of who can make a claim for paid parental leave. It was fully costed by the PBO last year, and the cost is relatively minor, an estimated $27.3 million over the forward years. These costings were again provided to government, the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench with plenty of time to consider them, and I would hope this chamber can unanimously support my amendment.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:54): In summation, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (COVID-19 Work Test) Bill 2021 introduces amendments aimed at supporting working parents who have had their work affected by COVID-19 lockdowns across Australia to continue to access payments under the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The bill helps to ensure that more parents, particularly women, can be supported to take time off work after the birth of their child through the demonstrated attachment to the workforce. I thank senators for their contributions and acknowledge the intent behind many of the amendments. The government will not be supporting the amendments. I commend this bill to the Senate.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:55): by leave—I indicate the Greens' support for that amendment.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:55): [by video link] by leave—We of course support our own amendment. I also place on the record that we support the other second reading amendments too.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:56): [by video link] by leave—I want recorded my support for that second reading amendment and the other second reading amendments as well.
The PRESIDENT: No worries.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:56): At the request of Senator Griff, I move the following Centre Alliance second reading amendment:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the vital role that foster and kinship parents play in raising over 44,000 Australian children in out-of-home care by providing a safe and loving environment;
(b) recognises that the Federal Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme excludes kinship and foster parents, representing a significant disservice to vulnerable children in the child protection system who are placed with a new family;
(c) notes that research shows the ages of 0-2 are a developmentally vital time in which a child forms secure or insecure attachment behaviours and PPL assists primary carers to spend valuable bonding time with an infant;
(d) further acknowledges a number of top-tier firms in Australia do not discriminate against foster and kinship parents and include them in the paid parental leave they offer to their employees; and
(e) calls on the Government to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to foster and kinship parents of children aged 0-2".
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:56): by leave—Could you record the Greens' support for that amendment, please?
The PRESIDENT: I've already recorded the support of Senator Patrick and Senator Pratt on behalf of the Labor Party. Senator Griff, I take it that you would like your support of your own amendment recorded?
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:57): [by video link] by leave—Yes, absolutely. I also support the other second reading amendments.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:57): At the request of Senator Waters, I move the following second reading amendment:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that strong, equitable paid parental leave improves the lives of families; and
(b) calls on the Government to strengthen the paid parental leave scheme by:
(i) extending leave entitlements to 26 weeks, with six weeks reserved for fathers or partners to encourage more equitable sharing of care,
(ii) requiring superannuation contributions to be made on paid parental leave, and
(iii) removing income provisions that discriminate against families where the birth mother is the higher income earner".
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:57): by leave—I'd like recorded that we support our amendment.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:57): [by video link] by leave—I'd like recorded that I support that amendment too.
The PRESIDENT: I've got the Labor Party's position and that of Senator Patrick already recorded. The question is now that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:58): [by video link] I move:
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 21), after item 9A, insert:
9B After paragraph 54(1)(a)
Insert:
(aa) if the child's birth mother is unlikely to satisfy the income test on the child's expected date of birth, or did not satisfy the income test on the day the child was born:
(i) the biological father of the child; or
(ii) the partner of the child's birth mother;
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to increase the classes of persons who can claim parental leave pay.
The amendment would allow the biological father of a child or the partner of the child's birth mother to make a primary claim for parental leave pay for a child, if the child's birth mother does not, or is not likely to, satisfy the income test at the relevant time.
As this will increase the number of persons who would be eligible to receive parental leave pay, the amendment will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.
Senator GRIFF: I have previously outlined the inherent inequality in the current PPL scheme where there is a bias against family units that consist of stay-at-home fathers and breadwinner mothers. This amendment will bring the PPL scheme into the modern era, as I have previously spoken about. I hope that the chamber will support it.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (11:59): [by video link] I indicate that this is a good amendment and I'll be supporting it.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): The question is that the request for an amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:59): by leave—I'd just like to put on the record our support for the amendment.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:59): by leave—I'd like to put the Greens' support for this amendment on the record.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So we're noting Labor's support, the Greens' support and Senator Patrick's support, and, obviously, Senator Griff's support. There are no other indications. So that amendment is lost.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:00): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:01): I move:
That—
(a) if consideration of the following bills has not concluded by 1 pm, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate:
i. National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021,
ii. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021,
iii. Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, and
iv. Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021;
(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:01): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021. This bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to facilitate the purchasing of COVID-19 vaccines, inclusive of boosters and necessary consumables and COVID-19 treatments. Labor supports this bill, as it will ensure funds are always available for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters, treatments and related consumables. At present, funds are only available through appropriation bills, which are not frequent or flexible enough during the pandemic. When new purchase agreements with suppliers are negotiated, at present the department has to meet upfront payments within existing resources while waiting for the next appropriation bills to receive royal assent. This can take more than six months, making it difficult for the department to meet all of its existing financial commitments. The bill confers a spending power on the minister for health to enter into arrangements and make payments in relation to securing COVID-19 vaccines and related goods and services, such as boosters, necessary consumables and COVID-19 treatments. This power will be time limited to 30 June 2022.
This bill is a sensible change which will enable the Australian government to better manage the purchasing of additional vaccines and other supplies, but it does not absolve the Morrison government for the fundamental failure that has been their vaccine program. Mr Morrison had two jobs this year: a speedy, effective rollout of the vaccine, and quarantine. He has failed at both. The vaccine rollout has been shambolic.
Mr Morrison said that Australia was at the front of the queue, but, when it became clear we were at the back of the queue, Mr Morrison changed his mind and said: 'This isn't a race.' He is wrong. It is a race, and Australians are paying the price for his failures. Mr Morrison said that Australia was at the front of the queue for the vaccine, but, as 30 June 2021 approached, Australia's rollout was ranked as the worst in the OECD and 113th in the world. We have one of the slowest rollouts in the developed world. Countries like the US, Japan and the United Kingdom were making Pfizer deals back in July 2020. Australia didn't secure a Pfizer deal until the end of 2020, putting us at the back of the queue. Mr Morrison promised that four million Australians would be vaccinated by the end of March 2021, but, by the end of March, there had been only 600,000 doses administered—some 15 per cent of Mr Morrison's target. Mr Morrison then promised that all aged-care residents and workers would be vaccinated by Easter 2021. Shockingly, only 45,000 aged-care residents were fully vaccinated by 10 April. Mr Morrison later abandoned plans to provide vaccines directly to aged-care workers, and on 30 June only one-third of staff in aged-care homes were fully vaccinated. Mr Morrison appeared on multiple media outlets on 9 July amid reports he had struck a new deal to bring additional Pfizer into Australia. But Pfizer then contradicted Mr Morrison:
The total number of 40 million doses we are contracted to deliver to Australia over 2021 has not changed. We continue to work closely with the government to support the ramp up of their rollout program …
Mr Morrison never once picked up the phone to the Pfizer chairman to get more Pfizer for Australia. In contrast, Israel's Prime Minister rang the Pfizer chairman more than 30 times.
Mr Morrison has missed every target he has set, and now the Liberals and Nationals have dropped the idea of vaccine targets altogether. Instead, Australia has 'horizons'. The thing about a horizon is that you never actually meet it. That's the problem we've had under this government. Scott Morrison continues to say our children will not be counted as part of the national plan. The Prime Minister needs to stop playing word games with Australia's parents. He needs to explain why Australia is so far behind many other countries in protecting our 12- to 15-year-olds. At the very least, Australia's parents deserve a separate commitment about when their 12- to 15-year-old children will be fully vaccinated and what target Mr Morrison has for their vaccination rates. The lockdowns—which are having a devastating impact on Australians, their families, their communities, their businesses and their mental health—keep going on as a result of Mr Morrison's failures. And the outbreak that these lockdowns are fighting is itself a result of the Morrison government's failure to provide a safe, dedicated national quarantine system. This Prime Minister not only doesn't hold a hose; he simply doesn't do his job
I understand that amendments are being proposed by other parties. This bill, which will make the administration of vaccine contracts easier, is a welcome one, and Labor supports it for that reason, without amendment. But this small action, this late in the game, cannot and will not absolve the responsibility of the Prime Minister for his vaccine and quarantine failures. It is well and truly past time for the Prime Minister to get on with it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:07): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021. This bill makes administrative changes that enable the government to make payments for COVID vaccines, treatments and consumables out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This will ensure that the government doesn't need to rely on the passage of appropriation bills to pay for COVID treatments. Importantly, this bill includes a sunset of 30 June 2022. In other words, it's not exactly a blank cheque. The Greens will be supporting this bill, because we believe that we do need to be ready to invest in new technologies, vaccines and boosters as they become available. Boosters will be an essential part of our strategy to combat COVID going forward. I note that the UK is set to start its further booster program this month. Of course, boosters do bring into question the issue of global equity, as many people in lower-GDP countries have not had the vaccine yet; some countries have had hardly any access to vaccines. That needs to be addressed.
While this bill gives the flexibility to flexibly purchase COVID vaccines going forward, it doesn't help the serious and fundamental issues with the current rollout. I am seriously concerned about the rollout, as I have articulated in this place, particularly for First Nations communities, who are supposed to be priorities yet are suffering from the lowest vaccine rates. We are also seriously concerned that, while the government continues to talk about the 70 to 80 per cent targets outlined in the so-called national plan, this does not include children above the age of 12. We believe this is a significant failure given that 70 per cent means that just 60 per cent of the total population is vaccinated, and that potentially has significant consequences for our community.
Premier Berejiklian yesterday said that once New South Wales reaches a 70 per cent vaccination rate then people will be able to go out to get food and drinks and to events. Please do not forget that this means only 56 per cent of the entire population is covered. This is of deep concern. We should not be starting to lift restrictions before we make sure that those at risk in our community are vaccinated and we have specific targets for them. So we need to include in our national targets vaccinations for children and young people between the ages of 12 and 15 and not just use the above-16 rate. ATAGI has now approved Pfizer for this age group, so we need to be vaccinating those young people, those children, and including them in the targets.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Morrison Government's vaccination program has failed to protect at risk communities; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately:
(i) include children and teenagers between 12 to 15 years old in the national vaccination targets, and
(ii) set specific vaccination targets for at risk communities in consultation with experts and communities".
This calls on the government to immediately include children and young people above the age of 12 in the national vaccination targets and to set specific vaccination targets for at-risk communities. We cannot open up before we ensure that those at-risk communities—First Nations peoples, older people above the age of 60 and 70 and disabled people—also have targets met. We know that if we open up and we haven't ensured that we've met certain targets for those groups, on the advice of the experts in this area, that they are at serious risk, which is why they were included in the 1a and 1b categories in the first place.
The government has failed to ensure protection of First Nations communities. In western New South Wales we are obviously seeing an outbreak now, but it's essential that all First Nations communities are able to have the vaccine. This is so important because we know from experience overseas that at-risk groups are at the forefront of the COVID crisis and being impacted by it. I'm sick of the government saying, 'We are going to 70 and 80 per cent,' and just relying on one model and not looking at the fine print but also not looking at the other models.
Just to finish off, the Greens will be supporting this legislation. We think it is really important that the government has the resources to be able to pay for additional vaccines, as I said, consumables, boosters and the things that are needed to address COVID-19. But along with that must go a commitment to targets that will protect our community, will protect young people and will protect at-risk communities. That's why I'm moving our second reading amendment.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:12): I thank all members in the chamber for their contributions on this debate. The National Health Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2021 will support our national plan to transition Australia's COVID-19 response by ensuring the government can continue to purchase COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters, COVID-19 treatments and related consumables. Not only will these provide protections for Australians, reducing the risk of severe disease and hospitalisation from COVID-19; they will help steer our nation towards the next phase of transition out of this pandemic. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:14): [by video link] I move amendment (1) on sheet 1422 standing in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 22), at the end of Part VIIIB, add:
132H Report on provision of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments from 1 July 2020
(1) The Minister must prepare a report on expenditure relating to the provision of:
(a) COVID-19 vaccines (including boosters); and
(b) treatments for COVID-19; and
(c) consumables related to the use of such vaccines and treatments.
(2) The report must include expenditure incurred by the Commonwealth within the period:
(a) starting on 1 July 2020; and
(b) ending on the day this section commences.
(3) The Minister must make the report publicly available on the Department's website within 30 days after the commencement of this section.
132J Monthly report on provision of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments
(1) The Minister must prepare a monthly report on expenditure relating to the provision of vaccines, treatments and consumables under section 132G.
(2) The Minister must make the monthly report publicly available on the Department's website within 14 days after the end of the month to which the report relates.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Do you wish to speak to that amendment?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don't. It's self-explanatory.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:16): At the outset of these remarks, I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes the Government has not committed to implementing all the recommendations of the second anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme; and
(b) calls on the Government to listen to survivors and:
(i) increase the cap on payments to $200,000, as recommended by the Royal Commission;
(ii) end the indexation of prior payments;
(iii) fix the assessment matrix and properly recognise the impact of abuse;
(iv) make sure funder of last resort arrangements are in place so survivors don’t miss out;
(v) address the limitations in the support that enables survivors to access redress, noting the large shortfall in expected applications, including among First Nations people;
(vi) guarantee that offers of redress will not be reduced on review; and
(vii) provide ongoing counselling and support".
The issues covered by this amendment will be well outlined in the remarks I will now make.
It has been almost a decade since the Labor government, under Julia Gillard, announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The whole point of this royal commission was to listen to people who had been abused and then betrayed, silenced and ignored. The scheme that was ultimately rolled out by this government in response to the findings of the royal commission did not fully realise the recommendations of the royal commission. The royal commission estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. As of 26 March, the scheme had received some 10,000 applications, and the slow rate of these applications indicates that the scheme is difficult to navigate, inadequate and hard to find. Those findings have certainly been reinforced when the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme has spoken to survivors. Survivors have spoken of the difficulty of preparing and making application. For one survivor, it took some 17 months to be able to put it in. A Senate estimates hearing last year revealed that the average time for processing was beyond 12 and 13 months and that the scheme has been plagued by delays, a lack of resources, low quality of support, and the geographic spread of support services. I've been particularly concerned, as has the redress committee, about the barriers the scheme throws up for First Nations people, people from CALD backgrounds and people with a disability.
Earlier this year, Labor moved a comprehensive suite of amendments to overhaul the scheme and get it back on track to end delays and ensure that survivors didn't miss out. The government then refused those amendments on the basis that the second-anniversary review was yet to report. That report has now been completed; it was completed months ago. What it found was largely consistent with what we moved to amend in the legislation last time—things like there not being enough staff or IT resources to provide for survivors; continued delays; and an inability to deliver for survivors.
While today we don't want to stand in the way of these amendments, they fall well short of what survivors have asked and what Labor proposed. Indeed, they fall short of what the review itself highlighted, which Minister Ruston said at the time that she would respond to. We have institutions still not joining the scheme, and they are shielding their assets or becoming defunct. While we welcome the government's power to revoke the charity status of such institutions and its pledges to name and shame them, this measure does not go far enough. It does not deliver the kind of justice that these survivors deserve. The government needs to seek financial contributions from these institutions through a levy or through the tax system, and where institutions are genuinely unable to pay or are defunct the government needs to act as funder of last resort. We know the government is considering this, but what we need and seek from the government is an ironclad guarantee to provide certainty for survivors. For years we've called for an early payment scheme to ensure that the elderly or unwell do not miss out on redress. We're glad the government has finally come to the table on this, and it's reflected in the bill today, but I'm sad that it's taken too long and that during that time we've had survivors die without compensation. If the government had acted sooner, as it should have, fewer people would have died waiting for this step to justice.
Survivors have also criticised the caps within the scheme, indexation of prior payments and the deduction of unrelated prior payments, including stolen-generations payments. Some of our First Nations people have suffered as stolen generations and as survivors of institutional child sex abuse. It is a shame that it has been constructed in this way when we should be seeking every opportunity to repair and not to discount this damage. Instead we have stolen-generations payments being deducted from survivors' redress, as if surviving one of these experiences means you don't deserve justice from the other. Is that really the way this should be constructed? We hear that these barriers and delays are forcing survivors to give up or to seek justice outside the scheme through more difficult, costly and lengthy civil claims. These are the things the scheme was designed to avoid.
The bill will reduce the time frame over which prior payments are indexed before being deducted from a redress payment. It will do this by ceasing indexation when an application for redress is made, not at the time when the application is finalised. I have to say that, in Labor's view, this is simply not good enough. We are once again calling for the indexation of prior payments to cease completely and ensuring that unrelated payments are not deducted. We're calling on the government to lift the cap on payments from $150,000 to $200,000. The government should provide a guarantee that a review of an offer of redress will not result in the offer being reduced. These are the things that survivors have been calling for, and they are what the royal commission recommended.
I'm also disappointed to say that the bill does not address major shortcomings in the assessment matrix. The government's assessment matrix sets low and arbitrary payments for the impact of abuse based on the kind of abuse, not on the scale of its impact on a survivor's life. Labor agrees with survivors and argues that the term 'penetrative' should be removed in acknowledgement that trauma is caused not only by penetrative abuse and that some victims have been unable to properly disclose the physical nature of their abuse in the application matrix. The bill also fails to provide the ongoing psychological support that survivors have called for and, again, that the royal commission recommended.
Sadly, the Redress Scheme under this government falls short of the original recommendations of the royal commission, and the improvements in the legislation before us today fall short of properly getting redress back on track and delivering real redress to survivors—redress that is timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not and should not leave survivors missing out.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:24): I rise to make a contribution to this second reading debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2021 and to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this important legislation. We see this as a down payment on the changes the government needs to make to the redress bill. I've spoken about these changes before. The Greens articulated this when we were in this chamber debating the bill in the first place: the redress bill did not, to turn a phrase, fit the bill—it didn't then and it doesn't now. It didn't go far enough, and there were significant problems with it. And, because it was one minute to midnight in getting the legislation through, those changes couldn't be made, and here we are all these years later having to make these amendments.
As I said, the Greens see these amendments as a down payment. It is the first step towards implementing the second anniversary review, the Robin Creyke review, which contained many, many important amendments that the community and survivors and care leavers have been calling for for a long time. A lot of the problems with the bill were evident even before the scheme started. I am actually pleased that there are moves to pass this first round of amendments, so that some of these important changes can be made.
First off, the advance payments are particularly important for those ageing and ill survivors. We support advance payments. We think they're a very good idea and have in fact been supporting them for a long time. Turning to the issues around indexation, this is a major bone of contention with the scheme. It has been ever since the scheme started. I remember standing—at that seat over there, I think it was—and trying to move amendments to fix the indexation issue, because it is simply not fair. Survivors have been complaining and raising their concerns about this. Now, while this change is a small step in the right direction, it does not address the concerns of survivors. It does not go far enough, and I'm disappointed that we are still having that debate here. Another point that has been raised many times, including with the joint committee on the redress scheme, relates to extending review and acceptance periods. The removal of statutory declaration requirements for applications has also been raised many times, as has the payment of instalments been raised—many, many times, in fact. So we are supporting those amendments.
But there are many things that still need to be addressed. One of those—as the minister knows, because I have raised it repeatedly—relates to funders of last resort. I will say that Minister Ruston has acknowledged this and has made some changes on funders of last resort. This was a major issue when the scheme was proposed and we were debating the first bill. It was blatantly obvious that the funder of last resort provisions in that bill would not work. And, as we see, that has proven to be the case. We need to make sure that people who were in institutions that are now defunct—institutions that no longer function—are able to get redress payments. It is my belief that, if the application is processed by the department and it is found that redress is due, governments should pay it, and then argue with the institution. Governments, state and federal, should be the backstop in terms of funders of last resort. I don't want to let institutions off, by any stretch of the imagination. Institutions should pay their due for the damage they have caused to generations of survivors and care leavers. That is an area that the Greens will continue to follow. Institutions should pay their dues for the damage they have caused to generations of survivors and care leavers. That is an area that the Greens will continue to follow.
I would also like to just touch very briefly on the issue of Fairbridge. We had another hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme not that long ago where we heard some conflicting and concerning evidence around how the process is intended to work for those people that went to Fairbridge. I think we need to continue to pursue this issue, because I'm not convinced that this issue has been resolved. It involves the Prince's Trust and Fairbridge Restored. Whether there is going to be a separate scheme or not, survivors have conflicting understandings about the Fairbridge matter, and it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. Fairbridge operated homes in a number of places across Australia but particularly in Western Australia, in the south-west of Western Australia, and I am deeply concerned about ensuring that survivors get their due redress and for this matter to not be drawn out any further.
The Greens will be supporting this bill, but there is more work to be done. This is a down payment on addressing the issues that came up during the Kruk inquiry. I'd also like to congratulate Ms Kruk for the work she did in the second anniversary review. It brought out the issues that so many people have had with this scheme and that need to be addressed. Having said that, we will be supporting this bill, but we'll be keeping a very close eye on the next stage of amendments.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:31): I thank senators for their contribution on this really, really important bill. I suppose I am somewhat disappointed by the contributions particularly made by the Labor Party and, to some extent, Senator Siewert. They know that this is a scheme that is voluntarily contributed to and also requires the agreement of states and territories for any changes to the act. To do otherwise would be in breach of our intergovernmental agreement with the states and territories. This bill reflects the initial action of the government. We have managed to get agreement for five amendments in order to progress five of the recommendations of the two-year review.
Senator Siewert, in relation to funder of last resort, the government has already publically stated that it supports the funder of last resort arrangements to cover defunct institutions where there is no government responsibility and where existing institutions do not have the financial capacity to join the scheme. We made that position very, very clear in our interim response to the two-year review and have reported that in the media as well. We've also received funding allocations through budget measures to make sure that we have the funding of the federal government's contribution, and we await the states and territories to come back and confirm to us that they also agree to do this, but clearly there were budget processes that they needed to undertake within their individual states and territories.
I'd also like to say to the chamber that the government has been very clear about its overwhelming support for many of the recommendations of the Kruk review, but we're also very mindful of the voluntary nature of the scheme, and we are very, very concerned with making sure we keep in the scheme everybody who has agreed to participate in the scheme, because that is the best way that the government can ensure that survivors who put their names forward and apply to the scheme for redress are able to receive the redress that absolutely every one of them deserves. We remain committed to making sure this scheme is survivor focused, and everything we do is in the best interests of ensuring that survivors are at the absolute forefront of everything we do. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ): The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:34): We would like Labor's support to be recorded.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:34): Similarly, the Greens would like to record their support for the second reading amendment.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ) (12:34): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? There being none, I call on the minister to move the third reading.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (12:35): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:35): I'm pleased to speak today on the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. My particular focus is on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Most citizens pay little attention to matters relating to the AAT until they are confronted with an administrative decision they feel is incorrect. The AAT is a place to which Australians go to address the administrative wrongs in the federal government and bureaucracy. It's a process which should be fair, just, economical, informal and quick, and it's a process that should not be tainted by political bias and favouritism. Ordinary Australians seeking redress for alleged administrative failures don't want to turn up to find that the matter will be heard by someone who is only sitting on the tribunal because they were a former staffer, a former politician or a friend of a government minister, yet that's precisely what we are increasingly having. In a remarkable abuse of power to make appointments to the AAT, over the past seven years coalition government attorneys-general have appointed to the AAT some 80 members and senior members who have direct Liberal or National Party affiliations, a large number of them with no legal qualifications. The coalition government has gifted these appointments, which pay between $193,000 and $496,000 per annum, to former Liberal candidates, donors, staffers and former MPs.
Coalition AAT appointments include James Lambie, former chief of staff to former Attorney-General George Brandis, and Ann Brandon-Baker, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Here are just a few more for you: Gary Humphries, a former Liberal senator; Robert Cameron, a Victorian Liberal state electoral council chairman; Paul Clauson, a former Queensland National Attorney-General; Michael Cooke, a former adviser to Tony Abbott; Denis Dragovic, a Victorian Liberal state candidate; Ann Duffield, a former Liberal chief of staff to Scott Morrison; Richard Ellis, a former chief of staff to Western Australian Liberal Premier Colin Barnett; Matthew Groom, a former Liberal Party member for Denison; Donald Morris, a former senior adviser to Senator Abetz; Andrew Nikolic, a former Liberal MP for the seat of Bass; Justin Owen, a New South Wales Liberal Party office holder; Belinda Pola, a former chief of staff to former senator Mathias Cormann and a staffer to former Treasurer Joe Hockey; Chris Puplick, a former Liberal senator for New South Wales; Theo Tavoularis, a Liberal Party donor; Rachel Westaway, a former Liberal candidate for the New South Wales upper house; Antoinette Younes, a former adviser to Senator Cash; Dominic Katter, a Queensland LNP adviser; Grant Chapman, a former Liberal Party MP for Kingston, senator and president of the South Australian Liberal Party; Rodrigo Pintos-Lopez, a former legal adviser to former Victorian Liberal Premier Ted Baillieu.
The list goes on: Bill Stefaniak, a former Liberal leader in the ACT Legislative Assembly; Ian Berry, former LNP member for Ipswich; Simone Burford, former adviser to former Attorney Daryl Robert Williams and senior adviser to Prime Minister John Howard; Helena Claringbold, former staffer to Prime Minister Tony Abbott; David Crayshaw, former Liberal Party staffer; Brendan Darcy, former staffer to federal Liberal MP and minister Kevin Andrews; Phoebe Dunn, former senior adviser to former Attorney Daryl Williams; Peter Emmerton, former Liberal staffer; Shane Evans, former Liberal staffer; Joseph Francis, former Liberal member for the WA seat of Jandakot; William Frost, former senior adviser to former Attorney-General Christian Porter; Steven Griffiths, former SA Liberal member for the seat of Goyder; George Hallwood, a South Australian Liberal branch president; David McCulloch, a former federal Liberal ministerial staffer; Nicholas McGowan, former Liberal candidate for the seat of Jagajaga; Karen McNamara, former Liberal member for Dobell; Justin Meyer, former adviser to former Victorian Liberal Premier Denis Napthine and Liberal Party donor; Helen Moreland, another former adviser to Tony Abbott—I could just read on and on and on. I've got two more pages of names here of Liberal Party staffers and former members of parliament that I could read.
The pattern is very clear. Not all of these appointments are unworthy, I might stress. However, many lack legal qualifications or significant experience of public administration. All too often their only experience is politics. Some are particularly objectionable. The former Speaker of the Western Australian parliament Michael Sutherland has received a full-time AAT appointment for a five-year term. He, controversially, called refugee activists and environmentalists 'a bunch of cockroaches' during an unsuccessful bid to be elected to the Senate in 2007, yet he is now hearing matters related to both environmental matters and refugee applications. Another recent appointee to the AAT with no legal qualification is former national Liberal Party federal member Jane Prentice.
All in all, this long drumroll of coalition political appointees amounts to a gross abuse of power and process with serious effects. The AAT has been turned into a patronage bucket for a government that sees no problem whatsoever in handing out jobs as rewards to political mates. This wave of political appointments unquestionably undermines public trust and confidence in the AAT. Section 7 of the AAT Act provides for appointments of members that, in the opinion of the Governor-General, have special knowledge or skills relevant to the duties of a senior member or member. That special knowledge shouldn't be the phone number of the Attorney-General, whose advice the Governor-General must follow. In a 2018 statutory review of the AAT conducted by former High Court Justice Ian Callinan AC, QC, Justice Callinan recommended amending section 7. He stated:
There is, in my opinion, no necessity to appoint professionals other than lawyers to the AAT (except perhaps for accountants to the Taxation and Commercial Division).
My own experience in the AAT, which is extensive, strongly supports that recommendation. While the AAT is not a court, legal knowledge, training and experience is essential for rigorous review of government decisions and to ensure the integrity of the process. So I'll be moving an amendment to modify section 7 of the AAT Act in accordance with Justice Callinan's recommendation. I would hope that there would be support from the Labor opposition. After all, Labor has made a big deal about these political appointments, although, in August 2019, the opposition refused to support a Senate motion moved by me calling on the government to alter section 7. Unfortunately, I understand that the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, has directed that Labor will oppose my proposed amendment.
Labor says that legal or accounting qualifications won't stop all political appointments. That's true, but most of the 'mate appointees' of the Liberal Party are not former legal practitioners, and so the amendment that requires a person to have held a legal practitioner's qualification for at least five years would, clearly, go a long way toward stopping this appointment corruption. The amendment would radically narrow the field and ensure that appointments have a baseline of professional qualification and training highly relevant to the work of the AAT, which, one should emphasise, can be subject to review by higher courts. That would go a long way toward ensuring public confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of the AAT.
All too often, Labor look at what the Liberals are doing and say, 'How terrible,' but, when it comes to actually voting, they say: 'Now is not the time. Trust us. We'll fix it when we're in government.' That's not a proper response to an abuse that we see happening right now. As much as Mr Dreyfus might be taking a positive view of the Labor Party being elected into government at the next election, that's not guaranteed. We saw that play out last time around. Labor, you cannot sit there and say, 'We're going to fix this problem when in government,' because there's no guarantee that you will be. Support my amendment, which does help fix the problem, and when you get into government you can fix it even more. Don't just ignore a fix, particularly one recommended by a High Court justice. As well, the Liberals have reigned significantly longer than Labor. If you get in next time and you don't make the sorts of changes being talked about here, we run the risk that the next time the Liberal Party are in they'll start the abuse again.
And don't think there aren't folk on the Labor side who don't already have an eye to Labor's appointments, in the event that they win government at the next election. With victory, it seems, will come the spoils, and they'll want to maximise flexibility to find their mates some comfortable spots. This is Labor again pretending they care, pretending they want to stop the stacking, but not actually being willing to stand up and do something. In this case, the public and the parliament would be better served by sticking with the recommendations of a distinguished former High Court justice, Ian Callinan, rather than those of a man lost in the quagmire of politics. Too often, Labor talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk. What a pity they can't bring themselves to act and help stop the rot in the Australian government.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:47): In the interests of time, I will commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:48): [by video link] by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1418 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 17 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:
45 Paragraph 7(2)(b)
Omit "; or", substitute ".".
45A Paragraph 7(2)(c)
Repeal the paragraph.
45B Subsection 7(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person must not be appointed as a senior member or other member unless the person is enrolled as a legal practitioner (however described) of the High Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and has been so enrolled for at least 5 years.
(4) A person may be appointed as a senior member or other member of the Taxation and Commercial Division if the person is:
(a) a member of CPA Australia who:
(i) holds a Public Practice Certificate issued by CPA Australia Ltd; and
(ii) is entitled to use the letters "CPA" or "FCPA"; and
(iii) is subject to, and complies with, CPA Australia's continuing professional education requirements; or
(b) a member of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) who:
(i) holds a Certificate of Public Practice issued by ICAA; and
(ii) is entitled to use the letters "ACA", "CA" or "FCA"; and
(iii) is subject to, and complies with, ICAA's continuing professional education requirements; or
(c) a member of the Institute of Public Accountants (IPA) who:
(i) holds a Public Practice Certificate issued by IPA; and
(ii) is entitled to use the letters "FIPA" or "MIPA"; and
(iii) is subject to, and complies with, IPA's continuing professional education requirements.
45C After subsection 8(3)
Insert:
(3A) To avoid doubt, a member is not eligible for re-appointment to an office unless the member meets the requirements in section 7 for appointment to the office.
(2) Schedule 1, item 60, page 19 (before line 2), before subitem 60(1), insert:
(1A) The repeal of paragraph 7(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 by this Part applies in relation to appointments or re-appointments made on or after the commencement of this item.
(1B) The repeal and substitution of subsection 7(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 by this Part applies in relation to appointments or re-appointments made on or after the commencement of this item.
This amendment is the one that I talked about in my second reading speech. It is time to stop the rot and stop appointments of people who are political mates of Attorneys-General. Whilst this is not a complete remedy, it goes a long way, and I urge the chamber to support it.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:49): Labor does not support this amendment. Senator Patrick has argued that this amendment would ban political appointments, but that is not the case. It would simply limit the Liberals to appointing mates who have law degrees. Indeed, many of the Liberal mates the government has appointed to the tribunal have been lawyers. There are many examples of this, including William Frost, who is now paid $250,000 of taxpayers' money each year. He went straight from Mr Porter's office to his plum new job on the tribunal. William Frost is a lawyer. For all we know, he may be a very good lawyer and he may even be a highly competent tribunal member. I note Senator Seselja assures us he's a very good lawyer, so now I'm wondering. But his appointment, along with the appointment of so many other mates of Christian Porter and other ministers of this government, gives rise to an understandable perception in the community that the tribunal is not independent of government, that it is not fair and that it is not impartial. Senator Patrick's amendment would not address that problem.
It is a significant amendment, but not for the reasons Senator Patrick suggests. The AAT is not a court; it's a merits review tribunal. The role of a tribunal member is to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker, such as a minister or a senior public servant. Ministers and senior public servants are not required to be lawyers or certified accountants, so why should all tribunal members—people who are required to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker—have to be lawyers? There is a legitimate and important debate that we could have about whether the AAT should be more like a court in terms of who sits on it. Perhaps, as Senator Patrick suggests, the tribunal should be made up of only lawyers. Perhaps the parliament should say that 90 per cent of tribunal members must be lawyers or that certain divisions of the AAT should only be made up of lawyers whereas other divisions could have greater diversity. These are legitimate questions, but they are weighty ones. Just to ask these questions is to illustrate that Senator Patrick's amendment has significant implications for the tribunal which extend well beyond the problem of political appointments.
Labor has been consistent in calling out the government on its brazen stacking of the AAT, and we'll continue to do so. Over the last eight years, about 80 Liberal mates have been appointed to the tribunal, many of them lawyers. It's a shameful record and it has done great damage to the tribunal and to the standing of the tribunal in the community. Any suggestion that Labor did it too is completely false. In fact, over the six-year period when Labor was last in government, only two people with Labor connections were appointed to the tribunal, and both were highly qualified and uncontroversial appointments which enjoyed bipartisan support. As it happens, they were also both lawyers. One was Duncan Kerr SC, a fantastic appointment warmly welcomed by the then shadow Attorney-General George Brandis. The other is now an associate professor of law, Linda Kirk, another appointment supported by the Liberals.
Labor has always maintained that membership of a political party is not a disqualification for appointment to the tribunal. But, under the Liberals, it has become the main qualification, and the tribunal has been turned into a taxpayer-funded gravy train for Liberal mates as a result. There are 80 Liberal mates in secure jobs, collectively taking home many millions in taxpayers dollars each year. It's a disgrace. There is nothing in section 7 or anywhere else in the AAT Act that requires the Liberals to stack the tribunal, and the amendment proposed by Senator Patrick would not stop them from stacking the tribunal with more of their mates. The best way to stop political appointments to the AAT is not to support this amendment; it's to vote the Liberals out at the next election.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:53): by leave—Could you please record the Greens' support for this amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): It is so recorded, and Senator Patrick is obviously supporting his own amendment.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:54): [by video link] I move amendment (1) on sheet 1419:
(1) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 17), after Part 10, insert:
Part 10A — Appeals to courts
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
65A Paragraph 43(5AA)(b)
Omit "on a question of law", substitute "for error of law".
65B Part IVA (heading)
After "Appeals", insert "for errors of law".
65C Subsection 44(1) (heading)
Omit "on question of law", substitute "for error of law".
65D Subsection 44(1)
Omit "on a question of law", substitute "for error of law".
65E Subsection 44AAA(1)
Omit "on a question of law", substitute "for error of law".
65F Application provision
(1) The amendment of paragraph 43(5AA)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 made by this Part applies in relation to a written notice given on or after the commencement of this item.
(2) The amendments of Part IVA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to an appeal that is instituted on or after the commencement of this item.
This is a very technical amendment, but, again, it's a recommendation that flows from Justice Callinan, the esteemed High Court Justice—and there has been a lot of judicial debate over this question—about whether or not the tribunal can be appealed on a question of law, or preferably, as my amendment seeks to do, on an error of law. That might not seem very different for people who are not lawyers, but, as someone who has had to deal with these sorts of things, it does make a fairly big difference.
At this point in time, I will comment that, in relation to my AAT matter on the national cabinet, it appears as though the government is not appealing that. They are seeking apply Justice White's ruling by way of legislation. I will know later tonight. I will leave that as a comment. I commend my amendment to the chamber.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:55): Labor does not support these amendments. Senator Patrick's amendments would implement measure 23 of former High Court Justice Ian Callinan's review of the AAT, which says:
Amend s 44 of the AAT Act to provide for appeals from decisions of the AAT, for error of law in lieu of a question of law.
Mr Callinan offers only a very brief explanation for this recommendation. He writes:
The identification of a discrete question of law can be problematic. Fact and law are sometimes inextricably mixed. For clarity, appeals should be for errors of law rather than on a question of law.
With all due respect to Mr Callinan, his report does not identify an actual problem with the existing language in section 44 of the AAT Act. He merely asserts that it is unclear.
While we are open to considering this amendment in the future following a proper consultation process, we do not think it has been sufficiently explained or justified by Mr Callinan. Nor was this recommendation considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to this bill.
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:56): Would you record the Greens support for this amendment?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): Yes.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:56): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill and the addendum response to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:57): I'd like to deal with amendment 1403, which I know is slightly different to the order.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): Please go ahead.
Senator WATT: The opposition opposes item 64 in schedule 1 in the following terms:
(1) Schedule 1, item 64, page 21 (lines 7 to 14), to be opposed.
In its current form, the bill would confer the same protections and immunities on Immigration Assessment Authority reviewers as are currently conferred on High Court judges and members of the AAT. In Labor's view this proposal is misconceived. It is wrong, and this amendment would remove that aspect of the bill.
Reviewers of the Immigration Assessment Authority should not be treated the same way as judges or AAT members for the simple reason that they are not required to act like judges or AAT members. For example, unlike AAT members, reviewers of the Immigration Assessment Authority do not have to take an oath of office, do not have to have special skills or knowledge, do not have terms fixed in advance and are not statutorily required to disclose conflicts of interest. Unlike AAT members, Immigration Assessment Authority reviewers are also not required to afford procedural fairness to applicants.
I understand the government will be supporting this amendment. On behalf of the shadow Attorney-General, I'd like to thank the Attorney-General and her office for her constructive engagement and for agreeing to remove this aspect of the bill. I commend this amendment to the Senate.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): The question is that item 64 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (12:59): As I noted in my second reading contribution, Labor opposes the proposal to change the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to allow the Federal Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, to provide short-form reasons rather than detailed judgements where a decision dismissing an appeal does not raise any questions of general principle. As Labor senators of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee noted in their report, that aspect of the bill has been criticised by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Josephite Justice Office and the Law Institute of Victoria on the basis that it will disadvantage unrepresented applicants, including those seeking review of refugee decisions. We share those concerns, and I'm moving this amendment to remove that aspect of the bill. I understand the government will be supporting this amendment, and again I thank the Attorney-General for listening to our concerns. I commend this amendment to the Senate.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Brockman ): It being one o'clock, the time for the debate has expired. The question is that items 101 and 102 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
The opposition opposed items 101 and 102 of schedule 1 in the following terms—
(2) Schedule 1, items 101 and 102, page 30 (lines 14 to 23), to be opposed.
Question negatived.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the remaining amendment on 1404 revised, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, page 30 (line 13), omit the heading.
Question agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that item 45 stand as printed.
The opposition opposed item 45 of schedule 1 in the following terms—
(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 17 (lines 4 to 5), to be opposed.
Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Brockman ) (13:01): The question 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.
Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The PRESIDENT (13:02): The question is that the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committees for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in relation to this bill and delegated legislation under the Act; and
(b) calls on the Government to respond to the concerns raised by the committees in a timely way".
Question negatived.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:02): by leave—Can you record the support from the Greens for the ALP second reading amendment?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. So recorded. Senator Watt, we will record opposition support for that second reading amendment as well. The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (13:02): 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.
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:03): Labor support the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021, and we'll also be supporting the amendments circulated by the government. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was established by the Rudd government in early 2010 under the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010. Labor created the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review and report on the operation and effectiveness of Australia's national security and counterterrorism laws. Since then, the monitor has produced a number of significant reports recommending improvements to a range of counterterrorism and national security laws. The monitor helps to maintain the confidence of the Australian people in our security and intelligence agencies by ensuring that our laws are effective and fit for purpose and contain appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals. The position is modelled on a similar institution in the United Kingdom which has operated successfully for two decades.
Shamefully and foolishly, the current Liberal-National government sought to abolish the monitor completely in 2014, and then, when Labor's opposition and a public backlash forced the government to abandon that plan, the government sought to achieve the same objective by leaving the position vacant for over eight months. Indeed, prior to the introduction of this bill, the only bill this government had ever introduced with the words 'Independent National Security Legislation Monitor' in the title, was the bill to abolish the position. Labor welcomes the fact that the government appears to have developed at least some appreciation for the important role that the monitor plays.
The current Liberal-National government's initial strident opposition to and eventual embrace of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor followed a familiar pattern. When the Hawke government introduced legislation in 1986 to establish the first parliamentary committee to oversee Australia's intelligence services, the then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party expressed outrage. He declared that the then Labor government's modest proposal for parliamentary oversight gave one 'very grave doubt about whether they are loyal to this country'. I'm not making that up. The Liberal Party essentially accused the Hawke government of treason for establishing modest parliamentary oversight of Australia's security agencies. How times change! The parliamentary committee established by the Hawke government in 1986 is now called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Those opposite now claim to support the work of that committee, rarely missing an opportunity to laud its important work even as, in more recent times, the Morrison government ignores many of its recommendations.
When the Hawke government introduced legislation—also in 1986—to establish the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Liberals expressed what the then shadow Attorney-General, John Spender, described as 'real reservations'. While the then Liberal opposition did not oppose the establishment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security outright, they did move amendments to significantly water down the role of the inspector-general. For example, the Liberals expressed horror at the thought of the inspector-general having the power to investigate acts or practices of an intelligence agency that are or may be inconsistent with human rights. Indeed, the then shadow Attorney-General described such a power as 'rationally inexplicable' and moved amendments to remove it from the inspector-general. Thankfully, those amendments failed. Now here we are, 3½ decades later, and those opposite now claim to support the work of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It is now very common to hear Liberal members of parliament, including ministers, cite the broad nature of the inspector-general's powers approvingly, arguing that because of the breadth and nature of those powers Australians can have confidence that our intelligence agencies are acting appropriately and consistently with human rights. How times change! Like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is now an important and valued component of Australia's national security architecture, and Australia is better for it.
Against that background, let me turn to the bill itself. The bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to expressly empower the monitor to report on own-motion inquiries and statutory reviews at any time and in standalone reports. There is currently no express provision allowing the monitor to prepare and give to the Attorney-General a report on own-motion inquiries or statutory reviews sooner than or separately to the annual report. The bill would also expressly empower the monitor to report on a referral from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security at any time, either in the monitor's annual report or in a standalone report. While the act currently allows the committee to refer an inquiry to the monitor, it is silent on reporting on a referral from the intelligence and security committee. Finally, the bill would provide a framework for the engagement of staff, including contractors, to assist the monitor in the performance of his or her functions or the exercise of his or her powers.
Under the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act, the monitor is protected from any legal action in relation to acts or omissions done in good faith and in the performance of his or her functions. As part of the proposed framework for the engagement of staff, the bill would extend these protections to staff of the monitor. The monitor has sought these amendments for some time, particularly the amendments to clarify how and when reports may be provided to the Attorney-General.
In his report on the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community, former ASIO Director-General Dennis Richardson also recommended that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act be amended to provide that the monitor may prepare and give to the Attorney-General a report on any matter relating to the performance of the monitor's functions at any time.
While Labor largely supports the bill in its original form, the shadow Attorney-General contacted the Attorney-General several weeks ago suggesting further amendments to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act. To her credit, the Attorney-General engaged constructively with Labor on those suggestions and ultimately agreed to many of the amendments sought by the shadow Attorney-General, either in whole or in part. Moreover, while two of Labor's suggestions were rejected by the government, in both cases the Attorney-General agreed to workable compromises. I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for working with the opposition to improve the bill in the national interest.
In addition to making some minor technical changes to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act, the amendments agreed between the government and Labor would do the following. First, the tabling requirements for reports by the independent monitor would be amended so that reports must be tabled within the earlier of 30 calendar days or 15 sitting days of receipt by the Attorney-General. This will ensure that reports by the monitor will be made public much sooner than is currently the case. Secondly, Australian public servants and potential employees can be made available to the independent monitor only with the monitor's agreement, and that agreement can be revoked at any time. It is important that the monitor is independent and is seen to be independent of the government. That is the principle that this amendment is designed to uphold. Thirdly, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act will be amended to enable the monitor to be appointed on a full-time basis.
Labor will be supporting this bill and the amendments circulated by the government
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:11): [by video link] I'll just speak very briefly on this. I support the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021. The role of the independent monitor is extremely important—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Senator Patrick, we can't hear you. We might go to Senator Van.
Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:11): I rise to speak on the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021. The Morrison government's commitment to ensuring the safety and security of all Australians has been clearly demonstrated in the past fortnight with the range of legislative measures that have been placed before us and have been through this place. In the years since 2001, Australia's national security framework has had to undertake a number of robust transformations to evolve with the rapidly changing and complex security environment, as events over the past couple of weeks in Afghanistan have shown us.
The starting point of the action within Afghanistan was the terrorist attacks in 2001, the anniversary of which is coming up next week. It takes me back to that time. I was living in the United States during the September 11 attacks. It was a horrific time for both that nation and nations that share friendships with the US. With yesterday having been the 70th anniversary of the ANZUS treaty between the US and Australia, I think it's timely that we stop and reflect on the changes to the security of our nation and of all nations at this time.
As I said, in the years since 2001 Australia's national security framework has had to undertake a number of robust transformations to evolve with the rapidly changing and complex security environment. Significant advances have been made since 2001 to create greater interoperability between our various agencies and to ensure that we approach our national security framework with a holistic and all-encompassing approach. There is no doubt that the security of our nation is this government's and this parliament's highest priority. A robust national security and counterterrorism framework needs to ensure that our agencies have the powers they need to prevent terrorist attacks and combat those who seek to do us harm. As we know from various events, including some involving grey-zone tactics over recent years, those attacks aren't stopping. There may not have been, in recent times, examples of religious extremism, bombings in parts of Australia or other horrific acts of terrorism, but there has been an enormous amount of cyberactivity that's targeted Australia and Australians. So our agencies need to be able to protect us against all those that seek to do us harm.
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor plays a vital role in Australia's overarching national security framework. It is responsible for regularly assessing Australia's national security and counterterrorism laws to ensure that they remain appropriate to the current threat environment, no matter how evolving that threat environment can be, and that the objective of protecting national security is balanced against upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals. This bill amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to allow the monitor to report on its own inquiries in standalone reports; to clarify the reporting arrangements for the monitor following statutory reviews or referrals from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; and to provide a framework for the engagement of staff to assist the monitor. The bill implements recommendations made by the former monitor and by the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, which, I am pleased to say, the government has accepted. The amendments will assist the monitor in the performance of their role and, as a result, will help ensure Australia's counterterrorism and national security legislation remains proportionate and consistent with Australia's national obligations.
A key function of the monitor is to review the Commonwealth counterterrorism and national security legislation and to report on the outcomes of those reviews. The monitor can conduct its own-motion reviews on specific matters and must conduct specific statutory reviews and reviews on matters referred by the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, may also refer matters to the monitor, and the monitor may decide to take up the referral as its own-motion review. This bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to enable the monitor to report on its own inquiries in standalone reports, separate to the monitor's annual reports. This will help clarify the review and reporting arrangements for statutory reviews, own-motion reviews and reviews conducted after a PJCIS referral. This responds to recommendations made by the former monitor, Dr James Renwick CSC SC, and by the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community.
As I said before, these amendments will also help to address the engagement of staff to assist the monitor. The monitor is a part-time, statutory appointment. When the position was established in 2010, it was envisaged that the monitor would only undertake one review a year. Since then, the role has evolved, including through an increased number of statutory reviews of various legislation. The monitor is now supported by three permanent employees of the Attorney-General's Department, whose services have been made available to assist the monitor, as well as legal representatives who are engaged in relation to specific reviews. This bill would formalise arrangements by amending the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to include provisions for the engagement of staff, including contractors, to assist the monitor with the performance of functions and the exercise of powers.
The bill provides current and former staff of the monitor with appropriate protections for any acts or omissions done by that person in good faith during the course of assisting the monitor in the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers. These protections are similar to arrangements for the staff of other statutory oversight office holders, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Integrity Commissioner and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
I commend this bill to the Senate, but we need to look at why our agencies need it. Since September 2014 Australia's law enforcement agencies have disrupted 18 major terrorist attack plots and 128 people have been charged as a result of 59 counterterrorism related operations around Australia, and 52 terrorist offenders are currently behind bars for committing a Commonwealth terrorism offence. That's an enormous number, and it's an enormous number of Australians who could have been put in harm's way without the great work of our law enforcement agencies. So, to help boost those security agencies, we've passed 23 tranches of national security legislation. These are helping our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute extremists. The government has boosted funding for our law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies by over $2 billion since 2014. Recent legislation that was passed by the parliament means a person who is a dual national can cease to be an Australian citizen if they act in a way that is inconsistent with their allegiance to Australia. This includes engaging in terrorism related conduct, fighting for a declared terrorist organisation outside of Australia or being sentenced to at least three years for specified terrorism offences. Twenty people have lost their Australian citizenship through terrorism related actions.
When we are passing laws such as the one that's before us right now, we are countering not only terrorism but also the radicalisation that can drive it. Since 2013-14 the coalition government has allocated more than $61 million to programs for countering violent extremism, including more than $13 million for intervention programs. This takes in all forms of violent extremism, not just religious violent extremism. There is no place in Australia for people who decide to come here and do harm to Australians. We have increased the minister's power to cancel visas of noncitizens convicted of a serious crime. This has resulted in a 12-fold increase in visa cancellations. Between December 2014 and November 2020, the government cancelled or refused visas for over 8,500 dangerous criminals. This includes 209 for murder, 404 for rape or sexual assault, 684 for the most heinous of crimes—child sex crimes—468 for armed robbery and 1,461 for drug offences.
As we talked about before—and I'm on the relevant Senate select committee—in addition to addressing national security we also have to look at how we tackle foreign interference. Legislation to strengthen Australia's capacity to defend against foreign interference was passed in 2018. It criminalises covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors, requires people to register if they engage in lobbying on behalf of a foreign principal and creates a register of critical infrastructure assets. The recently passed Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act gives the Australian government the power to veto agreements struck by state and local governments and universities with foreign countries. I was very pleased to see, in my home state, that the Victorian Belt and Road Initiative agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Andrews Victorian state government was struck down. With that, I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:24): [by video link] I am not going to say very much on this other than that I absolutely support the role of the independent monitor. It's a really crucial role. It is a role that has been filled by number of eminent QCs and SCs. We have had Bret Walker, the Hon. Roger Gyles, James Renwick, who has recently moved on from the position, and of course Mr Grant Donaldson SC, who is the incumbent at the present moment.
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021 follows recommendations from Mr Renwick in relation to some constraints around reporting. What surprises me, however, is that the government appears as if it is not going to support my amendment. I hope that is not the case. The amendment that I will seek to move during the committee stage—and I won't talk then; I will talk now—basically places a requirement on the government to respond to any report that's got a recommendation. Whether it is an annual report, special report or statutory report, if it has a recommendation then it requires the Attorney-General to respond to that within 12 months and to lay on the table that response. It provides provision for having an unclassified version, if that were to be considered necessary. It seems a pretty obvious thing that ought to happen—a report is written, recommendations are made and then they're considered and not left open for a number of years.
What this flows from is exactly that problem—that many of the reports and recommendations that have been made by the independent monitor have largely been ignored or not addressed by governments. If the independent monitor makes a recommendation and the government doesn't like it, that's fine. It can respond accordingly, saying what's wrong with it and everyone can have a look at that and criticise it or congratulate the government for coming to whatever conclusion it might have. But simply not responding to it is not sufficient. It is just a basic principle. I hope when we get to the committee of the whole that I will see people supporting that particular amendment.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (13:27): [by video link] The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021 is an important piece of legislation that the parliament is quite right to consider at this time. On the 70th anniversary of our alliance with the United States and a few days away from the 20th commemoration of 9/11, it is appropriate for us to reconsider the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor legislation which was passed some 11 years ago. The role of the monitor is to see whether our legislative framework remains appropriate for the current threat environment and whether we are achieving the objective of protecting our national security whilst also—and this is very important to me—upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals. That is a balancing act that is so important.
When this legislation first started some 11 years ago, the monitor was a part-time position, there was no real staffing support and there was only a requirement for an annual report to the parliament. This legislation suggests that the monitor should be able to, of their own volition, hold inquiries and also take referrals from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on which I have the privilege of serving, as well as from the Attorney-General. These are very important developments as we continue to evolve and adapt ourselves to the ever-changing security environment. The first task of government, at all times, is to ensure the security of our nation and our borders and the internal protection within the borders of our peoples. This is just part of the overall framework, which is just so vitally important. I note the time, Madam Acting Deputy President, and understand I will soon be required to conclude. You are undoubtedly telling me that now. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): You will be in continuation. It's now 1.30 pm, so I will proceed to two-minute statements.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Agriculture Visa
Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:30): [by video link] As another week comes and goes, so continues the shambolic rollout of the government's re-announced Agriculture Visa. There have been more backflips by the government on an ag visa then we saw at the recent Olympics. The visa was first promised in 2018, but only the prospect of an impending election was enough to stir the sleepy Nationals from their slumber; they threatened to blow up the coalition unless the Prime Minister finally made good on his promise from some years ago to Australian farmers.
It's like most things with this government: big on announcements but short on details. Launched with little fanfare and after no consultation, the ag visa is raising concerns that it could undermine Pacific island worker schemes as the Commonwealth tries to handball their failures on quarantine to the states. Even the government's own National Agriculture Labour Advisory Committee rejects calls for a dedicated ag visa, acknowledging that the industry's overreliance on cheap migrant labour is bad for productivity and unsustainable.
What we've got is a Nationals media release boastfully proclaiming that the visa will be in place no later than 30 September this year, with full implementation in three years. One is left to wonder: what is the difference between the terms 'in place' and 'full implementation'? In another media release with the Nationals, the foreign affairs minister stated, 'Full conditions will be developed and implemented over the next three years as the visa is operationalised.' I don't seem to understand what this term is used for and whether it is a term commonly used in pubs right around Australia, where farmers are still struggling with labour shortages. The impression I do get is that the coalition have very little idea how this ag visa is going to work and that they're going to spend the next three years making it up on the run while Australians pay the price for their mistakes.
Queensland: COVID-19
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (13:32): The Queensland Labor Party is disgracefully using Queensland children as blackmail to justify their heartless restrictions imposed on Queenslanders. Yesterday, in the Queensland parliament, Annastacia Palaszczuk, when asked about the ongoing Queensland border closure, said, 'Until I can get every child vaccinated, we will stand firm and we will stand strong.'
I and millions of other Queensland parents have news for the Queensland Labor Party: it is not your job to get our kids vaccinated. That is a parent's decision, and it will remain a parent's decision. It is contemptible for the Labor Party to try to use children to justify their hypocritical approach to border restrictions. As the Queensland government's Chief Health Officer, Jeannette Young, said just a few months ago, 'I don't want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness, who if they got COVID, probably wouldn't die.' Dr Young was just relying on advice from the Queensland Health website, which says:
The good news is the vast majority of children with the Delta variant continue to experience a mild infection. Severe infections in children requiring intensive care unit admission [are] surprisingly uncommon ...
Today the Premier has unbelievably called for more modelling on the impact of COVID on children. What has she been doing for 18 months? If this was so important, why hasn't it been done? In truth, the Doherty modelling has looked at the rollout for children. It says:
Based on these minimal impacts, it is anticipated that inclusion of 12-15 year olds in the vaccine roll out as an early priority group would not materially change the expected overall health outcomes …
One wonders if the Premier has read the Doherty plan.
Today we learn, in the Courier-Mail, that a three-year-old child, Memphis, has spent eight weeks separated from his mum because of the Premier's heartless approach. Memphis has been crying on the phone to his mum, wanting to return home. Memphis has been denied entry despite 100 NRL families and officials being allowed in. Enough is enough. Annastacia Palaszczuk is fast becoming the Karen of the coronavirus pandemic for her heartless approach.
National Anti-Corruption Commission
Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (13:34): [by video link] Next week marks 1,000 days since the Morrison government promised to deliver a national integrity commission and two years since my bill to actually establish one passed this Senate. While my bill sits gathering dust in the House, Australians are still waiting for the government to live up to its promise. Meanwhile, every poll shows that public confidence in government and democracy just keeps declining. The PM points to existing bodies like the ANAO to say that we already have a strong integrity framework, but this ignores that in the past 1,000 days the ANAO has released nine detailed reports highlighting rorting, scandals, conflicts of interest, mismanagement and potential illegality. But the government just rolls on as if nothing has happened.
The PM has said that his statement of ministerial standards demands the highest level of integrity amongst ministers. But, of the 23 current members of the Morrison-Joyce cabinet, 12 ministers—more than half of the cabinet—have been implicated in integrity scandals. Between them, they've clocked up at least 20 scandals: sports rorts 1 and 2, commuter carparks, community safety grants, the Leppington Triangle, water buybacks, grassland gate, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant, apartment purchases on work trips, visas for au pairs, Paladin, Adani water approval after donations, media tip-offs about AFP raids, lobbying for a donor about wetland boundary changes, doctoring Sydney council documents, $21 million to donors to frack the Beetaloo Basin, Shine Energy's grant, tenders to an IT company owned by a minister's dad, exorbitant internet bills, and trade deals with the Chinese government and a Liberal donor company which the minister had shares in. These are the just the ones we know about, and they don't even include the work-based harassment scandals. If this is the highest level of integrity Australians can expect from cabinet ministers, the case for a national ICAC could not be clearer. It's no wonder the Prime Minister doesn't want one: a strong, independent integrity commission would leave half the cabinet table empty.
Australian Public Service: Morrison Government
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (13:36): On 4 August I placed on notice questions to Minister Reynolds concerning the government's claim that they would be employing an additional 200 Centrelink staff in Tasmania. This morning I received a partial response. As it turns out—and, sadly, unsurprisingly—the Morrison Liberal government will not be recruiting a further 200 Australian public service staff to work for Centrelink in Tasmania. Instead, the minister has confirmed in writing that:
In this instance staff were engaged through Hays Recruitment.
There's no explanation as to why. The minister simply said:
The Agency enters into contracts with labour hire providers through competitive procurement processes, and in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Asked what the pay and conditions will be for these labour hire employees and how that compares to the pay and conditions of Services Australia employees, the minister said:
The engagement terms of individual staff is a matter for the labour hire providers and their staff in accordance with relevant Australian laws.
We all know what is going on here. This is part of the further hollowing out and outsourcing of the Australian Public Service.
Only this year, the government had signalled their intention to reverse course when it came to outsourcing in the public sector by lifting the APS cap. Yet here we are, only a few months after that budget announcement, and we find out that desperately needed additional Centrelink employees will be put on insecure labour-hire contracts with wages and conditions that we know will not be comparable with the wages and conditions of the APS staff they will be sharing desks with. The government claim that labour hire is used primarily for short-term work or specialised roles. But we know this simply isn't true. If they were serious about supporting Australian regions with properly resourced public services, they would reverse course and ensure these 200 positions were recruited— (Time expired)
Agriculture Industry
Water Infrastructure
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:38): [by video link] I recently spoke on mining exports keeping the Australian economy out of depression. Today I'm addressing the other good news story: agriculture. In the last 12 months, wheat prices are up 33 per cent, corn up 57 per cent, canola up 72 per cent, sugar up 65 per cent and—the one the Greens hate the most—cotton up 45 per cent. It's not politicians keeping Australia out of a depression; it's farmers' hard work and resilience. Drought and cold from the current solar minimum are reducing crop yields worldwide. At the same time, the drought in many places in Australia has ended. Prime Minister Morrison and Treasurer Frydenberg are taking credit for a strong economy that's none of their doing. For years this parliament has been making life as hard as possible for farmers and irrigators. In 2019, One Nation asked this parliament to provide a measly 200 gigalitres of water from the Hume Dam to keep our farmers going through the drought. Labor, the Greens and the Liberals and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals, teamed up to vote down our motion. As a result, the basin winter crop in 2019 failed.
Here we are in 2021 and the Murray-Darling Basin from Queensland to South Australia is at a high 80 per cent of water storage capacity. Hume and Dartmouth hold 5,700 gigalitres. The water the politicians said wouldn't be there because of climate change is there. This parliament fails again. For weeks now up to 20 gigalitres a day of water that should have gone to farmers has been sent out to sea at the Murray mouth. With Lake Victoria's storage full and Menindee filling quickly, flooding in the lower basin is a real possibility—and still farmers along the Murray and Murrumbidgee are receiving only 30 per cent water allocation.
At these crop prices, is this parliament mad? Give farmers their water and let them grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation. It's time now to allow every Australian to lift themselves up through our own initiative— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Morrison Government
Senator VAN (Victoria) (13:40): This week we heard from the Labor Party—those opposite—that the Prime Minister only has two jobs, vaccine rollout and quarantine, and that he's failed at these. What a facile statement. Firstly, as early as November last year the Morrison government had already ordered 135 million doses of four different vaccines. While history showed they had some problems, no government has the benefit of hindsight. Now nearly two million doses are being administered a week. The rollout has been greatly enhanced by deals done with Poland and Singapore. I'll remind those opposite that it was at the request of states and territories that they manage quarantine.
To highlight some of the other jobs that the Prime Minister has done, just in these past weeks: he oversaw and worked with our coalition partners on getting people out of Afghanistan; additional support for thousands of childcare providers impacted by extended COVID lockdowns was announced; Australia's emissions are now down 20.8 per cent on 2005 levels, which puts us at roughly 74 per cent of the way towards our Paris target; extra assistance was provided for jobseekers across the country; reforms to the leadership structure of the elite SAS regiment were made; more medications were added to the PBS; super funds were held to account with the annual performance test; million-dollar grants to Australian defence exporters were announced; disaster assistance for northern New South Wales towns was announced and ministerial trade talks were held between Australia and India—and, I should add, during the COVID-affected June quarter the economy still grew by 0.7 per cent. You'd have to be completely delusional to believe that the Prime Minister only has only two jobs. If Labor really believe this ridiculous line then it just goes to show how unfit they are to govern and that they have never belonged on these benches.
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:42): [by video link] Next Thursday is International FASD Awareness Day, which seeks to raise awareness of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. FASD is a devastating condition where in utero exposure to alcohol causes irreversible, lifelong brain damage. Sadly, our awareness and understanding of FASD is still limited and much more needs to be done. That is why two years ago I initiated a Senate inquiry into FASD. That inquiry reported in March this year and made 32 recommendations—recommendations which are powerful and necessary.
The response from government is now well and truly overdue. I worry that we will see a repeat of the 2012 House inquiry into FASD. That inquiry made important recommendations, but these were never fully acted upon. We cannot afford to wait for another report in another decade. We need government to step up and do what is right and we need them to do it urgently. In the absence of government action it's been left to parents, researchers and health professionals to do the work. They are the people providing care, support and assistance. They are the people advocating for better understanding, better education and better resources. They are the people who know the costs of inaction. They see it every day. We need to do better by them. We owe it to them to ensure that the government acts on FASD. Government should start with a response to the Senate inquiry, followed by prompt implementation of its recommendations. And they should keep acting until we make a real difference to the lives of those Australians suffering from this horrible, invisible epidemic.
Jackson, Jayden
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (13:44): [by video link] The love of a mother goes a long way, but sometimes it just won't go far enough. And that is the case with the Jackson family in Tasmania. Jayden is a teenager deeply loved by his mother and father. Jayden has cerebral palsy and autism, is blind and cannot speak. To compound these issues, Jayden's father recently had a stroke. Jayden's mother, Lisa, is doing everything she possibly can to give her son the best in life. In her relentless search for specialist assistance, Lisa found a school for the blind in Queensland that has all the necessary additional support services on hand, such as occupational therapy, speech therapy and a hydro pool. The Narbethong school in Queensland seems exactly what is needed for Jayden to be given the best opportunity in life.
Jayden has an NDIS plan. Under the plan, removal costs to relocate the client and his family closer to essential specialist facilities are, regrettably, not covered, and there seems to be no flexibility in the system to allow for such funding. In principle, I can understand the need to avoid cost blowouts in this taxpayer-funded scheme, but the difficulty with a one-size-fits-all approach is that worthy needy cases are denied that which is required. Any scheme needs tight stewardship to protect taxpayers' money and to ensure that the limited funds are appropriately targeted. Within those strict parameters, which I fully endorse, there can be, and indeed needs to be, room for flexibility to cater for the Jaydens of this world. I thank the Senate.
COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (13:46): [by video link] The Morrison government has just introduced into parliament a proposed law that seeks to overturn Federal Court Justice White's recent judgement that national cabinet is not a real cabinet. I'd have to say that the Prime Minister is a sore loser. He was beaten fair and square in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but, having been found to have acted outside of and contrary to law, Mr Morrison now wants to change the law. He wants to stifle public scrutiny of his national cabinet.
The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 seeks to exempt national cabinet and its committees from the transparency provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The bill seeks to empower ministers to prevent the disclosure of national cabinet records in AAT hearings. National cabinet's secrets are to be hidden in the deepest and darkest vaults of the National Archives for 20 to 30 years.
This says a lot about the Prime Minister's priorities. He has conspicuously failed to legislate a national anticorruption commission, but he has made time to try and nail down the shutters on the government's decision-making. I repeat: he's found time to shut down transparency; he hasn't bothered at all to introduce an ICAC bill. The PM hates scrutiny. He is allergic to transparency. If the national cabinet amendments in this bill are passed through the parliament, responsible cabinet government will be subverted. Key decisions will be able to be taken in secrecy, without those involved—the Prime Minister and chief ministers—being properly accountable to their respective parliaments. I will be standing up against this assault on government transparency and accountability, and I urge others to do so. (Time expired)
Hanson, Senator Pauline
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:48): On Wednesday, just yesterday, in her contribution to the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021, Senator Hanson chose to single out Ms Brittany Higgins in the most disgraceful way. I'm not going to repeat the offensive remarks made by Senator Hanson, but they reach a new low bar, even for Senator Hanson.
What is shameful is the continued silence of women in this place who hold positions of power in the government and who have offered no rebuttal to the offensive comments made by the senator. Senator Cash, as the highest lawmaker in the land, Senator Ruston, as manager of government business, and Senator Payne, as Minister for Women, have made no comments. They are all cabinet ministers. Their silence continues the safe haven for those who wish to make the kinds of comments made by the senator and assists perpetrators to avoid detection or being held accountable for their actions. Further, and perhaps more importantly, it leaves victims feeling confused and unsupported. Australian women know the Prime Minister won't hold his own male ministers to a higher level of behaviour and indeed seems incapable of understanding the issues. However, I would expect better from these women senators. Sexual harassment thrives in a culture of silence.
Of course, in relation to Ms Higgins the government was at pains to point out how it was supportive after the fact. But it's plain to see that actions speak louder than words, and it was their actions which let Ms Higgins and all of us down. The high aim of the current review into this place will come to nothing unless each and every one of us works to eradicate the culture of silence. I will be silent no longer. It is time to put the interests of women ahead of the pursuit of power or winning a vote.
Gas Industry
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:50): I wish to speak today about threats to the magnificent part of WA that is the Kimberley. It is one that is very close to my heart. Black Mountain Oil and Gas subsidiary Bennett Resources—Texas-based frackers—want to frack the heart of the Kimberley. Black Mountain has plans to frack 12 wells up to 50 times, using 40 million litres of water per well and a cocktail of chemicals. They want to drill to a depth of two to four kilometres below the ground. They want to bulldoze 109 hectares of native vegetation and bushland to create access tracks, accommodation camps and fracking operation sites, including toxic waste storage, wastewater storage ponds and flaring pits.
The fracking is proposed to take place over seven years, but if they get a foothold they could be fracking thousands of wells for decades to come. The current plan is to drill and frack 20 wells, but this is just the beginning. Black Mountain have said they want to produce 900 terajoules of gas. To do this would require thousands of wells on land surrounding Mount Hardman Creek and Mount Wynne Creek, which flow into the magnificent Mardoowarra—the Fitzroy River. This is a terrible decision that Premier McGowan has made for the Kimberley. While First Nations peoples and farmers have veto rights over fracking, we know that as soon as a Liberal government gets in they will empower open slather and rights will be binned. We have had experience of that in the past. I commend the work of Environs Kimberley, who are working closely with First Nations peoples to highlight the dangers of this fracking and to oppose it. We say: no fracking in the Kimberley.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (13:53): [by video link] Today I wish to speak about an issue of importance for all South Australians: the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. Every South Australian knows how vital a healthy Murray-Darling Basin system is. It's vital for our economy and for the thousands of family farms, orchards and vineyards that give South Australia a global reputation for quality produce and drive tourism to our regions. It's vital to our food supply, with the Murray-Darling Basin making up a huge proportion of our nation's food supply. And most importantly, it's vital for the environment. The Murray-Darling Basin is home to 46 species of native fish and 16 internationally recognised and protected wetlands.
We know that the Murray-Darling Basin system is facing significant environmental challenges, most particularly the effects of climate change. Yet the Liberal-National coalition are playing games with the lifeblood of South Australia. They are hopelessly beholden to the eastern states on this issue. When he became Nationals leader once again we saw that Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce's first action was to try to tear down the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Nationals moved against their own coalition partner in the chamber, effectively trying to blow up the plan and deny the system the agreed-upon 450 gigalitres of water. South Australians cannot trust the coalition on the Murray-Darling Basin. Only Labor can be trusted to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to stand up for South Australia.
COVID-19: Victoria
Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (13:54): [by video link] I rise to raise serious concerns about the Victorian government's decision to prohibit Victorians from returning home, under the guise of public health orders. For weeks now, hundreds of Victorians, perhaps even thousands, have been trapped interstate, declined a permit to travel over the border and back to their homes. Whether they have been interstate to visit family, take a holiday or even attend school, what sort of country are we living in that Victorians are denied the right to return home? They are prepared to follow all testing and home quarantining requirements.
Since raising the case of Denis and Katrina Leahy from Geelong, I've received many more complaints from Victorians trapped in caravan parks or other temporary accommodation—Victorians who have made multiple applications for permits which are continually denied. Denis and Katrina are fully vaccinated. They're stuck in Albury in a caravan park. Each has had five negative COVID tests and they have been refused a permit to drive straight to their home in Geelong where they would quarantine for 14 days, driving non-stop—no stops at all—and, of course, being a risk to absolutely no-one.
Grant and Diana Trewin, from Lara, have been stuck in Hastings Point in northern New South Wales for a month, and Diana is really suffering. Ian Symons, from the Yarra Valley, can't get home. I've also been contacted by Glen Rieschiek, of Bendigo, whose wife is stuck in Armidale in New South Wales. Glen writes that his wife's emotional state is worsening by the day and his local state Labor member, Jacinta Allan, refuses to assist.
Of course, it's just as bad for Victorian schoolchildren who attend boarding school interstate. One student from Yanko Agricultural High School has been told he won't get a second border crossing exemption, and so his schooling is now completely in jeopardy.
I say to Premier Daniel Andrews: this is not good enough. Please let Victorians come home.
Working Women's Centres
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:56): Just this week the Leader of the Opposition announced that Labor in government would commit to funding working women's centres in every state and territory. As we reflect on this government's very shameful and limp response to the Respect@Work report and the recommendations of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, it is worth this place remembering that, every day, frontline workers dealing with sexual harassment claims around the country need somewhere to go. Working women's centres have historically provided free confidential assistance and advice about these kinds of matters, including about sexual harassment, wage theft and discrimination. It is essential for all women and all workers to be able to address these confronting workplace issues.
The Morrison government's response has been to slash funding to working women's centres almost entirely, disregarding the essential role they play in finding support and justice for these working women. Each centre requires about $700,000 a year to run, but the Morrison government in its most recent budget set aside only $200,000 for Queensland and Northern Territory centres combined. Sadly, this leaves South Australia as the last independent service, and that is not good enough.
The government's inadequate response to Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins's Respect@Work report should have included funding for working women's centres. These are critical, and it is a problem that Labor is prepared to fix. Labor will properly fund working women's centres in Australia and properly protect working women in our country.
Western Australia: African Community
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:58): When we think of Africa we think of colour, we think of majestic landscapes, we think of energy and generosity. This weekend the Western Australian African community will celebrate the vibrant diaspora they have in Western Australia at their gala awards night. I'm disappointed I won't be able to attend. I thank them for the invitation and I wish them all the very best for a night of celebration, colour, energy and enthusiasm.
Inland Rail
Senator WATT (Queensland) (13:59): It is my solemn duty to report to the chamber yet another terrible week for the once proud National Party. They are the unhappy campers of Australian politics. For years we've endured the musical chairs of the National Party leadership, and we thought it had finally been resolved, but this week they have shown they are still at it, this time over Inland Rail. This week we've had day after day of National Party leaks and hit jobs on each other, starting with the Weekend Australian, where we saw a leaked text message from David Littleproud, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, to his leader, Barnaby Joyce, saying:
The Millmerran guys you spoke to on Friday would have preferred you either told them on Friday this or told them before a public statement from you.
It has gone on as the week has gone on. They hate each other. They can't focus on Australia. We are—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Watt. It being 2 pm—and one might guess it's also the last day of the sitting session—the Senate will now move to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Hospitals
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. When Western Sydney woman Rola Raad's fever got worse and her fingers and toes became swollen and started to turn blue she called an ambulance to her home in Auburn. When she arrived at the local hospital she found out that she was positive for COVID-19. With 14 other ambulances already queueing, Rola was sent to a makeshift ward, a tent. She was in the ambulance and the tent for a total of eight hours. Minister, is the New South Wales hospital system coping with the current COVID case levels?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:00): I thank Senator Keneally for her question. Clearly some elements of the New South Wales health system are suffering stress right now, but I say to people in New South Wales and to people in Australia generally that the Australian government has been preparing to support the Australian public health system since the beginning of the pandemic. In February 2020 we began preparing to support the Australian health system. We will continue to develop that program.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Senator Keneally, I would rather take advice from the New South Wales government and the New South Wales health system than someone who led the Australian Labor Party to one of the worst electoral defeats in New South Wales's history. I will take my advice from those people who are running the health system there now and our health officials here.
We have worked to increase ICU capacity nationally from 2,000 to 7,500 ventilated beds nationwide. We've invested over $30 billion in COVID health measures. We continue to work with the New South Wales government in support of the system. We've invested over $6 billion in direct COVID support to state hospitals. One of the reasons we put in place the private hospital guarantee was to support the public health system to ensure that there was capacity across the country in the case of COVID. We continue to work with the states cooperatively in ensuring the capacity of the public health system.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:03): Australian Medical Association President Dr Omar Khorshid warned:
… to look after the people with Covid we're going to compromise the care of everyone else. We are confident that we will be able to measure excess death down the track because of the impact of Covid on our broader health system …
How many excess non-COVID deaths are expected as a result of higher case numbers?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:03): As I've already acknowledged, the COVID-19 global pandemic is having an impact on the health system here in Australia. It did that in Victoria last year, and we invoked the private hospital guarantee so that private hospitals could support the public health system in Victoria. We will take the appropriate measures in conjunction with the New South Wales government to support the public health system in New South Wales, just as we did in Victoria.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: Mr President, I'm conscious of the time. We aren't even getting close to an answer to the actual question—so this is on relevance—'How many excess non-COVID deaths are expected as a result of higher case numbers?'
The PRESIDENT: I take that point. You've restated the last part of that question. There was a substantial quotation from someone before that that talked about the stress on the hospital system—and I summarise it that way. I'm listening carefully to the minister, but I think he is addressing that part of the question. I've let you remind him of that part of the question.
Senator COLBECK: I again acknowledge that there is stress on the system and that COVID-19 will continue to put stress on the system, but what we're doing is working with the states to ensure that there is capacity to support people with COVID to the extent that the private hospital guarantee ensures over 30,000 hospital beds additionally nationally, and the sector's 105,000 strong workforce is available to support the public health system to manage COVID. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:05): The Australian Medical Association has today declared:
… a vaccination rate higher than 80 per cent of the adult population is likely to be required to avoid repeated lockdowns given the existing constraints on hospital capacity and staffing.
Can the Morrison government guarantee that existing constraints on hospital capacity and staffing will be resolved to ensure that Australia can open up safely?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:05): The national plan, based on modelling done by the Doherty institute, is not just about opening the economy at 70 per cent or at 80 per cent. It is about a careful, safe opening of the economy so that we can ensure that the hospital system doesn't get overwhelmed. That's the—
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Well, if the AMA want to be modellers, then they should go and be modellers. We worked with the Doherty institute to do some modelling, the basis of which was supporting the health system and the—
The PRESIDENT: Order. Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: Again, on relevance: this is a really important question about whether the government can guarantee that our hospitals will cope. That's the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, there was an extensive quotation again, and by describing the national plan the minister is actually being directly relevant to the question. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: Senator Watt's ears must be painted on! I directly addressed the question when I said the Doherty modelling is based on safely and progressively opening the economy to ensure there isn't undue pressure on the hospital system. That's the point of the process. I will go to the AMA for health advice. I will go to Doherty for modelling advice.
COVID-19: Agriculture Industry
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:07): My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on the implementation of the national plan agreed to by national cabinet, including in relation to regional communities and how the national plan will enable critical agricultural workers to get to work so farmers can harvest their crops?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:07): Thank you, Senator Brockman—a proud regional Western Australian who's very keen to support the agriculture community in his home state in particular. Our government's committed to supporting our farmers get through the global pandemic, getting the workers and skilled workforce they need not just to get the crop off but to milk the cows, to shear the sheep and to continue the food task not just here domestically but to our export markets around the world. This is a $66 billion industry that we want to see continue to grow to $100 billion, and through the global pandemic we've, as a government, implemented a raft of measures—providing visas extensions and relaxing the 40 hours a fortnight for student visa holders. We've established an agricultural workers code with specific states, we've established the Australian agriculture visa and we've also reopened the Pacific mobility program.
But we have to recognise that these measures alone will not provide the workforce that Australian agriculture needs for the task ahead of it. We need to follow the national plan so that lockdowns at local, domestic, state and international levels become a thing of the past. As you know, Senator Brockman, you've got a great grain growing state in WA, and domestic and international border closures will have a significant impact on your grain growers getting the harvest off that I think is taking place in the northern Wheatbelt in over four weeks, and then you've got about six weeks. But if we don't get workers either from the east coast states or from overseas, because we do know that there's a global workforce supply chain when it comes to grain harvesting—Canada, Ukraine, right through the US and then they end up down with us, because these are quite specialist roles. I would ask that your premier actually support Western Australian grain growers by staffing the Bladin Village facility and allowing those workers— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): Thank you, Minister McKenzie, for that answer. I know how engaged you are with agriculture right across Australia. My supplementary question is: how will the national plan assist not only the agricultural industry but also other essential workforces across regional Australia?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:10): As you would know, Senator Brockman, state and territory premiers and chief ministers have agreed with the Prime Minister to a national plan that will see freedom of movement of people and lockdowns ending when it's safe to do so, following the very, very best medical evidence and advice. And it is very, very concerning that there are leaders in this country and chief medical officers perpetuating this myth of zero cases and an elimination strategy as the way out of a global pandemic. I would ask them to pick up a year 8 science textbook—because that is actually not achievable. To not follow a plan, mapped out using the very best science and health data, to make sure that agriculture in regional communities can have the workforces they need to not just grow great, clean green product but also to actually support the mining industry and the manufacturing industry is a crime—an absolute crime. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:11): What are the risks Australia faces if the outcomes under the national plan are not achieved, and how would this impact regional communities and the livelihoods of people who live and work there?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:11): Senator Brockman, you know that we have a shortage of workers right throughout regional Australia. The job ads go on and on. And it's not just fruit pickers we need; we also need sustainable, high-paid careers out in rural and regional Australia. So we need a workforce not just from capital cities and from other states but also internationally.
There is only one way out of this global pandemic to give regional and rural Australia the workforce that they need and the access to global markets that they need to grow and prosper, and that is through the national plan. Your home state, I'm sorry to say, Senator Brockman, has a very, very poor vaccination rate. We have to, as leaders—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: I will take the interjections from Senator Pratt. A $5 billion surplus—fix your own hospitals! (Time expired)
COVID-19: Hospitals
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:12): [by video link] My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. This week a major incident alert was issued for two South Australian hospitals struggling to cope with pressure on emergency departments, and emergency doctors at the Women's and Children's Hospital warned urgent action was needed before the system fails completely. The SA Salaried Medical Officers Association has said:
Can you imagine now if we had COVID in this environment, it's just mind-blowing what we will be able to do, or won't be able to do if COVID crosses the border and comes into South Australia.
Can the Morrison-Joyce government guarantee that hospitals in South Australia will be properly resourced to cope with the increased demand of going into the next phases of the national plan with high case numbers?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:13): I thank Senator Smith for her question. Funding contributions from the Commonwealth for public hospitals in all states and territories has grown substantially since we came to government in 2012-13, from $13.3 billion to $25.5 billion in 2020—a growth of 92 per cent, since we came to government.
As I indicated earlier today in the chamber, preparation to support the public health system through COVID commenced in February of last year. We have already invested over $6 billion in support to state hospitals for COVID. We've established telehealth and GP respiratory clinics to ease pressure on hospitals and state workforces. We've created the private hospitals partnership, called the private hospitals viability guarantee. That provides a 100 per cent contribution from the Commonwealth to support that measure. It provides for the integration of private hospitals with state and territory health systems to ensure over 30,000 additional health beds. The sector's 105,000-strong skilled workforce is available alongside the public health system to support it in the event of a COVID outbreak. We continue to evolve and work on all of the issues that we need to to support the public health system. As I've said, the Doherty modelling and the national plan is about mitigating cases and controlling a safe opening to support the health system in the Australian community.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:15): The AMA president, Dr Omar Khorshid, wrote to Mr Morrison warning, 'If we throw open the doors to COVID, we risk seeing our public hospitals collapse.' Is the President of the Australian Medical Association correct?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:15): The issue in that statement is: if we throw open the doors. That is not the plan. You need to make up your mind, Senator, whether you support the plan or not. I'll tell you that, on this side, there are serious questions as to whether Labor actually supports the plan or not. Does Labor support the plan? The Premier of Queensland, who clearly doesn't support the plan, is more interested in fighting the federal election than supporting Australians through COVID. A three-year-old child can't go and see their mum because of the approach that the Labor Party's taking in Queensland. It is outrageous! NRL players and their wives can go. A three-year-old child can't go to Queensland to see their parents. It is completely outrageous what is being proposed. So Labor needs to make up its mind. Do they support the national plan or not?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (14:17): Dr Khorshid has also warned, 'Too often we hear tragic stories of late-stage cancer diagnosis, emergency treatment delayed and sadly, avoidable deaths all resulting from an overworked system. This is only going to get worse with COVID.' Can the minister guarantee that no Australian will suffer a late-stage cancer diagnosis, emergency treatment delayed or avoidable death as a result of increasing demand from COVID?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:17): As I've said a number of times, the process that we're going through is to carefully open the economy using the national plan and the stage process so that we can also protect the public health system. We've also put other measures in place to support the public health system as that process continues. I have also acknowledged that COVID-19 will place stress on the health system, and that will have an effect across the health system. For Labor to pretend that it's not is dishonest. It is dishonest, which is a bit of a trait, because they dishonestly pretend that effects may not happen if they were in charge when, in fact, they would. We are dealing with a global pandemic here, and there will be effects. Unfortunately, there will be effects. We have a plan to deal with it. Labor has no plan, and we're not sure if they actually support the plan that we have.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It is likely to be Senator Siewert's last question.
COVID-19: Income Support
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:18): Yes, so I'm expecting a really good answer. My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister Ruston. Hundreds of thousands of people are living below the poverty line through lockdown in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. Last year, your government recognised that people on income support needed additional assistance during lockdowns. Most people on income support are not getting additional support during the current lockdowns. Why not?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:19): Can I say, Senator Siewert, it's a tremendous honour to be receiving your last question. You have been an extraordinary member of this parliament, and I thank you very much for your question and your continued interest in advocating on behalf of some of the more vulnerable members of the Australian community.
Senator Siewert, as you would be aware, last year, when Australia went into lockdown when the pandemic first hit, we were in a vastly different situation to where we currently are. We had no certainty at all about what was about to happen, and the government acted very, very quickly to throw a blanket over the whole of Australia, in the hope that we could give Australians confidence to get through what was a very, very dark time for our country. This year, we have unfortunately seen a second round of COVID-19 impact parts of our country, so what we have sought to do is to be particularly targeted in our response, to people in lockdown areas who have been impacted by a loss of hours as a result of pandemic lockdowns.
The first measure was to make sure that anybody who had lost hours was immediately able to have access to the COVID-19 disaster payment that's administered through emergency services—through Senator McKenzie's department. Subsequent to the initial allocation of the COVID-19 disaster payment to people who were working and had lost hours, we also extended it to those people who were on income support payments who also had lost work, recognising that we did not want those people to actually be going out and seeking to work, because we needed to try and contain the virus in the states that were in lockdown. In addition to that, we have also maintained support across the whole of the community. But, Senator Siewert, as you would know, having listened to the numerous answers that have been provided in this place by Senator Colbeck, vaccinations are the way we can get our country safe again.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:21): Through you, Mr President: Minister, most people on income support in lockdown are not receiving any additional payments and are living below the poverty line. Do you acknowledge that this puts them at greater risk during the pandemic, particularly if they have to go out to find work because they are living below the poverty line?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:21): Senator Siewert, you and I have had many discussions in relation to the payments that are received by Australians who require the support of the Australian welfare system, and we are constantly in discussion around the issue of the measurement of poverty. What I would say is that the Australian welfare system is a very comprehensive and targeted system which seeks to provide support to individuals that reflects their particular circumstances and their particular needs. That is why we talk not just about the Australian welfare system as the primary payment that is received by a recipient but also about all of the other things that are provided. Obviously, with families, there is family tax benefit. Those people that are renting, obviously, get rental assistance. But we also have a universal system of health care and education, and many non-cash-transfer payments, so that we can make sure that our non-contributory, non-time-limited welfare system targets people and the needs of the individual.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:22): How can you be safe and stay at home if you have to go out to scrape some money together because you are living below the poverty line? Does not the fact that people are living below the poverty line mean that they are at greater risk? You didn't answer that the first time. I ask it again.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:23): Thank you very much, Senator Siewert. The government remains absolutely committed to supporting all Australians, whether that be, in normal times, under our normal welfare system, or whether that be in the extraordinary times that we find ourselves in at the moment. We recognise that support for Australians needs to be targeted, as I mentioned to you before. We will continue to disagree in relation to the definition of poverty and how it applies to Australia's welfare system, but the one thing that I would like to reinforce is that Australia's welfare system is non-contributory. You do not have to have worked and paid into the scheme to be able to get access to it. It is there for as long as you need. It is not time limited like other schemes around the world. But we need to make sure that our welfare system, whilst being fair to the people that it needs to support, is also fair to the people who pay for it: the taxpayers. We try and balance those two things to support people but make sure that it's sustainable into the future.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:24): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. How many days is it since the Morrison-Joyce government failed to meet its own Easter target for vaccinating all—and I emphasise 'all'—aged-care workers?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:24): Senator Polley, through her question, continues the dishonesty of the Labor Party in prosecuting the discussion around this particular matter.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Senator Polley: It's on relevance. The question was very specific. It was: how many days is it since the Morrison-Joyce government set its own target date?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, I do take points of order on direct relevance. I called the minister to order at, I think, 12 seconds or 13 seconds, so I'm going to listen to his answer. You've made your point. Yes, Senator Polley?
Senator Polley: I just would draw your attention to the word of accusation, that I've been dishonest, which I thought was unparliamentary, and I draw your attention to it.
The PRESIDENT: The way I heard it—and, if I am incorrect, I will ask Senator Colbeck to withdraw—he referred to the Labor Party with that term.
Senator Polley interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Well, I didn't hear that. I will rely upon the minister, if he did say it, to withdraw it. If not, I'll check the Hansard, but I was listening quite carefully when I heard the term. If I am wrong, I apologise in advance. Can I urge senators again—this happened another time in debate—that if we avoid the use of terms then we avoid getting into unparliamentary language and, if we avoid interjections, we also stay more relevant to questions.
Senator COLBECK: And Labor not only are being dishonest in their points of order but are being dishonest in their representation of the issue. We did set ourselves an objective with respect to vaccination of the aged-care workforce, but we received advice from the health professionals that we not vaccinate residents and the workforce at the same time. I've put that information on the table so many times in this chamber. I know that Labor are living in the past, I know that they're only interested in fighting us and not helping us fight the virus, but we received health advice not to vaccinate residents and staff at the same time. We took that advice. We then, through the AHPPC and through national cabinet, set a target date of 17 September for all aged-care workers to have received a first dose. We're on track to meet that target. We will continue to work to that objective. I had a webinar that was open to every aged-care provider and their infection control lead this morning to talk to them about the target and the processes that we were going through, the advice that we could assist them with and the channels that were available to them to get their workforce vaccinated. This is an important measure. We continue to work on it. We are determined to meet our objective and we continue to work cooperatively with the sector and the unions, I might add, in that course. We continue to work to support people in the aged-care sector in Australia.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a supplementary question?
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:28): Mr Morrison conceded this week that there were still challenges in the aged-care vaccine rollout. Was Mr Morrison referring to the approximately 60,000 aged-care workers who remain unvaccinated, with the 17 September deadline just weeks away?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:28): This is a further example of the Labor Party living in the past—that's very, very old data. We continue to publish the data. It's available on the website. We've actually put on the website every single aged-care facility in this country so people can look and see what the vaccination rates are. That's transparency. That's working with the sector to understand what's going on. That's why I spent time this morning on a webinar open to every aged-care provider in Australia and their infection control lead, to work them through any issues they might have in achieving their objective and our objective.
Senator Polley interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: It's not right, Senator. Your numbers are wrong. You're living in the past, Senator. We will continue to work with the sector cooperatively to ensure that we get there. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a final supplementary question?
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:29): With approximately 60,000 aged-care workers still unvaccinated, will the minister today guarantee that the Morrison-Joyce government will meet the 17 September target?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:29): Again Senator Polley's numbers are wrong. As I have indicated a number of times, we are determined to meet our objective and we know that the aged-care sector and the unions are happy to work with us—
Senator Polley interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Well, if that's the answer you want, ask the question, Senator. You can't even get your questions right. It's just absurd what the Labor Party are tossing up here at the moment. We continue to work with the sector to get the workers vaccinated. As of this morning, 83.4 per cent of the aged-care sector have had a first dose and 62 per cent have had a second dose.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. I have Senator Watt on a point of order.
Senator Watt: It's on relevance. The question was very clearly whether the minister will guarantee that the government will meet its target. While I'm on my feet, I might also ask if you could review the transcript in relation to the dishonesty point.
The PRESIDENT: I will. I'm very happy to, and if I'm wrong I apologise in advance, as I said. With respect to the point of order, that was the second part of the question. I can't instruct the minister to use a word or not. But the first part of the question contained an assertion about a number and a statistic that the minister is challenging. He is entitled to do that and be directly relevant to the question. He's not entitled to stray from the topic, but he is allowed to challenge it. Senator Colbeck.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! If we don't have interjections there's no need to respond to them. Thank you, Senator Colbeck.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: Senator Keneally interjects that I didn't give any data. I've just said that 83.4 per cent of the aged-care workforce have had a first dose of vaccination and 62 per cent have had a second dose.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. I have Senator Polley on a point of order.
Senator Polley: The minister is still avoiding the main question, which was: are you going to guarantee that those 60,000 aged-care workers—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, please resume your seat. I have repeatedly said that points of order must start with a standing order, rather than simply accusing someone of not answering a preferred part of the question in a preferred manner. Senator Colbeck, please continue.
Senator COLBECK: We will continue to work with the aged-care sector with the objective of vaccinating the entire workforce by 17 September. (Time expired)
Civil Liberties
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:32): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. My question references independent professional truckies who protested on Monday morning in Queensland. Can the Attorney-General inform the Senate of the legal protections afforded Australians under our Constitution, legislation, common law or international conventions that protect the right of everyday Australians to engage in peaceful protest in a public place?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:32): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I don't have the actual legal provisions with me, so I will need to revert to you in relation to that. In terms of the right to peacefully protest in this country, it is a right that we hold dearly, certainly as a society and as a government. We've seen protests around Australia, in particular during COVID-19. It is important that people do adhere to the law at all times and certainly respect the rights of others in relation to what they are protesting on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:33): After the truckies made their excellent point, which Senator Hanson and I support, Senator Hanson did ask the truckies to consider allowing horses on trucks in the blockaded traffic to be freed and allowing everyday Australians to go about their day without hindrance. Attorney-General, do you agree that the Australian people would be looking to parliaments to defend civil liberties exercised in a fair manner, not to trash them?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): Again, at all times when people are protesting—and it doesn't matter what issue they are protesting about—they should always protest in accordance with the law. They should respect the laws of the land, and at all times they should respect the rights of others.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:34): I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions. The only difference between the two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?
Honourable senators interjecting —
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister said they couldn't hear the question because of noise during a remote question. I'm going to ask Senator Roberts to ask it again, which I know will waste the time of the chamber, but the minister couldn't hear it. I ask for silence. Senator Roberts, can you repeat your question?
Senator ROBERTS: I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions. The only difference between these two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:35): Again, for Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the one thing we're all united in is keeping Australians safe during COVID-19. The Australian government has at all times sought to take measures that combat the virus, while, as I said previously, at the same time respecting people's rights and their freedoms. You would also know that states and territories themselves have taken measures under their own laws in respect of COVID-19, and, as you have articulated, this is predominantly done under state and territory public health and emergency management legislation. Again, at all times, though, the Commonwealth will work with state and territory governments—through the national cabinet—to ensure that Australia's COVID-19 response is one that is measured and is one that is appropriate.
National Summit on Women's Safety
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Women's Safety, Senator Ruston. Minister, with the National Summit on Women's Safety starting on Monday and round tables starting today, can you explain how the summit will support our government's goal to reduce violence against women and children?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:36): I thank Senator Davey for her question. The National Summit on Women's Safety is an absolutely critical step in the development of the next national plan not just to reduce violence against women and their children but also to end it once and for all. The plan must be an ambitious blueprint to wipe out the scourge on our national landscape that is domestic violence.
The first plan began in 2010, and since then we've developed a much larger body of evidence and a better understanding about the ways domestic violence is perpetrated. Our understanding of violence against women has changed since the first plan came into effect, and that's what we seek to understand through these round tables. We know that domestic, family and sexual violence is pervasive and it takes many different forms. Today and tomorrow, the round tables will consider all of those different forms of violence—things such as coercive control, technology facilitated abuse and the impact that violence has in the home on children. Participants in the round tables include survivors, frontline service workers and people who deal with domestic, family and sexual violence every single day in their line of work.
Together with the Minister for Women, a number of my colleagues—members in this place and members in the other place from all parties in this parliament—have been observing these round tables. This is so that we can hear directly, firsthand, from people—often survivors of these different types of domestic, family and sexual violence—so that we can make sure, as we develop the next national plan to end violence against women and their children, that we have got the voices of people who have survived this abuse firmly embedded into our decision-making. Importantly, the summit also gives the opportunity for all Australians to have their say and to be involved by live streaming, because we want to have a public debate to end this scourge on our society.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, a supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:38): Minister, you spoke about the next national plan to end violence against women and their children. Can you please explain to us how this next national plan will consider the needs of our diverse community in Australia?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:39): Family, domestic and sexual violence is a scourge that's across the entire Australian landscape. We know that it doesn't matter where you live, how old you are, where you've come from, whether you're a first Australian or a new Australian or what your socioeconomic status is, you can be affected by family, domestic and sexual violence. We also recognise that some women are more likely to experience violence than others and that some have greater barriers to accessing critical support services.
This morning we began a series of roundtables that will form part of that consultation, hearing this morning from representatives from the LGBTIQA+ community as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We also had a roundtable to interact on issues around perpetrators and making sure that we've got early intervention programs so that we can get in early and stop the violence. The discussion is well underway. I'd like to acknowledge the huge number of people that are participating in their roundtables, some of them under very traumatic situations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:40): How will the National Summit on Women's Safety address this really important issue of sexual violence?
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister for Women's Safety and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (14:40): We have included sexual violence in the plan this time for the first time because we absolutely believe and are committed to reducing sexual violence and harassment in Australia, to ensure women and girls of all ages can be safe at work, safe at home, safe when they're studying and safe when they're online. Preventing and responding to sexual violence will be a key discussion at the national summit, with expert panellists including this year's Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, Women's Safety NSW CEO Hayley Foster, and University of New South Wales Associate Professor Dr Michael Salter. The panel will inform the plan and ensure sexual violence is absolutely at the forefront of ending violence against women once and for all. This work builds on the $29 million to develop new primary prevention initiatives to address sexual violence, which will now allow for the targeting of resources to campuses of universities and build on our very successful Stop it at the Start campaign.
Great Barrier Reef
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:41): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. It has been revealed under FOI today that the Morrison government directed independent science agency AIMS to release a report into the health of the Great Barrier Reef before the report was complete. This, of course, was to be used for political lobbying ahead of the UNESCO vote on the danger to the reef. Will the minister tell the parliament who gave the direction for this early release? Was is it the environment minister or her office, or did the direction come from the top and it was the Prime Minister and his office that was interfering with the scientific report?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (14:42): Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, for your question, and I apologise for getting your name incorrect earlier. Can I just scratch my head and say first of all that I'm not entirely sure what the outrage is about, because it seems that the Greens and the ABC are in quite a lather, not because the report was withheld, not because it was altered, but because it was in fact released. This is bewildering. We released it. We released it a week after its key findings had already been published in an op-ed by AIMS themselves. So hold the front page on that one.
The Minister for the Environment welcomes that report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which shows that, after a series of severe and widespread disturbances over the last decade, coral cover has actually increased across all regions. These results are an outstanding demonstration of how the reef can actually recover following disturbances if given enough time to make that recovery. These reports have been released annually since 2016—so they should come as no surprise—after that mass bleaching event. They are the most comprehensive record of reef condition available for the Great Barrier Reef.
As much as these results are good news in the short term, they don't change the need for our ongoing, highly regarded reef management and strong global action on climate change to improve the outlook of the reef in the long term. This program is part of the Australian government's $3 billion commitment to protecting the reef and supporting the work of reef communities, reef managers, marine scientists, traditional owners and, of course, the thousands of Australians who depend on the reef economy. Australia is world leading in our coral reef science and management, and we readily share our findings and our expertise at a global level.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:44): Isn't it true, Minister, that the reason the environment minister was so desperate to get this report out before it was finished and spent so much time and money lobbying the UN members was that the government was desperate to cover up how poorly you have taken climate action? You are embarrassed about your poor performance—
Senator Seselja interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I can't hear over Senator Seselja even though he has a mask on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, have you concluded your question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I have concluded my question.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (14:45): I reject both the premise of Senator Hanson-Young's question and the undergraduate tone with which it was directed. Did the government direct an independent science agency to release a report early? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? The AIMS chief executive himself, Paul Hardisty, has already made it clear that any suggestion that this report was rushed is entirely incorrect. The technical report was already finished. The document only needed to be prepared for publication, which required it to be formatted and laid out for publication. But the key findings of that report had already been finalised and, in fact, published and publicised in an op-ed by the CEO of AIMS on 12 July. That was before the government requested the report's release to provide to the World Heritage Committee. I'm afraid, Senator Hanson-Young, you are sorely mistaken.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:46): UN head Antonio Guterres has declared the IPCC report a code red for climate and has urged countries to do more to both reduce carbon pollution and protect biodiversity in the fight against climate collapse. When will the government take seriously the emergency we are facing of the collapse of the climate and the biodiversity crisis? When will it have proper targets for 2030 ahead of the end-of-year COP conference?
Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy and Minister for Women's Economic Security) (14:46): I want to reiterate the fact that the Morrison government are deeply committed to protecting the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef, and we make no apologies for that or for defending our reputation as the best marine park managers in the world. We are benchmarked against global standards, and Australia's management of the reef is recognised as a leading example and is considered by many to be the gold standard for large-scale marine protected area management, according to a UNESCO report. That fact is acknowledged by many, including the World Heritage Centre itself. In its draft decision on the reef presented to this year's World Heritage Committee meeting it commended the state party, referring to Australia, for the strong and continued efforts to create the conditions for the implementation of the Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan and that included through unprecedented financial commitments. This is the centrepiece of Australia's reef protection efforts— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:47): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. As a result of vaccine supply shortages, the New South Wales government has been forced to extend the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer vaccine to eight weeks. What impact will this change, resulting from a shortage of vaccine supplies, have on the time frame of reaching the 70 and 80 per cent targets? And did the New South Wales government advise the Morrison-Joyce government of this change before it was announced?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:48): I reject the premise of the question—that there is a vaccine shortage. There are significant volumes of vaccines available to Australians. In fact, if someone wants to go out and get—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator COLBECK: They say they support the vaccine rollout program. They say they support both vaccines. But the scoffing across the chamber belies that. They're focused only on Pfizer and they are not concerned about AstraZeneca, which has done a large proportion of the work in the system. And I note that they have actually shortened the time frame between doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine to promote the vaccine rollout. We have supported New South Wales in respect of their vaccine rollout by putting 50 per cent of the additional vaccine doses that we got from Poland—500,000-plus doses—into New South Wales to support their rollout. We distributed the rest of the vaccine across the states on a per capita basis. So we have supported, and we will continue to support, states in the vaccination program. Today we have passed 20 million doses—a significant effort. The Labor Party should be celebrating that.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, on a point of order?
Senator Watt: Again this is on relevance. We would like this minister to answer questions, such as: what impact—
The PRESIDENT: There's no 'such as', Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: Okay. Specifically the question is: what impact will the change announced by the New South Wales government have on—
The PRESIDENT: That was one of the questions asked. Senator Cash?
Senator Cash: On the point of order in relation to relevance, the minister was directly relevant. The first response he made was, 'I reject the premise of the question.'
The PRESIDENT: That was one question amongst several asked. There was a preface. A minister cannot simply reject the premise of a question and say everything they want. They still must remain directly relevant to the material in the question. I'm listening carefully to the minister. As I heard him, he was talking about vaccine supply. It's not a place for a general address on the vaccine rollout program, but if he's talking about matters raised in the question then I believe he is directly relevant. I can't instruct him how to answer it.
Senator COLBECK: We will continue to support New South Wales and other states in the vaccine rollout. In fact, to date, as I've indicated, 20,028,084 doses of vaccine have been administered across the country. Of course, both vaccines—not just Pfizer—are playing an important part in the rollout. There are different time periods in different states between doses. Victoria has extended their second doses out to six weeks, rather than three weeks, for Pfizer.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:52): Will the New South Wales government's decision to extend the gap for Pfizer vaccines from three weeks to eight weeks force those who've already booked their appointments to wait longer?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:52): If someone has a booking for a vaccination, I urge them to keep it. I urge everyone who wants to take up a vaccine to make a booking. There is ample supply of AstraZeneca right now.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, on a point of order?
Senator O'Neill: Yes, and it's with regard to relevance. The question was pretty straight and it did not refer to AstraZeneca. It was a particular question about the rollout of Pfizer with the three-to-eight-week delay. I urge you to bring the minister to the actual question in hand.
The PRESIDENT: It was a relatively specific question. Was the word 'Pfizer' mentioned in the supplementary question?
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I didn't have that in my notes. I try to scribble as quickly as I can. This is a specific question. I'm going to ask the minister to specifically address the issues in the question, but again I cannot instruct the minister the terms on which to answer a question, the terminology to be used or the content of the answer. In my view, this question goes to the extension of the time period for the vaccine—I didn't have 'Pfizer' written down, but I take your word for it, Senator O'Neill—and it goes to whether people will have to wait longer or any other arrangements that are directly relevant. Senator Cash, are you seeking the call?
Senator Cash: Thank you. On the point of order in relation to relevance, Mr President, you are right. The question was in relation to the New South Wales government's decision to extend bookings in relation to Pfizer and whether people will have to wait longer for a vaccination. The minister is directly referring to whether people have to wait longer.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, we're not going to get into whether there are two words in it. I heard the interjection. I'll take your submission.
Senator Keneally: Thank you, Mr President. I do appreciate that. The question was actually: would it force those who've already booked their appointments to wait longer? It didn't go to whether people should book or not book. It went directly to the question of people who already have appointments booked for Pfizer.
The PRESIDENT: I appreciate it did not go to—it's not the place for a general discussion of whether someone should book for a vaccine. But, at the same time, to a tightly worded question, an answer can still be directly relevant by addressing the issues raised in the question, even if it is not addressed in the terms the opposition would like. That is what the motions to take note are for, afterwards. So I call Senator Colbeck, taking all that into account, to continue.
Senator COLBECK: As I said, I would urge anyone who's got a vaccine appointment to keep that appointment and anyone who doesn't have one to make one. The Labor Party want to make this all about Pfizer, but the vaccine rollout is not just about Pfizer. There are two vaccines currently in our vaccination program, and there are ample supplies of AstraZeneca available right now. To date, we have received 32.7 million doses of vaccine: 14.5 million doses of Pfizer—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Keneally, on a point of order?
Senator Keneally: On relevance: this is nowhere near the question that Labor has asked, and I ask you to bring the minister back to the question.
The PRESIDENT: With respect, I do not think that, to be directly relevant to an answer, a brand or manufactured version of a vaccine is going to meet—I can apply that as a strict test. If the minister is directly addressing the issues in the question, there is an opportunity to take note—
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: On my right. I think—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I think, with respect, the submission that I instruct the minister to speak about one brand of vaccine is actually going beyond direct relevance and actually seeking me to direct him how to answer a question. Senator Keneally?
Senator Keneally: Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate the point you're making, but this goes to a decision of the New South Wales government that is directly relevant to just one brand of the vaccine. We didn't have an option to ask about other brands. The New South Wales government made this decision—
The PRESIDENT: And there's a chance to debate the merits of an answer—
Senator Keneally: It is a simple question: if people will have to wait.
The PRESIDENT: Actually, no. There is an opportunity to debate the merits of how a minister answers a question. Direct relevance does not go to using the very words raised in a question or, in this case, the brand. You have an opportunity to debate that afterwards. Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: And the Labor Party directly contribute to vaccine hesitancy by their dismissal of AstraZeneca. We have two vaccines in our vaccination program: Pfizer and AstraZeneca. And I would urge every— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:57): I am sure it will disappoint New South Wales men and women who couldn't get Pfizer, that answer; it's just terrible. Despite the 107 tragic deaths in the current delta outbreak, 957 people in hospital and 160 in the ICU, the Morrison-Joyce government is forcing people in New South Wales to wait an additional five weeks to be fully protected from COVID. Does the Morrison-Joyce government take responsibility for failing vaccine supply, or does Mr Morrison maintain that, ultimately, everything's a state matter?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:57): Despite all their protestations, clearly the Labor Party continue to attempt to undermine the confidence of the Australian community in vaccines, particularly AstraZeneca, and it's not the first time Senator O'Neill has done that this week, with her scoffing across the chamber at the mention of AstraZeneca.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order, Senator Colbeck. I have Senator O'Neill on a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: To assist the minister, I just want him to know that I got AstraZeneca. I do support the rollout—
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, this is not—
Senator O'Neill: but I want Pfizer for people who need it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, resume your seat! Senator Colbeck.
Senator COLBECK: There are 32.7 million doses of vaccine that have been made available in the Australian community since the beginning of the vaccine rollout: 14.5 million doses of Pfizer; 18.2 million doses of AstraZeneca. I thank every one of the people who've taken up the 20 million doses that have currently been put into arms. I urge every Australian to take up the opportunity to take a vaccine, of whatever variety is available to them, because that is what is going to make us safe against the COVID-19 virus.
Tokyo Paralympic Games
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (14:59): My question is to Australia's passionate Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on the wonderful achievements of our Australian para-athletes at the Tokyo Paralympics?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (14:59): I thank Senator Scarr for his question. Australia sent a team of 179 athletes and 168 support staff to the Tokyo Paralympics. As we have seen, they have represented our nation with distinction and with pride, and their performances on the world's greatest stage have brought immense joy to many Australians over recent weeks in what has been a very challenging time. Australia's para-athletes put in significant effort in preparing for the Paralympics, just like their Olympic counterparts.
The Commonwealth government is currently the major funding source for Paralympic sports. In the five years leading to the Tokyo Paralympics, the government provided $88.8 million for para-athlete high-performance programs. The government recognises, however, that there is a disparity in the payments available to Australian medal-winning athletes in the Paralympics compared to the medal-winning athletes in the Olympic Games. Medal incentives are currently paid by the Australian Olympic Committee to Olympic medal-winning athletes. The governing body of parasports Australia, Paralympics Australia, does not have the financial capacity to do the same for Paralympic medal-winning athletes.
That is why I am absolutely delighted to advise the chamber that the government has decided to make available funding to Paralympics Australia which would allow it to make payments to medal-winning athletes at the Tokyo Paralympics equivalent to the payments made by the AOC to medal-winning athletes at the Tokyo Olympics.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:01): How have Australians reacted to the performances of our para-athletes in Tokyo, including the wonderful Queenslander Grant 'Scooter' Patterson, who, after winning a medal, said, 'I'm living proof that if you follow your dreams long enough, they might come true.'
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:01): Senator Scarr, there have been some absolutely wonderful stories out of the Paralympics and I'm sure over the coming days there will be many more to come. Australia's medal tally to date is 13 gold, 23 silver and 24 bronze—a total of 60 medals thus far, and I'm sure there will be more over the next few days. Importantly, our team has competed with the pride that you've expressed and has represented our nation with so much pride and capacity. Chef de Mission Kate McLoughlin put it perfectly when she said earlier this week:
The culture of the Australian Paralympic Team is shining through at a time when it's been severely tested. I couldn't be prouder of the way everyone has risen to the occasion.
I echo her comments, and I'm sure the rest of Australia would do exactly the same.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:02): How is the Liberal-National government assisting our para-athletes to achieve their goals, including as we look ahead to the 2032 games in my home state of Queensland?
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (15:02): I am excited to say that Australians are taking to the Paralympics like never before. Host broadcaster Channel 7's comprehensive coverage has been met with absolutely record ratings. The coverage has reached 2.39 million viewers a day nationally, which is quite extraordinary. To hear the goalball girls say that they were proud to see their sport on free-to-air television is saying something. I thank Channel 7 for its ongoing commitment to the Paralympics.
In terms of social media, Australians have engaged with our para-athletes like never before. There Paralympics Australia has reported record levels of social media engagement and presented some truly inspiring stories about our para-athletes, their journey to Tokyo, their journey beyond and their journey towards Brisbane 2032.
Senator Cash: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS
Review of Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Finance, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:03): [by video link] I just wish to give the Senate and parliamentarians and, in particular, parliamentary staff a very brief update in relation to the implementation of recommendations as they relate and flow from the report of Ms Stephanie Foster PSM on parliamentary workplaces and, in particular, the response to serious incidents.
I understand that the Presiding Officers—yourself, Mr President, and the Speaker—are working through the process of making a determination, which will be settled shortly, that would confer upon the Parliamentary Services Commissioner additional functions necessary to give effect to an independent parliamentary workplace complaints mechanism for members of parliament and, most importantly, members of parliament staff operating under the MOP(S) Act. This would provide a mechanism to provide support to staff and parliamentarians in relation to serious incidents and other work health and safety matters and also to provide a mechanism for the reviewing and making of recommendations in relation to complaints about serious incidents involving MOP(S) Act employees and parliamentarians.
Mr President, I want to thank you and the Speaker for your work and cooperation in this important determination. It forms part of a range of actions that will be supported by the parliament and resolutions to be put to the parliament at our next sitting that will help to ensure that these processes are transparent, independent and private where necessary but that will also provide full accountability measures as recommended by Ms Foster. This has been a very cooperative process across the parliament. I want to acknowledge the role of the opposition in the bipartisan way it has been working through the construct of these arrangements and the role, indeed, of the minor parties and crossbenchers, all of whom have been constructive as well.
These actions are in addition to the work being undertaken by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, in her independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which I continue to encourage all members of parliament, all staff, former members of parliament and former staff to engage in; the establishment of the independent confidential trauma-informed support line for staff and parliamentarians, 1800APHSPT, which I urge and encourage all to engage in where necessary and to reach out there; and the imminent rollout of workplace health and safety training, also recommended by Ms Foster, that the government will be providing and making available to all staff and parliamentarians.
Once again, thanks to the presiding officers and to the opposition and parliamentarians across the board for their work and cooperation in the successful implementation of these matters.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
COVID-19: Hospitals
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:06): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Marielle Smith today relating to COVID-19 and the healthcare system.
If anyone had any doubt about how out of depth the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care is, it was on full display during question time today. The arrogance of this minister and this government in not heeding the warnings of the Australian Medical Association was clearly on display today. The Australian Medical Association are best able to look out for health professionals, to look at the crisis that our hospitals will be facing, if indeed we relax the restrictions we've had thus far to ensure that we are keeping Australians safe, by having lockdowns and being careful with how we go about managing the rollout of the vaccine. We have every reason to question this minister, but he has such a glass jaw. He hates to be questioned. This entire government hates any scrutiny. We on this side will always hold ministers of the Crown responsible for their actions. This is a minister who fails on every occasion to answer very direct questions.
The questions today went to what's happening in New South Wales in particular, but we know what will happen right across this country if the delta variant gets out of hand beyond the borders of New South Wales: a crisis like we have never seen before in this country will hit our hospitals. That is the reality. That was the warning from the Australian Medical Association. I would be taking their advice. I would not, as a minister, be suggesting that if the AMA want to talk about modelling then they should get into that business. What arrogance. What absolute arrogance. I've never heard anything like it before. It goes again to the basis of the issue we have seen since the very start of this pandemic. This Prime Minister and this minister for health have been unable to have any forward thinking. They have learnt nothing from what was happening globally. This pandemic didn't just fall out of the sky here in Australia. They had plenty of opportunity to put plans in place, but they failed to do that. They failed to provide enough vaccines, so we're now seeing that the crisis in New South Wales is getting worse, potentially, because now they want to extend the time for rolling out the Pfizer vaccine.
It's all very well for the minister to try to deflect and talk about AZ. Well, I've got to tell you, on this side of the chamber a lot of us have had AZ; we've had both vaccines. We were happy to have that. The audacity of this failed minister, to come into this chamber and suggest we are not doing what we should be doing, as citizens and as elected members of the Senate and the other place, to encourage Australians to get vaccinated—it is just outrageous. That's desperation from a minister who is out of his depth. It is unbelievable.
The Prime Minister first off said, 'We are all in this together.' Then he turned when it had been exposed that he had failed in his job and his responsibility of this country, and he now wants to lay the blame elsewhere. First off, he wanted to blame the states for all the lockdowns. Now every day, for the past month at least, we have seen those on the other side come into this chamber and try to create this illusion that they're the only people who are out there caring for people and making sure they're vaccinated. That is clearly untrue, and it is quite dishonest. Nobody in this chamber—with one exception, who sits on that side of the chamber—has been raising issues around whether or not people should be vaccinated.
It is the government's own backbench that has been putting out misinformation about vaccinations in this country—not anyone on this side of the chamber, because we are responsible, because we will always hold this government to account. For those on that side to come in here and try to shift the blame—well, the Australian people have no faith whatsoever in Mr Morrison to roll out a vaccination to keep Australians healthy and safe. (Time expired)
Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:12): I just find it incredible. Today the experts Labor want us to listen to are the AMA. Previously they wanted us to listen to other experts. Continually we are told, 'Listen to the experts.' Well, we have been listening to the experts. We have been listening to the experts since day one. We've listened to ATAGI about the vaccinations. We've listened to the AHPPC about the strength of lockdowns and what we should do. We've listened to the chief medical officers. And we've listened to the Doherty institute, who are experts at modelling and looking at when would be an appropriate time to start focusing on the future. But apparently we've now got to ignore all of them and listen only to the AMA. What a ridiculous concept, because if we ignored everyone else and focused on only one sector of experts we would find ourselves in a much worse position.
We do know that, as a government, by listening to the expert advice, we have been adaptable; we have managed to pivot our approach. Yes, we have accepted as a government that the early stages of the vaccine rollout did not go to plan and that we could have done better. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. No-one could have foreseen the change in advice for AstraZeneca. No-one could have foreseen that.
Senator Keneally interjecting—
Senator DAVEY: You may laugh, Senator Keneally, but had you had a crystal ball I would have been impressed, because no country in the world foresaw that change in advice. And we were not the only country that changed the advice on what groups to provide the AstraZeneca to without talking to a GP. Even ATAGI always said, 'If you are confident and comfortable and have spoken to your GP you can still take AstraZeneca,' but that was conveniently ignored by the media and by Labor. The Prime Minister reminded people that they could sit down with their GP and have the conversation, and that if they were comfortable they could take the AstraZeneca. So many people across Australia have done that because they're not feasting on the fear or the vaccine hesitancy that is being spread by people.
I am very grateful to the millions of Australians who, combined, have now had over 19 million doses of vaccine—both AstraZeneca and Pfizer, the two vaccines that are available. We are now getting over 330,000 doses a day into people's arms. It is now taking us less than four days to get a million doses into people's arms, and we are doing that while listening to the advice. We are doing that with our eyes firmly set on the advice of the Doherty institute, which tells us that we need to look to the future and that, when we get to 80 per cent vaccination rates across Australia, we will be in a position to move forward.
I want to bring to Labor's attention that this is now being acknowledged by your own side. Senator Kimberley Kitching said: 'I think we are getting to the end of the lockdown era, partly because we are doing so well on vaccinations.' Senator Kitching recognises that vaccinations are our road out. Gone are the days of COVID zero—that is not going to happen. Premier Daniel Andrews accepts that that is not going to happen. Senator Kitching accepts that that is not going to happen. We need to get these vaccinations out the door. We need to get to 80 per cent so that we can progress on our national post-COVID pathway, because this disease, unfortunately, is with us. (Time expired)
Senator MARIELLE SMITH (South Australia) (15:17): [by video link] I asked these questions in the Senate today because the public hospital system in my home state of South Australia is struggling to cope. This week we had a major incident alert issued for two South Australian hospitals struggling to cope with pressure on their emergency departments. We've had emergency doctors at the Women's and Children's Hospital who have warned that urgent action is needed before the system fails completely. Everyone in South Australia knows that ramping is at crisis point. We have had record levels of ramping in my state. Every South Australian is aware of that, and they are deeply anxious about what's going to happen if they ever need to call an ambulance. We have had code whites declared.
It is fair to say that our system in South Australia is already struggling. So what on earth happens with a further COVID outbreak? What on earth happens when our system is already under pressure? What happens in the next steps of the national plan in my state of South Australia when we're already seeing these significant issues in our hospital system?
I want to be absolutely clear: no-one in South Australia wants to be locked down again, and no-one wants to see the existing lockdowns across our country go a moment longer than they need to. We have been urging the government to do the policy work required so that we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. To get the vaccination rollout on track, speedy and effective, is what we wanted to see, and they bungled it. We wanted them to fix quarantine because hotels are built for tourists, not for quarantine. These were the things they needed to focus on to avoid the sorts of things we've seen, and on these two things the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Aged Care have deeply failed.
So it is not enough for the minister, in his answers today, to just ignore me or actually to spend his time shouting at senators across the chamber. I'm here remotely. I can't even hear the conversation going on. I want an answer to my question, Minister. I want an answer to my question, not to hear you engaging in nonsense with other senators in the chamber. It's not enough to just say, 'There will be effects.' Yes, that's the point: how are you going to handle them? What are you going to do in my state of South Australia? People are worried in my state. They are anxious because of the state the health system is in already, and we do not have a widespread outbreak of COVID in my state at the moment. We do not, and the health system is already struggling, so what happens if we do? To the federal health minister: what are you doing to ensure South Australians can be kept safe?
It's not enough for the minister to make this about Labor, and it's certainly completely unacceptable to suggest any of us are engaging in vaccine hesitancy. I'm getting my jab this week. I can't wait. I cannot wait to be vaccinated, because I want to keep my family and my community safe, and I know my colleagues feel the same. The only people peddling vaccine hesitancy in this place have come from your own backbench, so maybe grab a mirror, take a good look and get your backbench into line, instead of coming in here and accusing us of engaging in vaccine hesitancy. It is absolute nonsense. There are real issues in the healthcare system in my state—real issues in our hospital system and real issues with ramping. What's going to happen?
This isn't about trying to undermine a plan. It's not about trying to undermine a policy response. No-one wants to do that. No-one wants this to go a minute longer than it needs to. No-one wants the restrictions in my state. No-one wants lockdowns. But we do want answers. We want answers from the federal government, who are responsible for what's going on here. You're responsible for how we're going to see a path through this, and you didn't give me answers today. You didn't give us answers, and that means you didn't give South Australians answers. You didn't answer their anxieties, and you need to. People are worried because you've bungled vaccines and you've bungled quarantine, and they're worried you're going to bungle what comes next in my state of South Australia. It is absolutely unacceptable, and I hope next time I ask a question you have the decency to answer me properly. (Time expired)
Senator SCARR (Queensland) (15:22): I think that my friend and colleague Senator Smith from South Australia is being somewhat unfair to the minister in suggesting that the minister did not answer the question which Senator Smith put to him. I was listening very carefully, and Senator Colbeck did, in fact, answer the question.
I'll just reiterate a few of the points which Senator Colbeck made in responding to the question from Senator Smith. First, Senator Colbeck referred to the record funding which the federal government has provided to the public health system across this country since the coalition government was elected. That's on the record. The federal government has provided record funding to the public health system across each and every state in Australia, and it's disingenuous to imply otherwise. Just to underscore that, the Australian government is continuing its record investment in public hospitals, which includes funding under the 2020-25 National Health Reform Agreement and the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response, with a total investment of $135.4 billion over five years. Let me just reiterate that number—$135.4 billion.
There is no doubt that there are issues in many of our public hospitals across Australia. There's an issue, certainly, in my home state of Queensland, in terms of ambulance ramping, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to throw bricks at the federal government in that respect, because the federal government does not run public hospitals under our federation system. Those public hospitals are run by the states. And in my home state of Queensland all the objective evidence is to the effect that our public health system is not being run at an optimal level. I believe one of the reasons for that is that the Labor Party in my home state of Queensland doesn't leverage off enough the opportunity for our private sector and our public sector to work together to meet things like waiting times and ambulance ramping. It's a real issue in my home state of Queensland, and a great concern is what is going to happen as we move through the next phase of dealing with this COVID pandemic. I've got friends who have been long-term paramedics working in the Queensland Ambulance Service, and they tell me that they've never seen morale so low as it is under the current state Labor government, so there are real issues that need to be addressed. But Senator Colbeck did address those questions when he answered the questions from Senator Smith.
Senator Colbeck, as well as referring to the national funding provided by the coalition government for the public hospital services of our states, referred to the additional $6 billion in funding to support state and territory health systems to respond to COVID-19 outbreaks. So the funding has been there from the federal government, but the federal government doesn't run our public health system; those hospitals are actually run by our state governments.
The second point I'd like to make in terms of this contribution is that I think Senator Polley was quite unfair to Senator Colbeck in terms of his answers to her questions regarding aged care and the rollout of the vaccine across our aged-care services. I want to reiterate these figures. These are important figures. The vaccination rate of workers in our aged-care sector continues to increase. As at 31 August, 82.9 per cent of aged-care workers had received one dose of the vaccine. Over 82 per cent, 82.9 per cent, had received at least one dose, and over 61 per cent had received two doses. Over 61 per cent had received two doses, so the vaccination program is going well in terms of making sure our aged-care workers are fully vaccinated.
I think also, and Minister Colbeck made this point as well, it has to be recognised that the medical advice changed earlier this year, and the program had to pivot so that we weren't vaccinating aged-care residents and aged-care workers at the same time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, I am just going to remind you that the taking note motion was moved by Senator Polley but it is about questions asked by Senator Keneally and Senator Marielle Smith.
Senator SCARR: Sure. It's curious that Senator Polley should move someone else's questions, but I will take that on—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, this is what happens at most take notes.
Senator SCARR: I'll take that on board. I think it is very disingenuous for Senator Keneally to have referred to the hospital ramping as if that was something— (Time expired)
Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (15:28): [by video link] Senator Colbeck's answers to these questions showed he just isn't up to it. He was smug. He was complacent. He was unaware or uninterested in key details. There was no sense of urgency, just a sense of entitlement. He was evasive. He was tricky about the politics.
You may be able to hear that there is a small construction site outside level 22 of the building that I'm in. They've just recommenced drilling, so hopefully they stop for the next 3½ minutes, or whatever it is.
The underlying problem here is that the Prime Minister made a bet that a four- or six-month delay in vaccine delivery wouldn't matter very much. It's been the most disastrous public policy failure in Australian history, the worst gamble with the worst consequences. It's not clear why the Prime Minister has failed so badly—whether it was his complacency; whether he was influenced by the naggers on his backbench, the alt-Right conspiracy theorists; whether it was his own hostility to public health and active government; or whether he just thought that somehow market forces might resolve the problem for him.
You see, when Australians are in times of crisis—in times of conflict, pandemic, natural disasters such as flood or fire, or economic shock—they look to their Prime Minister. And what have they seen throughout the three years of this Prime Minister's term? During the bushfires, he was trying to pretend that he wasn't on holidays in Hawaii. Australians have seen the blame shifting, the hyperpoliticisation, the big press conferences and announcements with no delivery, the lectures, the bullying and the conflict with his political opponents. They have seen all these things, but they have seen nothing of substance. This Prime Minister only hopes that there will still be people in the press gallery who are prepared to run his lines for him.
Australia had a golden opportunity with our geographical isolation, our strong public health system and the fact that we've had over 100 years of democratic governance. Who would have thought at the beginning of last year that the world would have been able to move so quickly to develop multiple vaccines for the coronavirus? What we required was a government that was able to take the steps to keep COVID infections low or non-existent; deliver vaccines up to the 70, 80 and 90 per cent levels that are required to keep the community safe; and then have a safe, staged opening-up. Well, this Prime Minister has bungled that opportunity. He has squandered the opportunity that Australia has had, and, as a consequence, ordinary people are now paying the price. There are long-term problems for ordinary people. There were nearly 1,300 cases in New South Wales today. There are over 1,000 cases every day. Significant parts of the New South Wales population are not vaccinated, including vulnerable parts of the population, particularly in regional Australia. Our hospitals are under pressure. There is pressure on our ICU capability. There are endless lockdowns that the Prime Minister wants to blame on the state governments rather than taking responsibility for the underlying reason for these lockdowns, which is, of course, the Prime Minister's failure to execute an effective vaccine strategy, deliver the vaccines for Australians and secure vaccine supply.
The senators opposite may choose to go on with the puerile politics of trying to defend this Prime Minister's abject failure, but we ought to be focused squarely upon it. We ought to fix it. This minister—Senator Colbeck—this government and this Prime Minister are accountable for that failure, and it's having enormously negative consequences, particularly in my home state of New South Wales. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I believe Senator Roberts is seeking the call.
Senator Whish-Wilson: [by video link] Deputy President, I was going to seek the call to take note of responses to questions from Senator Hanson-Young.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. You, Senator Whish-Wilson, and you, Senator Roberts, are seeking the call, and you're both on remote. I would have to say, on balance, that most of the time this goes to the Greens, so there's no other way to call it. I'm calling it for Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:33): [by video link] Thank you, Madam Deputy President.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Roberts. Senator Siewert?
Senator Siewert: I was on my feet straightaway to seek leave for Senator Whish-Wilson, but there's no-one seeking leave for Senator Roberts, and it's my understanding that that's the process that has to occur.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, it's not the process. Senators seek leave in whatever way they can, and I've determined to give it to Senator Roberts. So I call Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I reference the response by the Attorney-General, Senator Cash, to my question on freedom to protest under the body of Australian law. Senator Cash fluffed on about what is in fact a basic element of our democracy. What she seems to have forgotten is that there is an overarching principle: the right to freedom is a basic inalienable right that our body of law has been formed around. Our laws reflect our Christian heritage and should always do so. Our governing document, our national Constitution, for instance, references God in its preamble. Without being presumptuous, and while I'm not a biblical scholar or a church-goer, perhaps I should have asked myself earlier than this a fundamental question: what would God do? It turns out that the Bible is quite clear on the issue of freedom. From Galatians 5:1:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm … and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
In this epistle, Paul was urging the new churches he had founded in Galatia to stand against those who were trying to subvert the freedom Christianity had given. Paul's epistle to the faithful in Galatia could have been written today. The battle between freedom and darkness exists now, as it did 2,000 years ago. We spent 2,000 years writing a body of law to implement Christian principles, including the right to freedom. These freedoms were first enshrined in Magna Carta Libertatum—literally the 'great charter of freedoms' that the leader of the church in England at the time, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote in 1215.
Our Attorney-General has demonstrated not only a lack of understanding of man's laws; she has failed to demonstrate an understanding of God's laws. Being sworn in on the Bible is clearly no guarantee of believing a word of it. While eminent biblical scholars advise that the Bible is properly understood in context, how could the Attorney-General not have looked this up at any time in the five months the senator has occupied her role? Five months of widespread and sustained media and social media conversations around the right to protest and the Attorney-General, the highest law officer in the land, was missing in action. Was she not curious about what the law actually said? Let me help on that in the time remaining. Magna Carta was written in response to King John exercising his powers, using the principle of vis et voluntas, which translates as 'force and will'—the making of decisions that were above the law and then using force to create compliance, much as parliaments around Australia are doing right now. Lord Denning described Magna Carta as:
… the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”
I looked through Magna Carta and I couldn't see the COVID exemption that allows governments to destroy human rights and do whatever they want if they can get the population scared enough to accept it. Of course, there is no exemption afforded power-mad governments and unelected bureaucrats.
In 1948, before the UN turned into the problem and not the solution, the United Nations charter on human rights declared a few things on freedom of protest that parliaments around Australia are conveniently ignoring. Article 19 says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference …
Article 20 says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Article 21 says:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country …
This is what protesters are doing: participating in governance, exercising their right to free speech and free association. That's the very definition of a protest. These are rights that article 30 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects. It binds governments from breaching the declaration. It would appear that the Prime Minister and the premiers are seeking to wind back our right to freedom to that which existed prior to 1215, to give themselves the powers that King John used force to exercise.
Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights? I wonder what Monica is thinking, languishing in jail with the promise that she can get out providing she renounces her membership of a political party. This is Australia in 2021. It's a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:39): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the committee on activating greater trade and investment with Pacific island countries, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I understand that Senator McCarthy wishes to speak to this report.
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:40): [by video link] On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'm pleased to speak to the report titled One region, one family, one future: deepening relations with the Pacific nations through trade.
The global coronavirus pandemic has closed borders across the Pacific region since early 2020 and subsequently disrupted tourism, trade and investment between Australia and our Pacific island neighbours. Unsurprisingly, the measures aimed at protecting public health from the worst of the coronavirus pandemic may have also had a devastating economic impact on many Pacific island countries, especially those reliant on international tourism or receiving remittances from their hardworking seasonal workers employed across Australia.
Such has been the case here in the Northern Territory, which faced severe seasonal worker shortages for the 2020 mango season. We were pleased to welcome 160 workers from Vanuatu in late 2020 under a pilot program which was beneficial to the NT mango industry and also helped the struggling Vanuatu economy. The High Commissioner of Vanuatu, His Excellency Mr Samson Vilvil Fare, told the committee:
We really welcome Australia's move, with a pilot program, to bring in workers from Vanuatu to the Northern Territory, because I think from that we will be able to learn ways that, under COVID-19, we can bring our seasonal workers back into our country. We look forward to Australia sharing the learnings out of the Northern Territory on how it goes with the 160 or 170 workers there.
Of course the committee acknowledged the need for regulation of employers and training of workers to address their vulnerability to worker exploitation. Concerns were raised regarding lack of payment, or payment of less than the minimum wage; long hours of work in extreme heat conditions; exceeding laws on maximum work hours; substandard and overcrowded accommodation; exploitation by migration agents through misrepresentation and deduction of large sums from wages; and employers violating rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining by banning union membership. These concerns are reflected in the report's recommendations which recognise the need for improved regulatory and administrative processes, particularly access to superannuation.
This report outlines the significant role the Australian economy can play in the region through improved and more open trade relations with Pacific island countries. Many of these islands are ranked in the top 10 most remote economies as measured by their distance from global markets. The populations of some islands are among the smallest, and some among the poorest nations in the world too.
The committee recognises the devastating economic impact of the coronavirus travel restrictions due to the growing importance of labour mobility schemes and remittances being sent back home to many families and communities across the Pacific. This highlights the need, in accordance with relevant public health advice and ongoing vaccination programs, for developing a safe travel bubble between Australia and those Pacific island countries that are willing to participate. When safe to do so, this travel bubble will not only support Australia's trade and investment ties with the Pacific but also prove critical to supporting Pacific employees and their communities back on their home islands, as well as the many farms and regional businesses needing their skills and hard work.
The committee supported the need for job-creating investment to improve Pacific islands' flagging infrastructure. Much will be gained by Australia and the Pacific nations embracing the Pacific Quality Infrastructure initiative to support the delivery of better-quality infrastructure and assist with further economic development. After 56 submissions and eight public hearings, including round tables with the diplomatic representatives of Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Kiribati, and also with many businesspeople trading in the Pacific region, this report looked for solutions to the many challenges facing the Pacific. I acknowledge in particular the chair of the JSCFADT, Senator David Fawcett, and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr Ted O'Brien. I also acknowledge all committee members, in particular my Labor colleague Senator Sheldon, who worked very closely with me on this inquiry.
Among the many recommendations aimed squarely at helping activate trade with the Pacific, the report supports the implementation of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, PACER Plus, with Pacific island countries to support long-term economic development, deeper security cooperation, and closer personal and business connections between Australians and Pacific islanders. The recommendations state:
Members also want the Australian Government to forge closer economic ties with two key nations outside of PACER Plus – in Papua New Guinea and Fiji.
The report recommends pursuing measures to develop a regional Pacific standard with Australian expertise and support, to assist both Australian and Pacific exporters to bolster their trade opportunities and gain easier access to larger markets. The report also recommends that Australia should be:
focusing its Aid for Trade program in the Pacific on building human resource, educational and institutional capacity in the Pacific island countries to reform national economic and trade policies, improve trade facilitation processes and build trade-enhancing institutions …
… … …
investigating the potential for improving infrastructure and its maintenance to encourage and enable increased air and sea links between Australia and the Pacific …
… … …
reviewing existing labour mobility arrangements, including the Seasonal Worker Programme and the Pacific Labour Scheme, for workers from countries of the Pacific region …
These schemes include thousands of workers from the Pacific region. Much of this work should be aimed at:
improving regulatory and administrative processes …
improving working conditions including improved monitoring and enforcement activity in compliance with relevant provisions on workers’ entitlements …
The report also recommends:
improving workers’ access to superannuation by making the transfer of funds into workers’ superannuation accounts in the Pacific easier and faster …
improving workers’ access to health care and insurance while on assignment in Australia …
improving communication and access to information on workers’ rights…
incorporating industry-led third-party audited certifications, such as Fair Farms which is used in the horticultural industry, to help oversee ethical treatment of Pacific island workers …
A special mention must also go to the diplomatic and government representatives of Pacific island countries who attended in person or by teleconference a parliamentary round table in Canberra. They shared their invaluable insights on the challenges faced by communities on their home islands from the pandemic but also on the many opportunities ahead. May I also add our thanks to the hardworking secretariat of the Trade Sub-Committee: I thank each and every one of you for the work you've done to assist the senators and members in putting forward this trade report One region, one family, one future: Deepening relations with the Pacific nations through trade. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Education and Employment References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:49): I present the government’s response to the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on its inquiry into the regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee's report, Driving a fairer deal: Regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia, released in March 2021.
The Government recognises the importance of a strong and competitive automotive sector in the supply, sales and servicing of vehicles. The Government has been putting in place a comprehensive suite of changes to the frameworks governing the automotive retail component of the car sector. These changes are intentionally designed to make the system fairer and more transparent for consumers, dealers and manufacturers.
The first tranche of changes were the automotive franchising reforms that commenced on 1 June 2020, which amend the Franchising Code of Conduct in three areas: improving end-of-term notification periods, improving transparency for capital expenditure requirements, and clarifying options for dispute resolution. This was the first time that a sector-specific part of the regulations was included in the Franchising Code.
On 12 March 2021, the Government announced a suite of reforms to the automotive franchising sector and a commitment to consult on the merits of a standalone automotive franchising code and options to strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for automotive franchisees through binding arbitration.
On 1 June 2021, the Government amended the Franchising Code including mandating the automotive best practice automotive principles and explicitly recognising dealers operating as a manufacturer's agent in relation to new vehicle sales. These reforms took effect from 1 July 2021.
A range of other reforms will also benefit new car retailers and include:
Code amendments in response to the Fairness in Franchising report, which was released on 20 August 2020. These include doubling the maximum financial penalties, and introducing voluntary binding arbitration;
Increasing available penalties under the Franchising Code to up to $10 million to strengthen penalties for wilful, egregious and systemic breaches of the Franchising Code;
Changes to collective bargaining requirements, to allow franchisees to collectively negotiate with their franchisors without first having to seek Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) approval;
Strengthening protections against Unfair Contract Terms (UCTs) in the Australian Consumer Law, including: making UCTs unlawful, giving courts and tribunals the power to impose civil penalties; applying the protections to more contracts; and providing more flexible remedies to a court when it declares a contract term unfair.
Improving the Supplier Indemnification and Consumer Guarantees provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.
The Government is committed to enacting reforms that are impactful and deliver for the nation and regions where transport is integral for economic and social needs. The Government has also shown its commitment to build on the critical work already done by the Government to ensure the reforms made will better the overall experience of consumers, who ultimately drive the demand that underpins the viability of the automotive sector.
The Australian Government's response to the Senate Committee's recommendations are provided below.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission should expedite its investigations into the behaviour and actions of GM Holden and should commit to provide regular public updates on this investigation and similar investigations into the relationship between manufacturers and dealers in the future.
Government response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority and is responsible for its own decisions, which it makes in accordance with its enforcement priorities.
It is a matter for the ACCC to determine when it is appropriate to make public announcements in relation to its investigations or enforcement activities. A relevant consideration would be whether the release of such information could interfere with any active or pending legal proceedings that may be put before the courts.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proactively ensures that General Motors Australia and New Zealand is meeting its Australian Consumer Law obligations to Holden vehicle owners in relation to warranty and recalls, technical support and access to parts.
Government response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is administered under the one law multi-regulator model administered by the ACCC in conjunction with State and Territory ACL regulators. As an independent statutory authority, the ACCC exercises its powers and decisions independently in accordance with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy and Priorities.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government prioritise the new automotive reforms announced on 12 March 2021 and implement the increased fines, mandatory principles and protection of dealers operating as a manufacturer's agent by 1 July 2021.
Government response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government has provided further protections supporting the interests of Australian car dealers. On 1 June 2021, the Government amended the Franchising Code including mandating the automotive best practice automotive principles and explicitly recognising dealers operating as a manufacturer's agent in relation to new vehicle sales. These reforms took effect from 1 July 2021.
Further to its 12 March 2021 announcement, the Government is consulting on the merits of a standalone automotive franchising code and options to strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for automotive franchisees through binding arbitration (see Recommendation 5).
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the mandatory best practice principles include a provision for the reimbursement for all reasonable expenses incurred in relation to warranty and recall work, including expenses associated with diagnosis, administration of claims and claim audits.
Government response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government has amended the Franchising Code to mandate the existing best practice automotive principles from 1 July 2021.
The Australian Consumer Law already provides that a manufacturer of goods is liable to indemnify a supplier, where the supplier provides a remedy for a consumer guarantee failure that is the manufacturer's responsibility.
Australian consumer affairs ministers have agreed that a regulation impact assessment should be undertaken on options to prohibit manufacturers from failing to indemnify suppliers, and prohibit retribution by manufacturers against suppliers who seek indemnification. The assessment will consider the costs and benefits of applying the options across all sectors of the economy; and to new motor vehicles only. A Consultation Regulation Impact Statement is expected to be released in 2021.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce mandatory binding arbitration to resolve disputes during contracted negotiation in the automotive industry which are not able to be resolved by other dispute resolution mechanisms.
Government response
This recommendation is supported-in-principle.
The Government has committed to further consultation with industry stakeholders to explore options to strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through binding arbitration of disputes during contract negotiations; and to consider the merits of a standalone automotive franchising code.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a senior officer in the Office of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to investigate and coordinate dispute resolution investigations and facilitate mediation and arbitration arising from the transformation of the voluntary best practice principles into mandatory obligations.
Government response
The Government notes this recommendation.
Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman's (ASBFEO) key assistance functions enable it to provide assistance to disputing parties, facilitating communication and making recommendations on dispute resolution options. The Government's legislative amendments to the Franchising Code also ensures that ASBFEO can support the resolution of franchising disputes via the mediation and voluntary arbitration processes outlined in the Franchising Code.
The Government provided ASBFEO with an additional $1.5 million in the 2021-22 Budget to support its various functions and help small businesses identify and access support for dispute resolutions.
An independent review of ASBFEO's functions was undertaken on a range of matters including the interaction and effectiveness of ASBFEO's functions, and any new roles acquired since the previous review. The review also looked at any possible legislative and administrative improvements that could assist ASBFEO undertake its functions more effectively. A final report was tabled in Parliament in August 2021.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a review into effectively enforcing alleged contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as it relates to the regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers.
Government response
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government does not consider it appropriate to undertake a review at this time as it has recently taken significant steps to strengthen the legislative frameworks governing the automotive retailing sector, as discussed in the response to Recommendations 3 to 5.
The Government is also ensuring that the ACCC has the resources and powers it needs to vigorously enforce Australia's competition and consumer law.
The Government provided the ACCC with an additional $116m in the 2021-22 Budget to maintain and enhance the ACCC's capability including its enforcement capability and better protect consumers and small businesses.
Senator McKENZIE: I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:49): I seek to speak to the government's response to the report that's been tabled on the Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into the regulation of the relationship between car manufacturers and car dealers in Australia. It has been some time since our committee undertook that inquiry, but it was a really important one. The government has taken some steps to address some of the issues that we raised. I have to say that Australia doesn't quite feel like itself now that Holden cars and other Australian manufactured cars are disappearing from our roads.
It's been some years now since the car manufacturing industry stopped production in Australia. I still lament the day that happened, and I truly wish that the current government had done more at the time to ensure that Australia continued with a viable car manufacturing industry. However, here we are today with a new landscape, which existed before in terms of vehicle imports and retailers selling those cars. But now that Australian manufacturers have pretty much disappeared, it really brings to light the power dynamics between car dealers and retailers compared to the bargaining power that the manufacturers have over them.
I want to reflect briefly on some of the government responses to our recommendations. We had asked that the ACCC expedite investigations into examining GM Holden and providing public updates on that investigation and similar investigations into the relationship between manufacturers and car dealers into the future. The government has simply noted this, and I think that's acceptable in the context of the ACCC as an independent statutory organisation.
In that context, I want to call on the ACCC to remind them of what has already happened in this space and that consumers can be vulnerable to the fact that they are driving Holden cars, many of which are still under warranty, on Australian roads and that the warranty obligations have now been subcontracted or remain with different dealers. I'm concerned that, because they've no longer got a vested interest in their ongoing business in Australia, it's incredibly important that Australian consumers got what they paid for when they bought a Holden car in recent years.
We also recommended that the ACCC ensure that Holden meets its obligations to Holden vehicle owners in relation to warranties, recalls, technical support and access to parts. I'm very concerned to ensure that that is the case. I know that state and territory regulators in this space—because the ACCC gets many of its powers from the states—are indeed considering to ensure that we're able to strengthen that compliance and enforcement in that area.
The government announced automotive reforms in March of 2021 in relation to manufacturers' agents and new vehicle sales. They took effect back in July. This is in line with what the committee recommended in relation to increased fines, mandatory principles and protection of dealers who were operating as manufacturers' agents. We further made a recommendation in terms of mandatory best practice principles for the reimbursement of all reasonable expenses incurred in relation to warranty and recall work, including expenses associated with the diagnosis administration of claims and claim audits. Again, this points to a significant power imbalance between dealers, car retailers, manufacturers and customers.
In order to meet the consumer law, retailers have to ensure that they're providing a reasonable consumer guarantee. But the manufacturers of those goods who are supposed to meet what is in that guarantee are, in many cases, passing the cost and expense of meeting the failure of their products back onto the dealers who they licensed to sell those vehicles. It needs to be very clear that the consumer guarantee and a failure of a product that's sold are the manufacturer's responsibility. The car manufacturers that license suppliers here need to do a better job. I'm pleased that, in this context, consumer affairs ministers have agreed to look at options to prohibit manufacturers from failing to indemnify suppliers and to prohibit retribution by manufacturers against suppliers who seek indemnification for the work they have had to do.
I was disgusted to learn throughout the course of this inquiry about the extent to which car manufacturers are pushing their liabilities onto dealers. In that context, it's significant that they have been pushing that liability onto dealers because of the power imbalance. This really highlights a need for mandatory, binding arbitration to resolve disputes, which is what the committee recommended. We were very pleased to find that the government has supported this in principle, and I look forward to working with vehicle dealers in the future to ensure that the government makes good progress on this commitment. It is simply unreasonable that the importer has all the power and that small-business, or even large-business, owners can be left completely stranded, having, in good faith, made investments in their dealership yards et cetera to meet their obligations, only to find that the rug has been pulled out from underneath them by a large manufacturer. We saw this happen time and time again in the evidence that was given to us in the course of the inquiry.
I note, lastly, the response of the government to our recommendation in relation to the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, and I look forward to following that up with them.
In closing, I want to say, given the short amount of time that is left, that it was not easy for car dealers to come forward to talk to us about the disadvantages they saw, because they felt that, even in giving evidence, they could be punished by these large manufacturers in future contract negotiations. Although we tried very hard to soothe them with the protections of the parliament for giving evidence, they felt very vulnerable in terms of being able to do that. I really want to pay tribute to the brave small businesses that spoke up and worked together to raise their concerns before our committee, and I would encourage this kind of engagement from them in the future.
I want to say thanks to Senator McGrath, as deputy chair of the committee, who is, unfortunately, leaving the committee now and will be replaced by Senator Canavan. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Aged Care Quality and Safety—Royal Commission—Aged care and COVID-19: A special report. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)—Report for 2019-20. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
COVID-19—Pfizer vaccine—Answer to question—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) providing information concerning a question without notice asked by Senator Sterle on 21 June 2021. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Privacy Act 1988—Operation and effectiveness of COVIDSafe and the National COVIDSafe Data Store—Report for the periods 16 May to 15 November 2020 and 16 November 2020 to 15 May 2021. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document agreed to.
Home care for older Australians—Resolution of 16 June 2021—Letter from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) to Senator Gallagher. Motion of Senator Urquhart to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday
COVID-19—Doherty Institute modelling—Order of 10 August 2021 (1208)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments. Motion of Senator Patrick to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program—Order of 10 August 2021 (1209)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) responding to the order. Motion of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program—Order of 10 August 2021 (1209)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Australian Research Council—Grant recommendations—Letter of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 27 February 2020—July 2021. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of document agreed to.
JobKeeper payments—Orders of 4 and 23 August 2021 (1196 and 1219)—Letters to the President of the Senate [2] responding to the order from the Treasurer (Mr Frydenberg) and the Commissioner of Taxation (Mr Jordan). Motion to take note of documents moved by Senator Urquhart. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
COVID-19—Impact on children—Answer to question—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) providing information concerning a question without notice asked by Senator McAllister on 25 August 2021. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Urquhart. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Urban Congestion Fund—Order of 23 August 2021 (1217)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy (Senator Hume) responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Energy Security Board—Post-2025 energy market design—Final report—Order of 26 August 2021 (1226)—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) responding to the order, and attachments. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of documents called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Legislation (Exemptions and Other Measures) Regulation 2015—Parts 2, 4 and 5—Statement—Order of 16 June 2021—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Attorney-General (Senator Cash) responding to the order, and attachment. Motion of Senator Siewert to take note of documents agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:00): I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, and I understand that Senator Wong would like to speak to that document.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:01): [by video link] Thank you to Senator Urquhart for making sure I got the call; I appreciate that. I wish to take note of the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, or JSCOT, on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and there are particular aspects of the report that I would like the Senate to note. They are the committee's considerations and recommendations in relation to the situation in Myanmar, which, of course, would be a party to the RCEP, as an ASEAN member state.
At the outset I want to reiterate Labor's view that the 1 February coup against the democratically elected government of Myanmar by the Tatmadaw was a direct attack against Myanmar's ongoing democratic transition, and I reiterate my concern and frustration that the Morrison-Joyce government has not taken sufficient action to put pressure on the leaders of the coup. Labor immediately condemned the coup and the subsequent violent crackdown against peaceful protesters across the country, in which over a thousand innocent civilians died. On 2 February we called on the government to review Australia's defence cooperation with the Tatmadaw, and other bilateral cooperation, and to consider implementing targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup. Unfortunately, it took more than a month for this government to suspend military cooperation with the Tatmadaw, although, of course, the opposition welcomed the decision when it was finally made.
In April, we called on the government to provide visa pathways for at-risk Myanmar nationals so they could remain in Australia. Once again, about a month later, the government said that those on temporary visas could apply to extend their stay. But now seven months have passed since the coup, and the Morrison-Joyce government has still not implemented any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the coup and for human rights abuses in Myanmar. This is despite many of our like-minded partners taking strong action. The European Union has sanctioned 43 individuals and six entities. The US has sanctioned over 50 individuals and 20 entities. The United Kingdom has sanctioned the entire ruling State Administrative Council as well as Tatmadaw linked companies, and Canada has sanctioned 25 individuals and 10 entities.
The government's inaction is despite the government chaired Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommending in June that sanctions against the Tatmadaw should be put in place and, last week, JSCOT, whose report we are discussing today, embarrassingly having to remind the Morrison-Joyce government once again of the need to act. So we have a government chaired parliamentary committee reminding the government to follow through on a recommendation of another government chaired parliamentary committee to do something the government should have done months ago.
One of the three recommendations of this JSCOT report was that the Morrison-Joyce government continue to pursue the restoration of civilian democratic rule in Myanmar as a foreign policy priority and consider making a declaration to this effect at the time of ratification. So they've had a lot of reminders to do their job. Labor members of the committee also noted that the Morrison-Joyce government have failed to act on the recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade—a committee that they lead—to enact standalone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption, similar to the United States Magnitsky Act.
In the meantime, Labor members of the committee have again called on the government to, under existing mechanisms, sanction additional senior members in the Tatmadaw and Tatmadaw-linked entities who have directly played a role in the overthrow of democracy and the subsequent violent suppression of protests. Indeed, the JSCOT as a whole supported Labor's view in this report that submissions highlighted the importance of enacting Magnitsky-style laws and the relevance of these laws in responding to the situation in Myanmar.
So it isn't just Labor calling for the Morrison-Joyce government to show more leadership in response to the coup in Myanmar, although we have done so from the start; it is also members of the government themselves—members of the Morrison-Joyce government—begging the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to take action. And the reason is simple. The Morrison-Joyce government's refusal to implement any sanctions since the coup sends precisely the wrong message—that Australia doesn't care; that we're mere bystanders to democratic backsliding in our region. Unfortunately, that is the approach Mr Morrison takes to everything—to dodge responsibility and only ever do too little too late—and it's the approach he's taken to serious issues of diplomacy and leadership in our region. I say to the Senate: it's past time for Mr Morrison and Senator Payne to act in support of Myanmar's democracy, implement targeted sanctions and support the people and the democracy of Myanmar. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Economics References Committee
Government Response to Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:06): As to my motion to take note of the report of the Senate Economics References Committee, Greenfields, cash cows and regulation of foreign investment in Australia, I understand that Senator Whish-Wilson would like to speak to it.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): I call Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:06): [by video link] Yes, I'd like to take note of this very important report, and I know that you personally, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, were involved in this inquiry. The Greens initiated this inquiry in late 2019. Foreign investment in this country is a significant matter of public interest. Everywhere I go in my state of Tasmania, I've got someone in my ear complaining about foreign investment. Now, I know this country was built on foreign investment and will continue to be built on foreign investment, and it's very important that we get the settings in our foreign investment laws right—especially our FIRB, or Foreign Investment Review Board, approvals. We're never going to have public confidence in our laws while they fail to operate transparently and effectively and give the public confidence.
I want to start by thanking the Senate Economics References Committee for their great work and for an excellent report—particularly Fiona Allen, who wrote this report. There's a lot of good information in the report. In the report, some of the language is quite scathing towards the Treasury and on the lack of cooperation by some in the government in relation to this inquiry. I think it's quite concerning that, in an area like foreign investment, around trade and treaties, we're not getting full cooperation from the government.
The Greens have made substantial contributions throughout the free trade debate in this place in the recent decade, especially around a number of free trade deals that were being signed by the Abbott government and the Morrison government, because we were concerned about limits on our sovereignty, especially as a parliament. It turns out that some of the required changes to our foreign investment approvals are hamstrung by the myriad free trade deals, or so-called free trade deals, that we've signed with these countries.
While I think the report has some excellent content, and we took significant witness evidence and had some fantastic case studies—I know you, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, spent a lot of time looking at the acquisition of Alinta, and certainly three out of the six case studies the committee looked at were Tasmanian acquisitions, and I was very pleased with the way that was handled—the Greens did make substantial additional comments to the report. We made not a dissenting report but additional comments, which we called 'Still in the dark'. There are four key recommendations we would have liked to have seen the committee make, and the Greens will continue to push for those recommendations.
The first was that there's no point in having conditions that are voluntary. When a foreign investor signs up to buy an Australian asset—especially an iconic Australian business—and makes undertakings at the time to the Treasurer and by default to the Australian people, that investor should be required to meet those undertakings. This is especially so in the case of Tasmania's Van Dairy, the country's most iconic dairy. A foreign investor outbid a local consortium by making a series of undertakings that were never met. That's got to end, especially if we want to re-establish public confidence in our foreign investment laws.
We also believe that there is no reason that the Treasurer should not publish their reasons—unless there's a national security issue—for giving foreign investment approval. So we have made a second recommendation there that exemption certificates be made public. There is no reason at all, considering what a massive matter of public interest it is, why that kind of information is not required.
We also believe that money laundering is a significant problem in this country. Australians, whether they're buying rural properties or investment properties, are often competing against money launderers and the proceeds from illicit crime. One of the case studies the committee looked at was front-page news of Mr Peter Dutton, in the other place, talking about how he busted a Chinese money-laundering syndicate. It was lucky for us that the Chinese government gave us that information, otherwise we'd never have known that it had occurred. We just don't have the powers or the resources in place to detect illicit funds. We believe that needs to change. We need a beneficial ownership register so that we know who owns these businesses and who's buying what. And we need to remove exemptions under anti-money-laundering laws that allow service providers to get away with not providing monitoring requirements to regulators.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Temporary Migration Select Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:12): [by video link] I commend the work of the Select Committee on Temporary Migration, particularly that of its chair, Senator Raff Ciccone, for his dedicated and tireless efforts throughout the course of this inquiry, as well as those of my colleague Senator Jess Walsh. As Senator Ciccone noted yesterday, the COVID-19 pandemic and its closure of international borders exposed the deep dependency of our economy on temporary migration. We had the second-largest temporary migration workforce in the OECD before the pandemic, and alongside that came rampant exploitation and wage theft. This was made worse or even enabled by the precarious nature of the workers' existence. The vulnerability has been an outcome of this temporary status. The report exposed a system that is broken and failing to deliver what it must. It is a system in desperate need of reform.
The committee heard about all kinds of ways temporary migrant workers are being exploited—everything from underpayments to unfair deductions, threats to have a person's visa cancelled, unsafe conditions, unpaid training and the withholding of visa-holders' passports. It heard many other examples, even of extreme practices such as human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices such as forced labour and debt bondage. The inquiry heard devastating evidence such as that of a man, a qualified welder with years of experience in his home country, who no matter how hard he worked was made by his employer to do more, leaving little time for lunch or even bathroom breaks. He had to sacrifice family time, and because of his onerous work hours he had little opportunity for English language study even though his permanent resident application required an acceptable level of English. It was only when he overheard native-born co-workers wondering how their boss could pay him and other migrant workers with their excessive overtime penalty rates that he realised he was being ripped off.
There needs to be a comprehensive review of the Australia's visa system, and that is what this report envisages. An investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald and theAge into migrant worker abuses in the Australian meat industry, published in recent days, has uncovered shocking evidence of the scale of the problems that exist. The headline alone in today's devastating article tells you everything you need to know about how broken the system is. It reads, 'Chinese meatworkers bear the scars of mistreatment in Australia's visa factories'. It tells the story of a Chinese meatworker named Wang who had a tank of near boiling water spill on him while he was working on a cow carcass at Teys Australia's Biloela abattoir in Queensland. He turned up for work as usual the next day despite needing medical attention, because he did not want to endanger his permanent residency chances. It was a bad gamble. Months later and still in pain, he was out of a job anyway and his hope of a better life in Australia was in ruins. He told the journalist:
Such things happen to me but would not happen to local people. Why? Because we want to stay in Australia. We want to have the long-time visa.
Wang went on to say:
If you are Australian local people, you don't have to worry about this. You have equal position with the factory like anyone else. We are poor people. We have no power when we talk with factory.
The newspaper investigation also covered a Chinese meatworker at a Victorian abattoir who was not taken to hospital after being concussed at work and an Argentinian at the same meatworks being forced to turn up for work before being vaccinated for Q fever, contrary to the Victorian health department recommendations. A Taiwanese abattoir workers was ordered to return to work while he was bleeding from the mouth from an injury so severe he would later need surgery. The man was not paid sick leave. The article tells of migrant abattoir workers from Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland having borrowed money or sold possessions to pay recruitment syndicates $70,000 or more to secure a job after being promised it would lead to permanent residency.
The role temporary migration plays is incredibly important, and the visa is a particularly important responsibility for this government to oversee. The role of temporary migration in filling areas where Aussies cannot quickly enough meet demand remains incredibly important during this time of unprecedented economic challenge.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:17): [by video link] I rise to speak on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report Without trucks Australia stops: The development of a viable, safe, sustainable and efficient road transport industry. I would like to thank the committee again for the report and to thank the chair, Senator Glenn Sterle, in particular. Transport workers have been the backbone of Australia's response to the pandemic. They have kept supply chains moving through lockdowns, travel restrictions and international border closures. Like other essential workers in aged care, in the health system, in disability sector and in retail, truck drivers continue to be undervalued and overworked. That is why it is so disgraceful that Toll has chosen now, under the cover of the pandemic, to launch an attack on the pay and conditions that owner-drivers have built up over decades. Toll has been hard at work eroding these conditions across the country.
The New South Wales and Queensland branch of the TWU has been forced to take Toll to court over $52 million in unpaid late fees to owner-drivers. The fees relate to over 5,000 individual late payments over the Christmas period last year. New South Wales and Queensland state secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Richard Olsen, said: 'Drivers were going above and beyond to meet the highest demand that they have ever faced, Christmas during a pandemic. And the Christmas period is when they were ripped off.' These owner-drivers are small-business owners, usually just one person with one truck, and all they are asking for is to be paid by Toll on time. He said: 'Owner-drivers operate on wafer-thin margins.' It is a disgrace that they are forced to struggle with cash flow while their hard work has achieved record profits for the likes of Amazon, whose goods they transport through its contracts with Toll. Clearly, at the risk of their own health, they continue to work across state borders and work across areas of concern whilst complying with high safety standards.
Toll had a different approach. Paul, an owner-driver in New South Wales, had this to say about Toll's behaviour: 'We sat in a Zoom with Toll where they promised no redundancies, no short shifts and no closures if workers agreed to be paid every two weeks instead of every week. Three weeks later, they were down in Wollongong trying to close three depots and outsource the work. What's the point of a legal agreement if Toll aren't going to uphold their end of the deal?'
In Queensland, Toll have scrapped the owner-driver agreements they had had in place since 2000, which paid hourly rates for work completed. They have been replaced with inferior contracts under which drivers are paid a daily retainer and are only paid more if they manage to exceed a benchmark set for them each day, which 80 per cent of drivers aren't meeting. This works out to be, on average, an effective pay cut of $500 a week.
Not only have drivers seen a massive pay cut but this new payment model pushes owner-drivers to drive faster and make more deliveries in order to pay their mortgages and put food on the table. It may even put Uber to shame—heaven forbid! Owner-drivers must pay for the upkeep and maintenance of their own trucks. They deserve at least the certainty of a consistent, reliable payment for their work. Allen, an owner-driver at Toll, said: 'Drivers have to pay the mortgage and feed their family. You have to make those payments first. Then, if you're short, you have to make the money go forward enough for maintenance of the truck.'
Everyone who uses the road is less safe when owner-drivers are undercut and short-changed. I quote from the Queensland branch of the TWU: 'Despite a boom in transport throughout the pandemic, Toll is trying to cut its own labour costs and compete, but this is clearly not the answer.' When standards are dragged down in trucking, Australia's deadliest industry, people die. Already, more than 200 people have been killed in truck crashes this year alone.
Bill, another owner-driver from Toll, described the harrowing circumstances he, along with a number of others, has experienced, including the fact that visa holders, too scared to speak out for fear of jeopardising their job when working for subcontracting companies, are not paid overtime and are underpaid on the minimum wage. These are critically important areas where Toll needs to get its act together. It needs to start turning around and giving owner-drivers and contracting workers a proper wage in an appropriate arrangement. This government should stop sitting on its hands. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
The following committee reports and government responses were considered:
The document was not available at the time of publishing.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Consideration
The following Auditor-General's reports were considered:
The document was not available at the time of publishing.
DOCUMENTS
Urban Congestion Fund
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:24): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Urban Congestion Fund.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:24): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:25): 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 McKENZIE (Victoria—Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience, Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:25): 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 Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 will improve and modernise the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act). More than 3300 corporations, and the communities they serve, will benefit from these reforms.
'Strong corporations, strong people, strong communities'—that's the vision statement of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC). This simple statement reflects the unique role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations play within their communities, delivering critical services like health, housing and municipal services. In the case of native title corporations, registered native title bodies corporate (or RNTBCs) have the important role of managing native title rights and interest on behalf of the determined native title holders. Often, these corporations deliver services in the most remote parts of Australia, including to homelands and outstations.
Strong well‑governed corporations inspire trust in the sector, and provide effective and vital services to build and maintain strong communities. Without their corporations, many communities, particularly those in remote areas, would not receive the services they need to continue to exist. This Bill will modernise the Act and make it more useful and relevant for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they form and operate corporations that build strong communities.
There is an expectation that the CATSI Act will continue to support the evolving needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples including as a driver for the continued growth of the Indigenous sector, and the increasing economic independence of its population. It is also vital that the CATSI Act continue to work in partnership with the Native Title Act1993 to ensure a strong governance framework for the growing number of RNTBCs.
The CATSI Act has delivered outcomes for Indigenous Australians for the 14 years it has been in operation, and it is time to refresh and renew the Act for the future. In December 2019, I announced a comprehensive review of the CATSI Act, which was to build on a number of previous reviews. This announcement was a direct response to feedback calling for a broad ranging review of the CATSI Act including whether it was achieving its objects, particularly as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
One of the most important questions explored during this comprehensive review was whether the CATSI Act is actually doing what it was established to do. Special measures are important tools for building pathways out of disadvantage, but they should not continue once they have achieved their objectives. The review found that a very substantial majority of stakeholders agreed that the CATSI Act is necessary to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations receive targeted support and members can run their corporations in a way that reflects their cultural practices. Importantly this Bill will provide for regular review of the CATSI Act in the future to ensure it continues to support self-determination and be relevant and useful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Bill comes at a time when public expectations of corporate governance have never been higher. More registered native title bodies corporate are established each year as native title claims are determined. More Indigenous corporations are focussing on economic development as their primary purpose, be they registered native title bodies corporate, or corporations supported by the Indigenous Procurement Policy. As the Indigenous corporate sector grows and evolves, it is vital that regulation of the sector provide an adequate level of scrutiny balanced with the flexibility to feed innovation and expansion.
A modern regulator needs a broad suite of powers to ensure a proportionate response to non-compliance. The Bill's provisions for the introduction of fines and enforceable undertakings, as well as investigative powers as extensive as those of ASIC, will improve the Registrar's ability to support corporations and react effectively and decisively when required.
Corporations are most effective when their members are informed and engaged. The Bill introduces a range of measures that will allow corporations to take advantage of the benefits provided by advancements in technology, particularly through the use of electronic communications and virtual meetings, helping to manage what is often a mobile and geographically dispersed membership.
At the same time, the Bill will see additional protections for members and former members by allowing them to redact their contact information from Member Registers without having to justify why, and ensuring that third parties have a proper purpose in order to inspect or copy Registers.
Membership confers benefits, sometimes of a financial nature, so it is important that applications are decided in a timely manner. The Bill will require corporations to deal with membership applications within a specific timeframe, unless exempted by the Registrar, and allow corporations that are not RNTBCs to have rules specific to their circumstances, in relation to the process for considering membership applications. The Bill will also provide corporations with greater flexibility by allowing non-RNTBC corporations to include rules that better suit their own conditions for cancelling membership.
Since its commencement, the CATSI Act has performed a key role in developing the Indigenous economic and corporate sector. Today that sector provides vitally important services such as health, education, housing and employment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
We have seen the sector mature, adapt, and innovate, blending tradition and culture with entrepreneurship to create sustainable and economically viable industries. However, there are unintended limitations in the current Act that make it difficult for CATSI corporations to take advantage of the full range of corporate structures available to other companies, without stepping outside of the protections provided by the CATSI Act. By removing this barrier, the Bill reduces the cost of doing business and promotes the use of a variety of modern corporate structures.
The diversity of size and function of CATSI corporations reflects the broad needs of the communities they service, as well as the enterprise and industry of those who form corporations.
Classifying corporations by size is important to ensure that the level of regulatory oversight is proportionate to the revenue and activity of the corporation.
The Bill aligns the size classifications, and more importantly reporting obligations, of CATSI corporations, with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission or the ACNC.
Over 64 per cent of CATSI corporations will be classified as small under this regime resulting in minimal reporting for those corporations. As well, the Government is reducing the reporting burden for medium sized corporations which will be able to elect to have a review of financial statements rather than an audit.
In recognition of the unique circumstances of many CATSI corporations, the Bill introduces measures designed to reduce some of the administrative burden associated with holding meetings, in particular Annual General Meetings or AGMs. Small corporations with little or no revenue that are not registered with the ACNC will be able to choose not to hold an AGM for up to two years, as long as 75 per cent of members voting agree.
However reducing red tape doesn't mean reducing transparency. Annual reports will still be required to be lodged with the Registrar, who has the power to direct a corporation to hold an AGM, should it seem reasonable to do so.
All corporations will be able to access automatic extensions of time to hold an AGM or lodge reports when unforeseen events such as a death in the community, or natural disaster occur. Although many corporations currently do so as part of good governance, the Bill will require any reports lodged with the Registrar to be laid before the AGM so that members are provided information without having to ask for it.
The Bill recognises the unpredictable environments within which many CATSI corporations operate by making it easier to hold virtual meetings, or change the date, time or place of a meeting after a notice of meeting has been sent, or even cancel a general meeting.
The CATSI Act demands high standards of corporate governance, but at the same time recognises the special incorporation needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. By improving the way rule books operate, the Bill will make it easier for members and directors to know and follow internal governance rules, and be more engaged in the management of their corporations.
Special administrators often make changes to rule books to improve governance in struggling corporations. The Bill supports the Registrar to keep these arrangements in place, unless the conditions no longer exist to require such rules.
Transparency and accountability of remuneration arrangements for senior executives and directors remains a significant issue for members, common law holders and communities. Maintaining the delicate balance of enabling effective scrutiny whilst safeguarding individuals' rights to privacy, the Bill also provides a much needed mechanism to support corporations to make informed remuneration decisions. This transparency will also extend to director remuneration and that of senior executives of related entities, shining light into what can often be the dark corners of the corporate world.
The original drafters of the CATSI Act felt there was a need to hold CATSI corporations to a very high standard of governance around related party transactions because of the essential relationship of many CATSI corporations to the communities they serve, the high rate of government funding and to protect the interests of members.
While there is a need to prevent misuse of corporation assets and funds, the current standards and processes around related parties are disproportionately burdensome for CATSI corporations, particularly small and remote ones. Amendments proposed in the Bill are aimed at reducing that burden, without increasing risk, and supporting corporations that are the lifeblood of many communities to be able to operate effectively without needless red tape.
Changes to a number of different restrictions around directors are designed to better meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. In particular, allowing corporations to appoint independent directors without having to first change their rule book is seen as being of real value for CATSI corporations.
After nearly fourteen years of operation, the review of the CATSI Act identified a clear need to make changes which modernise and update the legislation. The Bill will allow Indigenous corporations to harness the advantages offered by modern technology, electronic communication channels and storage facilities, and contemporary systems and processes.
The CATSI Act differentiates itself from the Corporations Act because it takes account of the traditions and circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
However, it is also important to ensure a level of consistency across Commonwealth regulators, and make sure that beneficial advances in other corporate legislation are made available to CATSI corporations.
Changes to the Corporations Act, which were designed to provide a higher level of protection for whistleblowers, will be made available through the Bill, which will also align some penalty provisions, and ensure qualified privilege for auditors.
Creditors, funding bodies, business partners and others will take a keen interest in the activities of the regulator, particularly when those activities involve a corporation with which they have a relationship.
It is important that corporations are able to demonstrate a positive outcome following an examination or rectification of all issues following receipt of a compliance notice. The Bill will formalise this process by requiring the Registrar to issue a notice to a corporation if he or she is satisfied that the actions specified in a compliance notice have been taken by that corporation, or to notify a corporation at the conclusion of an examination that he or she will take no further action.
One of the very positive outcomes of this Bill will be the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Assets Protection Special Account. The funds for this account will be taken from the existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Unclaimed Money Account, rather than being returned to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander money is used to protect and maintain Indigenous assets.
Unique to the CATSI Act, special administration is one of the most effective tools the Registrar has to support corporations at risk. Minor but important changes to the provisions around special administration will make it easier for the Registrar to provide this support.
Rapid access to help can be important when corporations are in difficulty, so removing the need for the Registrar to send a show cause notice when a majority of directors request a special administrator be appointed will be valuable.
In the same way, other changes will make it easier for corporations to voluntarily deregister when the community no longer requires the corporation instead of the more complex and costly process of winding up.
The Bill also introduces some rebuttable presumptions of insolvency that the Court can rely on for the purposes of finding a corporation insolvent, but still allow a corporation to prove it is not.
The Bill addresses a range of other minor technical deficiencies or oversights in the current legislation, including a small amendment to the Native Title Act 1993, and makes minor changes that better support a modern risk based regulator.
This is the first time extensive amendments have been made to the CATSI Act in its fourteen year history. The Bill brings the CATSI Act up to date in line with the expectations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It strikes the critical balance between strong governance and effective regulation on one hand, and removing red tape on the other, so that corporations do not experience unnecessary barriers in delivering for their members and communities. Ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations are well governed is a cornerstone to supporting self-determination and closing the gap.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 14 October 2021.
Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Income Support Payments
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:26): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Morrison Government has abandoned people in lockdown on income support payments; and
(b) calls on the Government to re-instate the Coronavirus Supplement, to ensure people are supported to stay safe at home.
I've moved this motion to ensure that this place debates and understands that 90 per cent of people on income support in those areas currently in lockdown in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT are not receiving any additional payments. The Greens believe that that is simply unfair, unconscionable and contrary to sensible public health decision-making in that, if people can't get enough financial support to be able to put food on the table and to pay for a roof over their head and essential medications, they are going to go out to try to find work, which often will be frontline work, and that could expose them to unhealthy situations, particularly if they have to keep going out searching for that work. They would not be staying home, which they are being asked to do. They would be forced to go out in unsafe situations—potentially bringing COVID home to their families—because they are not receiving an income that is adequate for them to live above the poverty line and put food on the table.
I'd like to quote Jay Coonan and Kristin O'Connell from the Antipoverty Centre and Jeremy Poxon, who volunteers with the Australian Unemployed Workers Union. These people have deep lived experience of trying to survive on income support and of working and advocating for people on income support. They have lived experience of being unemployed, trying to look for work and dealing with mutual obligations while on a payment that is below the poverty line.
They made the point in an article in the Guardianyesterday:
It's now abundantly clear shutting down the economy hurts the poorest most. Lockdowns are necessary, but the social crises they create are optional.
I couldn't agree more, because those people on the low payment of JobSeeker, for example, of just $44 a day are living way below the poverty line and they are not getting a cent of support if they were unlucky enough to only be able to find less than eight hours of work. I will point out that people who have lost over 20 hours of work get $750 a week as a disaster payment, yet somebody who has not been able to find work—remembering that structural unemployment is, at heart, the basis on which our economy works and operates—is left to try and live on $315 a week. Can you see the inequality there, straight up? Can you see why they are saying that the COVID crisis is deepening inequality?
The government thinks that it is okay for billionaires and big businesses who have claimed the JobKeeper payment and made huge profits to say: 'Oh, we calculated wrongly when we put in our application! We got lots of money and paid dividends to our shareholders and bonuses to our executives. They've done a good job. They got us JobKeeper.' The government thinks it is okay for them to keep the millions and millions that they have been paid out of JobKeeper. But the government then chases people who were on income support and may have received JobKeeper as well. They chase them for debts but do not chase the billionaires for the money they claimed that turned out to be a mistake.
Just as bad as that is what we see now is a deliberate choice by government to let those rich people keep the money they got from the system, but they won't support people who are trying to survive in lockdown. They will not pay them an additional payment to help them keep safe and as part of a public health message. They're saying: No, you're staying on $315 per week. You try and make ends meet. You try and keep a roof over your head.' What do you think's going to happen when people lose their accommodation or they are forced to share other accommodation, which is also extremely unhealthy in the current lockdown circumstances? 'Oh, no, we are not giving those people any support,' they say. Ninety per cent of those people were struggling already under normal circumstances. We know that people are living in poverty and cannot survive on $44 a day.
During lockdown it is more expensive. As the article from the Unemployed Workers Union and the Antipoverty Centre points out, it is much harder during lockdown because all the cheap brands go, for example. As for home delivery, for people trying to survive on $44 a day—believe me—every single cent counts. So they can't afford to get groceries delivered. They don't have any savings they can use. They have nothing, because you can't save when you are trying to survive on $44 a day. Now they're in lockdown and not being able to afford to get groceries delivered. They're having to go out and find groceries and are again exposing themselves to unhealthy situations. It's no wonder we are seeing the demand on and phone calls to emergency food services escalate dramatically. It's the charities that are picking up the pieces, because the government would prefer that the billionaires and millionaires and big business keep the money that they mistakenly claimed through JobKeeper than to actually put money in and bring back the coronavirus supplement.
The government know that the coronavirus supplement helped so many people during the initial lockdown. They know very well, and ACOSS has pointed it out very clearly, because they talk to their members' members—because ACOSS is a peak organisation. I've read out here in this place on numerous times what the coronavirus supplement meant to people. It meant they did not have to go out in a difficult situation. It meant that they could in fact—surprise, surprise!—eat three meals a day, that they could pay their utility bills, that they could keep a roof over their head, that they could buy the medication that they need. It made them much safer and helped us to get through the initial lockdown.
How are those people going to survive now? We know that in New South Wales and Victoria they've just extended the lockdown and we know it's going to take quite a number of months, and they're still going to be struggling to survive in lockdown in unsafe situations, under the poverty line. The government has made a choice—and I've said this before. They've made a political choice to keep people in poverty. You can take no alternative view. They made a choice that people who are trying to survive on JobSeeker should be kept below the poverty line, should be made to struggle even more in difficult circumstances.
It is a very well-known fact, and we hear it every day, that lockdown impacts on people's mental health. We know that living in poverty impacts on people's mental health. If you're lucky enough to find a mental health specialist or worker or carer, that costs you money. We already know that the mental health professionals are booked out months and months ahead and that people are struggling to find mental health support. So, if people are dealing with lockdown and people are living in poverty, what do you think that does to people's mental health? It is having very significant impacts on their mental health, and they cannot afford to find mental health support, and this government is escalating the mental health crisis in this country for those who are currently on income support and living in poverty. Shame on this government!
The coronavirus supplement helped people enormously. It was the right thing to do. It showed that the government understood that you can't live in poverty in lockdown. So what the government have done now is they've chosen to give some people additional money so that they're not living in poverty during lockdown, but they haven't given the people who are already condemned to poverty additional support so they do not have to live in poverty. We now have two systems here: we have the system where we'll reward and we'll support, quite rightly, people who were working before, to keep them out of poverty, but we won't actually support those who cannot find work. We will keep them living in poverty, hence the Greens' very strong assertion that the government's approach will escalate inequality in this country.
The Antipoverty Centre, in an article published yesterday, made the point:
With cheap goods flying off supermarket shelves, more of us are confronted with the choice of skipping meals, falling behind on bills or paying rent.
Surviving on jobseeker is not Covid-safe. Buying the essentials forces us to leave home. Wealthy people get groceries delivered and poor people get Covid exposure. The nightmare scenario is transmission at a food bank.
As we battle Delta, we need payments that ensure everyone – especially unemployed people – can afford to stay home safely, even as living costs go up. We need to make sure families feeling the pressure of being cooped up together don't experience unnecessary financial stress—
They also point out that that can contribute to further domestic and family violence because you're creating a pressure cooker for these families. The article continues:
Poverty also traps us in unemployment, even the frontline workers we most need as our health system struggles.
As Covid spreads further into our communities, so does inequality. To solve both problems, we need to protect everyone.
I absolutely agree. That is why we need additional payments to those people on income support. We need to bring back the coronavirus supplement so that, in fact, we are again all in this together, because, at the moment, we are not.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Neill ): Thank you, Senator Siewert, and I note that it appears that that might be your final contribution in the Senate, and I thank you for your 16 years of dedicated service to this parliament and to the Australian people as a senator for the Greens party.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senator SMALL (Western Australia) (16:41): Acting Deputy President O'Neill, you are indeed correct. Shortly, both Senator Siewert and I will be leaving this place, bound for the airport and heading home to Western Australia after some five weeks here in the capital. It is the 5,908th day that Senator Siewert has represented the state that I also call home. so I acknowledge that at the start.
Turning to the matter at hand, the Morrison government remains today just as committed to protecting lives and livelihoods as at the onset of the pandemic. Indeed, we remain focused on supporting all Australians as we reopen the economy, because this is a government that rejects the assertion that we have two streams here in Australia. In regard to the coronavirus supplement and JobKeeper, the situation was very different in this country at the onset of the pandemic. We were facing materially different circumstances in that this was a government that made decisions with very limited information. A once-in-a-century pandemic was afflicting us and, indeed, the rest of the world, and that, of necessity, meant that we made different decisions.
As more information has come to hand through the pandemic, we have altered the government's policy positions not only with regard to social security payments but also, more broadly, in terms of our stewardship of the Australian economy. That is, I think, what responsible government is, because, fundamentally, every dollar that you ask us to give away, Senator Siewert, has to be taken from someone who earned it. When the Morrison government introduced those coronavirus supplements last year, we were facing a period of total national shutdown, practically overnight and for an indefinite period of time. Now in 2021, we know that our economy recovers quickly from lockdowns, thanks to the resilience that our economic supports gave to the economy. We saw more people in work in July this year than were in work before the onset of the pandemic. Indeed, unemployment had dropped to a low of 4.6 per cent, and workforce participation was at 66.2 per cent in June, including a record high for female participation. So we know that our economic comeback was strong and that our economy recovers quickly when the necessary restrictions to preserve lives in Australia are lifted.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Commonwealth government has spent more than $291 billion in direct assistance to individuals, businesses and Australian communities. That includes the coronavirus supplement we talk of today as well as, of course, JobKeeper and now, more relevantly, the COVID-19 disaster payment, as just one of these supports in place to Australians who are doing it tough. The COVID-19 disaster payment provides targeted and quick support to those who have lost work because of lockdowns. I note that some of these disaster payments are hitting bank accounts less than an hour after the request is made. That is, by definition, targeted, time limited and effective support to Australians.
We know, though, that this is temporary—and it has to be temporary. Any nation must live within its means, and they key to getting out of this is vaccinations. We encourage every Australian to roll up and get vaccinated, as I've done, so that our lives and our livelihoods can get back to a post-COVID normal. In New South Wales we've seen really promising rates of vaccination. I think that gives the people of New South Wales hope and confidence that their hard work is worthwhile.
From 1 April this year the government increased the working age payments, including the JobKeeper payment, by $50 a week, permanently increasing the income-free areas to support jobseekers as they secure employment and re-enter the workforce—something to which we give every opportunity in an economy that has rebounded as strongly as the Australian economy has. Here on the government benches we focus so strongly on work not only as an economic construct but also as a social construct, because we understand that work is central to an individual's sense of belonging in a community, connection to their community and indeed connection to their families, in that they're able to offer to their kids the opportunities they might not have had themselves.
The single biggest increase, year on year, to that JobSeeker payment, made by this government—an increase of 9.7 per cent, or $50 a week—was designed to ensure that Australia's safety net was effective as a safety net but not a replacement income. Fundamentally, as I said before, every dollar we give to someone through that safety net structure needs to be taken from someone who earned it. There is a compact with that. That's why this government has strengthened mutual obligations throughout the economic recovery, because that's the arrangement we enter into here in Australia: if you want a go, you get a go, as the Prime Minister said.
There's been no change in the government's view about the role of our social security safety net in Australian society. Our system has served us very well. Prior to this crisis, we saw the proportion of working-age Australians who are reliant on payments down to their lowest level in 30 years, at just 13.5 per cent. I think that speaks very strongly to the sense of opportunity the Morrison government's economic management has created. Our government's key focus is creating jobs—or, more correctly, helping business to create jobs—and getting people back into work, because that is what improves their living standards and those of their families and communities. It is not a wage. It is not a salary. Few countries are in a position to provide the strong safety net that we do. JobSeeker is a non-contributory, taxpayer-funded payment that provides that safety net irrespective of a person's circumstances. It's funded by the taxpayers of Australia, and we owe them the responsibility to manage that money carefully. That responsibility extends not only to us but also to the future generations of Australians who will need to meet the cost of the system in decades to come.
We've spoken often in Australia over the past couple of years about intergenerational debt, and never more so than in the wake of having to spend, by necessity of a once-in-a-century pandemic, huge amounts of borrowed money. Indeed, the one-off increase of $50 a week to the JobSeeker payment cost $9 billion in borrowed money over the forward estimates. That is money that, yes, strengthens the safety net here in Australia today but will need to be paid back by the Australians of tomorrow. Fundamentally, that is why we have continued, through the pandemic, to alter policy settings in light of increasing information. We now know we have vaccines in Australia and a road out of this pandemic. We know that the economy bounces back strongly when restrictions are lifted, and that's why, on 28 July, the Prime Minister announced the expansion of the COVID-19 disaster payment.
From Monday 2 August this year, increased financial support was available for hundreds of thousands of Australian workers as they were affected by public health orders and restricted movements in their respective state jurisdictions. The current rates of the payment—$450 a week for those who have lost between eight and 20 hours of work, and $750 a week for those who have lost 20 or more hours of work—reflect the lessons that we learned from the JobKeeper program, in terms of making it temporary, time limited, specific and rapid assistance to the Australians who need it, meanwhile upholding our compact with the Australian taxpayer to get value for money and ensuring that the money is used responsibly. From Tuesday 3 August, just a day later, a $200-per-week payment was available to eligible income support recipients who have lost eight hours or more of work. It is not taxable, it will not be included in the income test and it does not need to be reported as income to Services Australia. Claims can be made simply through the myGov website and, indeed, payments are hitting bank accounts in less than 60 minutes in some cases. That expanded payment arrangement is available from day one of any lockdown.
The government are focused on encouraging those under lockdown at home to stay home and reduce the spread of the virus. They are also encouraging all Australians, obviously, to get vaccinated, because that is how we get out of this. That is how we allow our economy to prosper. That is how we get families reunited, whether they are split across state borders or split across the globe. Ultimately, we all want the same thing, and that is for opportunity to resume. Throughout this pandemic, the government have been focused on lives and livelihoods. We have responded to changes in information and we have responded to the needs of Australians, both those temporarily affected by lockdowns and those in need of a safety net, until they are able to secure gainful employment, as we would all hope they would. Ultimately, we stand by the success of these policy decisions and the impressive economic indicators through this pandemic, as we have seen unemployment drop to 4.6 per cent, we've seen participation rates hit near record highs and, indeed, we've seen a record high participation rate for females in the Australian workforce. That is what success looks like, and it upholds the compact with Australians that, when we take a dollar off them to give to an Australian in need, that Australian is genuinely in need.
Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (16:52): [by video link] I will also take the opportunity to acknowledge Senator Siewert for being forthright and for the difference she's made for the unemployed and the employed—all the people who have been disadvantaged across the community—in giving them a voice. I would like to extend my very best wishes to her.
First of all, income support for workers, companies and the unemployed makes economic sense. The government's JobKeeper scheme made payments to businesses who otherwise would have been pressured to lay off staff due to the economic impact of COVID-19. The total cost of JobKeeper is likely to be around $90 billion, making it the largest one-off scheme the Australian government has ever run. Of course, to receive the payment, businesses and not-for-profits had to demonstrate or forecast a particular shortfall in revenue. Businesses with revenue over $1 billion needed a shortfall of 50 per cent, businesses with revenue under $1 billion needed a shortfall of 30 per cent, and not-for-profits needed a shortfall of 15 per cent.
According to analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office, over the last six months of the scheme, $13 billion was paid to businesses which actually had increased revenue. We've seen the situation where millionaires make substantial profit on corporate welfare while the government fails to hold them to account and is unable to redistribute those resources to where they're needed. In the early months of JobKeeper 15 per cent of the money went to firms with rising earnings. These firms then received, as I say, $13 billion across the whole program.
Labor has led the public debate over JobKeeper misuse, pointing to firms such as Accent Group, AP Eagers and Best&Less as well as the men-only Australian Club and the King's School, which got JobKeeper despite increasing their earnings—and no call-back. A special mention should go out to Gerry Harvey. I could sum it up in a number of ways, but I think it has been summed up in a very nice way by Joe Aston in 'Rear window' in the AFR:
Harvey conducted a round of farcical media interviews in which he refused to even discuss his JobKeeper backflip and complained, "I've got certain people in the media that keep attacking me all the time."
He hung up on Rafael Epstein after (groundlessly) accusing the ABC Radio host of bullying him, the outlandish exchange ending with the immortal line: "You still there, Gerry Harvey? Hmmm, that hasn't happened in a while."
We struggle to empathise with Harvey or his harrowing persecution. This time four years ago, on national television, he was appealing for this columnist to be summarily executed.
And now Gerry would really prefer not to talk about JobKeeper at all. He has that much in common with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.
This is the challenge of these arrangements, where only part of the money has, begrudgingly, been paid back. When you look at companies like Gerry Harvey's, which have been receiving corporate welfare whilst abusing those who receive welfare, saying it's illegitimate and improper, raises serious questions about Gerry Harvey and his entire business.
Some companies have repaid payments to a total of $225 million, which is only around 0.25 per cent of the total. Almost all of the repayments have come from public companies whose JobKeeper had to be reported in their annual reports. In New Zealand, which has an online register listing all recipients of payments from their wage subsidy scheme, around five per cent has been repaid. This is likely due to the fact that, under the New Zealand proposition, transparency was greater than under what was done by the Morrison government. The Morrison government are hiding behind their desire not to pursue these corporate welfare cheats, and they are, unfortunately, receiving support from crossbenchers who are not supporting the principle that all Australians and all businesses should be paying their fair share of tax and not ripping off the system.
To make matters worse, you've got one condition for the billionaires and another condition for the 11,000-plus people who received demands to pay back money they had received, much of which, from the reports that have been made public so far, was due to misinformation that they had received. You've got 11,000 struggling, poorly-paid people, trying to raise a family and trying to keep a roof over their heads, and then you've got Gerry Harvey and the $13 billion that those companies extorted—extorted—from the Australian public and taxpayers.
The real problem here is that the government don't want Australians to see how badly they steered the JobKeeper ship. When we see firms like Best&Less, which told their investors that JobKeeper was a one-off sugar hit that was never to be repeated, that's the sort of example that you don't need. If this money were available to the budget now, it could do more to support struggling businesses and the community. Of course, the government sent notices to the 11,000 Centrelink customers relating to JobKeeper payments. These notices were often for $1,000 or $2,000. Centrelink clients are paying them back out of their pensions at $10 or $15 a fortnight. After a single payment, they have paid more than many of the Australian billionaire shareholders and millionaire CEOs.
It's clear what the government's priority is. The government's priority regarding the situation that people are in with JobKeeper was also exemplified by its failure to turn around and include dnata aviation workers, many of whom had previously worked for Qantas when the company was bought by an overseas operator. Australians who had paid tax for many decades, aged on average in their late 40s, raising families, some supporting grandkids, failed to receive JobKeeper. Contrast that with the fact that the government had a $60 billion shortfall in what they'd planned to put into the economic recovery last year.
Of course, we then go to the situation of people who are in difficult financial circumstances. We now know that over 40 per cent of Australians are engaged in various forms of insecure work. When you don't have paid sick leave and you develop symptoms, your choice is either to go to work sick or to stay home without pay and go hungry. Some people have made the ludicrous statement that casual workers get a casual loading in lieu of paid sick leave, so they should have money saved. Tell that to people earning the minimum wage while raising a family and paying exorbitant housing costs and bills. Try telling that to aged-care workers, 90 per cent of whom are on casual or part-time contracts and earning below the minimum income needed to survive.
I'll turn now to road transport. The Morrison government has quite clearly abandoned food delivery riders, who are earning as little as $6.67 an hour on exploitative platforms like Uber and not getting any paid leave whatsoever, even as they perform essential and risky work delivering meals to people isolating in their homes. Then there are the parcel delivery drivers at Amazon, another group of Australian workers being exploited by a multinational tax dodge. The ABC expose last week showed the horrendous conditions at Amazon. Of course, Amazon calls them independent contractors. They're not human beings, not workers, not people carrying out a duty of care to make sure that deliveries are made on behalf of the company; no, they are independent contractors, which means they have no rights—no paid sick leave and no entitlement to the minimum wage. One driver, Alex Ayliff, said:
They've created an atmosphere of fear. They want drivers to think like they can't do anything wrong. They have to do what Amazon says, like it or lump it.
He went on to say:
But I would like to make enough money to actually live on. This is just no way to live.
Of course, this government, whether through its failure to give support to various groups or its lack of regulatory protection for some of the most disadvantaged workers, isn't really worried about how they make a living.
The TWU National Secretary, Michael Kaine, said:
The deadly recipe of wage theft, control and threat of the sack has been laid bare at AmazonFlex. Worker Alex Ayliff using AmazonFlex as his only source of income was left with under $18,000 in annual earnings after expenses.
Well, we've seen the amount of money that Amazon and other companies have made and continue to make out of the pandemic. Amazon and other companies at the top of the supply chain, like ALDI, are driving down pay and conditions for transport workers, such as truck drivers, across Australia, many of them owner-drivers. But there are no protections from this government and there is no voice for drivers under this government.
Why were thousands of Toll's drivers forced to go on strike last week? Because transport operators like Toll and FedEx are floundering under the pressure to compete with Amazon Flex's sham-contracting model. It is why Australia is facing weeks of disruption to food, alcohol and fuel supplies as workers are forced to fight threats of mass outsourcing. On this government's watch, the job security of hardworking Australians who have kept us going through this pandemic is being threatened because of the failure of the industrial relations system to give people fair and reasonable rights. Two weeks ago, Big Rigs reported that interstate operator Kevin Macdonald said that staff at the Shell roadhouse in Gilgandra—and this is where we get to the point of protecting people—denied him a sit-down meal because they had been threatened with a $5,000 fine by New South Wales police. To quote Macdonald: 'It is just crippling them. It's hurting them financially, and it's hurting the truck drivers.' I want to commend Mr Macdonald, Big Rigs and Senator Sterle, because after they raised this the Gilgandra issue was resolved. Mr Morrison should be making sure that there are clear and consistent rules about this nationwide. The government needs to be looking at the consequences and impacts of the decisions it has made over this period of time.
Even Mr Morrison's own workers in the Australian Public Service are being abandoned during the pandemic. At a hearing of the job security committee last week, we heard that APS workers are being outsourced to labour hire companies by the thousands. While APS workers are entitled to paid vaccine leave and paid leave if they have to isolate, labour hire companies like Hays, which received over $300 million from the federal government last year, are not giving their APS workers the same rights.
It's clear the pressure that small businesses in Western Sydney have been under, and this government has failed them. It has failed in its vaccine and quarantine rollout. I know that the government gets sick and tired of hearing this, but you did fail. Admit to your failures. You've put the Western Sydney community in such dire straits. You've failed to deliver the vaccine to the most remote Indigenous communities. You've failed to make sure that there is a proper system that applies to areas such as the tourism and aviation sectors. Even where governments have done a tremendous job of keeping COVID-19 out, such as in Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, there is still a heavy economic toll as a result of Mr Morrison's failures on vaccine and quarantine. In the Northern Territory, for example, tourism operators are suffering as a result of not having the same support the federal government provided last year. Tourism Central Australia CEO Danial Rochford said: 'The reality is that last year was bad but this year has been disastrous. The only difference is that we don't have the safety net that we had this time last year.'
This is the essence of the incompetency of this government: a failure to appropriately and adequately support the community in times of need, whilst picking winners and losers. Billionaires are the winners, and regular, hardworking people receiving welfare benefits are the losers. It's corporate welfare for one and persecution for the other.
Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (17:07): Since this is the last general business debate for Senator Siewert, I would like to take a minute to say thank you for your work and your support over the time that we've worked together. As a new senator and a member of the community affairs committee, and in the pre-COVID world, I used to joke that I spent more time with Senator Askew than I did with my own family. But, of course, you were always there as well, Senator Siewert. We also had a couple of WA trips together where we were the only two physically holding up the fort. Whilst there have been more issues we've disagreed on than agreed on—and we'll get to those soon—you've always conducted yourself professionally and demonstrated a tireless work ethic, and you're someone who I believe is innately decent. For some of us on the opposite side of organisations such as the Unemployed Workers Union—I know you've tried to explain them to me, but it still eludes me—you were always supportive when the political discourse went far beyond being anywhere near appropriate behaviour. You never made politics personal. You supported everyone on the community affairs committee and always understood if there were family circumstances afoot, and quite often they were discussed over a wine in an airport lounge in between hearing venues. I, for one, will miss your contribution to this place, and I wish you all the best.
Senator Siewert: Thank you.
Senator HUGHES: But, as you know from our time on the community affairs inquiries—raising the Newstart rate, the Centrelink compliance program and the cashless debit card—there were very few times that we were on the same side of an issue. Here we are again, I guess, so we may as well finish where we started.
The Morrison government has, throughout this pandemic, worked on financial assistance for Australians to suit the situation at the time. This pandemic has evolved in such a way that it's hard to believe that, in early 2020, we weren't really sure how it spread and what the long-term impacts would be. And then, in the fastest speed we've ever seen, the world got to work on a vaccine, and we're now seeing close to two million Australians receiving the vaccine each and every week. We know that vaccination is the key to our recovery and to reopening internally as well as to the rest of the world. We need to learn to live with this virus.
I do note that it is Senator Siewert who's calling for the government to reinstate the coronavirus supplement, even though she is a senator from 'fortress WA'—the COVID-free land where Western Australians can live their lives unaffected by lockdowns. We know this because Premier McGowan keeps telling us so. The 'Lock the border' cry now has its own merchandise, and the message to those dreadful people from the eastern side of Australia is: 'Well, you just stay away from us in WA.' So why would the Morrison government look to a national payment when clearly there's no need for it in Western Australia? It's because this is what we do as a government. We ensure that the financial assistance is targeted and it reaches the people who actually require it the most. Why would the land of Western Australia want national resources diverted away from Australians who are experiencing lockdown, when Western Australians enjoy all the freedoms the Premier consistently speaks of?
I note today that Premier McGowan has genuinely been overtaken by Premier Palaszczuk this week. She allowed in a planeload of footballers and their families whilst keeping a three-year-old separated from his family—and I'm grateful that that is to be rectified soon. Then she claimed that she wants to stay closed off—except for footballers and celebrities—until all children are vaccinated, despite there being not one vaccine approved globally for children under 12. The chutzpah is unbelievable. I'd like to say more, but, after our talk the other day, Acting Deputy President Brown, I have absolutely no doubt it would be deemed unparliamentary language.
What we have seen this year from the Morrison government is the single biggest boost to unemployment benefits—an increase of $50 along with permanently increasing income-free areas to support jobseekers as they look to secure employment and re-enter the workforce. When the whole country was in lockdown, there was a coronavirus supplement, but this was always a temporary measure and was for all Australians on JobSeeker because all of Australia was locked down. Whilst we now have New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in lockdown, these conditions aren't national. There are no lockdowns in Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory, and, of course, Western Australia is locked off but not locked down. The payments that we've made available to all Australians have never been based on a set-and-forget model. They've been planned and timed to ensure that they can have the greatest impact when required. That's why last year, from April through to September, an additional $550 per fortnight was available to all JobSeeker and other payment recipients. But we've seen the landscape change. Not every state has been in lockdown at the same time since then.
This government does recognise that these restrictions, when imposed by state and territory governments, can mean additional financial hardship, with hours lost or work totally put on hold. That's why, in order to support Australians who are affected by lockdowns in states and territories, we've put in place the COVID-19 disaster payment. It's up to $750 a week. That means that, for those who are already receiving government support, it's an additional $200 a week. So, on top of the already increased JobSeeker payment, those Australians are receiving an additional $400 per fortnight. This payment came into effect on 3 August 2021 and will continue every single week whilst that state or territory remains in lockdown. There are also crisis payments available if someone is deemed a close contact and needs to quarantine, or if, in fact, they test positive for the virus. These are measured and targeted supports to those Australians who are impacted by lockdowns—lockdowns put in place by state and territory leaders.
I know Senator Siewert has a very different view than I do when we look at social security. On this side, we believe it's a safety net for all Australians, and I know Senator Siewert looks at it as more of a living wage model. That is a point of difference that we've shared in a number of inquiries and debates. But the Morrison government has committed to supporting jobseekers in multiple ways, not only through the additional payments being received in those lockdown states but through initiatives around ensuring there are training opportunities and opportunities to assist people to move back into the workforce and to see them come out of this pandemic—as we've seen so many people go back into the workplace—and try and re-enter the workforce, to ensure that they're not reliant on government payments.
But it is a fitting way to finish the day, Senator Siewert: talking about one of our favourite topics—again, from opposite sides of the chamber. You will be missed from the community affairs committee. I wish you all the very best in the future, and I look forward to talking to you in our DSP inquiry on Monday.
Senator WALSH (Victoria) (17:16): [by video link] I too rise to speak on Senator Siewert's motion today that notes that the Morrison government has abandoned people in lockdowns on income support payments. I too would like to add some words and pay tribute to Senator Siewert on what is her last day in the federal parliament.
Senator Siewert, you are a senator who has never forgotten where you come from. You've never forgotten who you came into the parliament to fight for. In my time here, I've seen you do an amazing job of making sure that the invisible people of our country have a strong and loud voice. No doubt you will continue to make sure that the forgotten people of our country are heard as you go on with your life beyond this parliament. So thank you very much for all of the incredible work that you have done.
I'll now go to the motion that Senator Siewert has put forward today. The Prime Minister and the entire Morrison government have failed to adequately support the Australian people throughout this pandemic. This is what we've come to expect from a prime minister who would rather blame people—who would rather shift responsibility—than lead people through. Under this Prime Minister it's always someone else's responsibility. It's always someone else's job. This is a prime minister who would rather pick a fight with a state premier than help struggling Australians, and there are so many Australians who are struggling around the country today. He would rather let people slip through the cracks than admit that he's got something wrong.
During 2020 we all found out the hard way that financial support is absolutely critical to keeping people going through this pandemic, with the economic crisis that has resulted from the health crisis that we are all experiencing. We learnt in 2020 just how important consistent, reliable support that people can count on is to keeping people in jobs, keeping businesses afloat and helping people survive through what can only be described as extraordinarily difficult times.
But somehow, as we came into 2021, it seemed that this lesson of 2020 was really completely lost on the Morrison government. The government had decided, as it came into 2021, that the pandemic was already over—that it had ended at Christmas 2020. So they had already decided that the pandemic was over when they came into 2021, because, like everyone, they wanted it to be—because it was all just a little bit too hard, and because it was someone else's problem to keep coming up with solutions to keep the country going. But, as we know—and as we know the hard way right now, with millions of Australians locked down across the country—this virus doesn't take holidays like the Prime Minister does. This virus doesn't take holidays like the Morrison government does. It doesn't care about calendars. It doesn't care if you're over it.
And so, despite what we learned in 2020, when lockdowns commenced this year, in 2021, the Morrison government were too slow to start, to act on and to deliver the vital financial support that people needed and that people continue to need today—financial support that was essential to keep businesses afloat, financial support that was essential to keep workers in jobs, financial support that was essential for people who are reliant on social security to keep their heads above water, financial support that was vital to keeping families housed and keeping families fed. In March, despite this pandemic being far from over, the government decided that it was time to cancel JobKeeper. What an extraordinarily bad decision that was—the government cancelling JobKeeper payments, the very wage subsidy that had seen so many millions of Australians through the economic crisis that followed the health crisis in 2020. And they did this despite the calls from so many people that JobKeeper should not be ended early. So many people, including those on our benches, could see that it was way too early to end the financial support that people needed to keep their heads above water.
It wasn't until June this year that the government announced a new COVID disaster payment. Even then, it took them until the end of July to match the original JobKeeper rates and to include a payment for people who had lost work and who were on income support. During this time, hundreds of thousands of people were forced to scramble to make ends meet as their hours were cut and as jobs were lost. Hundreds of thousands of people—people who were already stressed by the health risks of the pandemic, people who were already stressed about whether they would have a job to go back to in the end, people who were already stressed about the impact on their children, about the impact on their elderly parents and about the impact on their communities. At a time when the country was again in the middle of the COVID crisis, the government were nowhere to be seen.
Right when people needed the government to have their backs, right when people needed the government to give them a break, right when they needed certainty about what was going to happen for them and for their families, the Morrison government told them to wait, just to hold tight—as the country started to lock down again—while the government figured out what their plan would be provide essential financial support, the kind of essential financial support that they had cut too early, despite the warnings. Instead, the Morrison government told people to wait and to raid their savings and to raid their superannuation—savings and superannuation that so many lower-waged Australians just don't have. The government told people to raid the superannuation that people should be able to keep for their retirement. The Morrison government had months to rebuild a financial support program for the next stage of this crisis, such as the third wave that we are facing right now. But, again, it was too late. It was too little and too late. It took four weeks into the Greater Sydney lockdown to finally build a package which equalled the original JobKeeper payment rates—that is four weeks into a lockdown when people were struggling. If only this government had learnt the lessons of 2020. If only they had rebuilt JobKeeper without the rorts.
The JobKeeper rorts saw $13 billion of taxpayer money paid to big businesses who went on to make profits. We've heard the Treasurer try to justify how this happened, but as the manager of the scheme he had the power to make changes to ensure that the scheme was working as the parliament intended and that the public money the people had entrusted the government with was spent appropriately. The Treasurer did nothing for six months while $13 billion of taxpayer money flowed straight into the pockets of some of Australia's wealthiest and most profitable companies and executives. That $13 billion was intended to support struggling businesses to keep their staff employed and keep their doors open during the pandemic, but it went instead directly into big business profits.
This government has made some efforts to recover JobKeeper payments. But those efforts have not been to recover JobKeeper payments from the businesses who used that public money to boost their profits and pay their executive bonuses—no, the government's efforts to recover JobKeeper payments have been focused on people who received them whilst on social security. What a complete disgrace! Eleven thousand people have been sent debt notices from this government, which has been trying to claw back the $33 million in overpayments—an average of around $3,000 per person. That is the priority that the government has put on recovering JobKeeper payments—not the $13 billion that went to companies that were making profits, to executive bonuses or to lining the bank accounts of companies that were already profitable but the payments that were made to people on social security. The hypocrisy of this government is extraordinary. The hypocrisy of this government knows absolutely no bounds. But none of us would be surprised by that because this is a government that always goes after the vulnerable people in our community first. It is always hard on the vulnerable and soft on the strong—that is the character of this Morrison government.
And who could forget what this government said to the victims of its illegal robodebt scheme? 'We'll find you, we'll track you down, and you will have to repay those debts. And you may end up in prison.' That is what the minister said to the victims of the illegal robodebt scheme. Meanwhile, it has left the companies who received $13 billion of taxpayer money to boost their profits completely off the hook. It is using an entirely different language to talk to those recipients of public welfare. 'We're not in the politics of envy,' Prime Minister Morrison said: 'If there are some companies that feel they want to hand that back, great. Good for them.' It's one rule for big business and it's another rule for struggling Australians under the Morrison government.
Labor do not accept that social security recipients should be hounded to pay back their debts while big businesses pocket $13 billion that it turns out they did not need. That's why we have been publicly calling for greater transparency about the payments of JobKeeper to large companies making big profits. In order to put pressure on these companies to pay back the money we need to know who received money and how much they got. This government has absolutely no plan to get back the $13 billion that companies have profited from.
That $13 billion should be put into perspective regarding what else that taxpayer money could have been used for. That is more than this government spent in a year on public schools. It is enough to have built fibre-to-the-home broadband for every urban home in Australia, and those of us who have been remotely calling in would have really appreciated that investment. It's almost $1,000 for every Australian adult. It's $13 billion which could have been used to support businesses still in lockdown due to this government's total failure to roll out the vaccine. It could have been used to properly fix the problems in aged care which this government has still not responded to, starting with a plan for the workers. It could have supported workers who this government left off JobKeeper in the first place—workers in our hardest-hit and most insecure industries, who this government told to just smash open their piggy banks and drain their superannuation while it let some of the richest companies pocket $13 billion. (Time expired)
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Senator STOKER (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Assistant Minister for Women and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:30): by leave—I move:
That—
(a) the President may alter the day and time of the next meeting of the Senate at the request of, or the agreement of, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and the time of meeting shall be notified to each senator;
(b) the Senate may meet in a manner and form not otherwise provided in the standing orders with the agreement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and that the rules and orders necessary to constitute such a meeting may be determined by the Procedure Committee; and
(c) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today, to the day on which the Senate next meets.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ) (17:31): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:31): [by video link] As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I'm asked questions from constituents. To what depths of insanity and wickedness have we sunk when government believes it has licence to dictate to parents that they are no longer able to look after their grandchildren? When it comes to care for children, government has no right to intrude into families and decide what a normal household activity looks like. While Victoria takes the prize for this particularly grotesque directive, all state, territory and federal governments have shown stupidity and inhumanity on incongruent, hypocritical and needlessly destructive COVID restrictions.
Quoting former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey:
… the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly …
State and federal governance during COVID fails this moral test. Our children are forgotten. Physical, emotional, psychological, educational and health needs have been, in the main, ignored. Yesterday, instead of using her Chief Health Officer as her usual shield to avoid an intelligent statement on our state's future, the Queensland Premier used our children. Feigning concern, her question was: what's going to happen to the children if we open borders too soon? We already know what's happening to our children: a terrifying unfolding tragedy.
In Victoria, the government received a health report on the state of its children, an ugly and mortifying reflection on Victoria's abuse of people. Yet the Premier ignores it, buries it, deems it largely unworthy of comment and continues to threaten and scold Victorians over noncompliance with his own insane world view. Any moral, just, competent and compassionate government would solemnly reflect on the more than 340 teenagers suffering mental health emergencies who are admitted every week to hospitals, a 162 per cent increase; the 156 teenagers rushed to hospital every week for attempting suicide or self-harm, 37 of them needing emergency treatment or surgery, an 88 per cent increase; or the 90 per cent increase in children with eating disorders. This is the ultimate transgression, neglect and abandonment.
This is our vulnerable children's cry for help. Our persistent ignorance and silence on children's mental health needs is unforgivable, particularly after 18 months of COVID mismanagement. In New South Wales, more than 40 children and teenagers are daily rushed to hospital for self-harm—up 31 per cent. The number of acute mental health admissions for children and young people is up 43 per cent. At the Gold Coast hospital, there was a 212 per cent spike in eating disorders from 2019 to 2020. Queensland's Butterfly Foundation says calls for help for eating disorders increased 34 per cent from January 2020 to January 2021. Eighty-five per cent were first-time callers to the helpline. In August, Lifeline's suicide-prevention line had its busiest days in its 57-year history. Children may wait six to nine months before seeing a psychiatrist. Children suffering with depression, eating disorders or suicidal thoughts may not be able to wait nine months. Will this be the final nail in their coffin?
Parents have to work from home and educate their children and are now frontline mental health workers. Our children's mental health needs have become more urgent, as never-ending draconian restrictions offer no light at the end of a lengthening tunnel, yet our health officials eagerly and excitedly round up our young for mass vaccinations.
We humans are gregarious and our primal need to socialise sustains our very breath. Persistent, externally and capriciously imposed social isolation tears at the fabric of what makes us human, keeps us physically well and holds us literally sane. An adult brain can work hard at rationalising the incursions, the loss of freedoms and isolation. Sometimes, though, it's even too much for adults.
Children's brains are vulnerable and underdeveloped, and it's inhuman to expect children to process and cope with restrictions that adults impose—adults who themselves appear on the edge of insanity. Our children suffer the greatest deprivations: deprivation of liberty; deprivation of education; deprivation of normal development; deprivation of swings, slippery slides, rides on the bike, swims at the beach and local sport; deprivation of crucial friendship supports and separated parents; and deprivation of loving grandparents' arms and hugs. Children must urgently return to the anchors that sustain us. Mental health professionals are campaigning for children's mental health needs, and it's overdue that we hear their voices.
People are, rightly, increasingly cynical about governments falsely claiming to be keeping us safe—a deeply sad mocking of reality. Governments are driving us to the wall of insanity, and our children are first in line as collateral damage. Without our mental health, we have no solid grasp on living a life. Our first duty is to save our children—humankind's hope and promise. We have one flag. We have one community. We have one nation. We have one future.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Roberts. I'll take this opportunity to thank all senators, Senate officials and parliamentary staff for their assistance in operations during this unique parliamentary session. The Senate stands adjourned and will meet again on Monday 18 October at 10 am.
Senate adjourned at 17 : 36